“At a purely pragmatic level, TEC should never have proceeded to the consecration of Robinson before having addressed theologically and ecclesiologically the matter of the blessing of same-sex relationships. The fact that they put the cart before the horse has led not only to the problems we now face, but also to an inner incoherence within TEC itself. As an outsider, I wonder why no one had the intelligence to spot this one earlier.”
And I responded:
With respect, this is not true. Indeed I said exactly this at the hearing in a packed house on Friday night in Minneapolis in 2003 BEFORE the General Convention vote on the New Hampshire election:
“As if all this isn’t enough, there are three more matters which make this resolution so crucial. Everyone here knows that the questions raised by THIS resolution are inextricably intertwined with the vote on the New Hampshire election. But the questions raised here tonight are the ones which must be settled BEFORE, as the resolution itself recognizes, the liturgies can be developed and therefore the relationships can be approved. We are in the midst of a debate and we need to decide the debate as a debate to respect the dignity of the people and the process involved.
Let us be quite clear. If Gene Robinson is confirmed by General Convention, it would bring through the back door a practice that the Episcopal Church has never agreed to approve through the front door. If we do that, it will be an end run around the debate before the debate itself has been settled. It will be a process in the name of justice and integrity which has no justice or integrity. (And please just so there is no confusion: this is not a comment on the New Hampshire process, but on the national process. If we are going to change church teaching, then let us be forthright and honest and open and change church teaching and THEN vote on an election in accordance with the change in church teaching).”(http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/957253/posts)
It is hard to describe the degree of incoherence in the Episcopal Church to those who are not part of it. Not only was what we did wrong (in the view of many in the Communion) but how we did it was wrong. For those who FAVOR changing the church’s teaching in this area the Episcopal Church have been set back years by how the Episcopal Church went about this decision, and ample warning was given at the time.
This situation continues down to this today. Numerous descriptions of TEC I read in Fulcrum are far out of touch with what is actually happening here. Consider this, we still have not changed our teaching as a church on the matter of same sex blessings, but some 20-25 dioceses at least enourage and/or allow for and in some cases have official liturgies for same sex blessings.
Part of the reason all these blessings need to stop is that if they do not the Episcopal Church will be well on its way to exporting its ecclesiological dysfunction into the rest of the Communion.
–From Monday 28 July 2008
Interesting to bump into this today working on something else. The point to be made now, of course, is that the same concern to meet the question of blessing non-celibate same sex unions “theologically and ecclesiologically” that was begging to be addressed in 2003 is now even more urgently in need of being addressed before same sex blessings actually occur. But of course they are occurring and with national leadership encouragement, all the while leaving the foundation for such action unestablished.
The result is even greater incoherence.
Well said. But the issue never was theology. It was, and is, about advancing an agenda and, if necessary, doing through the backdoor what could not be done through the front.
Greetings.
I am sure that there are people who are honestly wrestling with this kind of question. At the same time, there is no doubt in my outsider’s mind that the vanguard of this movement cares no more for theology or ecclesiology than they would care for the bylaws of a country club that they were trying to integrate. Once “justice” finally triumphs one simply rewrites them to suit. It’s not like they were handed down from on high, after all.
regards,
JPB
Well, incoherence is one aspect of the problem with TEC’s backwards way of instituting radical change before justifying it theologically. It’s the intellectual aspect of the problem. In fact, “inchoherence” is probably a very charitable and mild way of putting it. I’d be more inclined to call the state of doctrine in TEC not merely incoherent but utterly confused or even nonsensical.
But besides the theological dimension of the scandalous chaos in TEC there is the behavioral aspect of the problem. That is, the problem isn’t just with how the dominant leaders of TEC [b]think[/b], but how they [b]act[/b], which reflects the sad reality that not only have their minds been darkened, but they have stubbornly hardened their hearts and wills in choosing, willfully, to disobey the revealed will of God (which is unmistakably clear in the Scriptures on the point of homosexual behavior, unlike some other controversial issues).
As usual, Kendall is being gracious in his choice of words (as in using “reappraiser” and “reasserter” vs. more polemical language). And as usual, I wouldn’t be so cautious myself. I’m more willing to be provocative and even inflammatory. So I’ll just come out and say it. The problem with TEC’s leadership isn’t just that their thinking about basic matters of doctrine is extremely (and increasingly) incoherent, confused, and even downright chaotic. The real problem is that it’s intolerably heretical and morally perverse.
David Handy+
Never hesitant to call a spade a spade
I used to say the root problem of TEC was that we have our theological learning over here (hold up left hand), and our pastoral practice over there (hold up right hand). But now my hands don’t reach as far away as I need for that analogy. It’s like our theological learning is over here, and our pastoral practice is in the next county. Which all means that academic biblical studies are frequently completely ignorant of how regular people deal with the Bible and Christian doctrine, and that regular people are just about totally unaware of what biblical studies or theology is even about.
We didn’t get in this mess in 2003. It’s more like the 1960s or 1970s when it started.
JPB, for the majority even of the ‘vanguard,’ I doubt they don’t care about theology or ecclesiology (although there may be some who don’t).
I think rather that most of the ‘vanguard’ have given what they believe to be due weight to all kinds of arguments, theological and otherwise, and have concluded that, on balance, the arguments in favor of TEC’s ‘innovations’ outweigh those against.
Their reasoning, of course, won’t satisfy scripturalists who believe that the Bible’s view on homosexuality must forever trump all other considerations.
But I agree completely with Susan Russell’s comment the other day that the problem isn’t that TEC hasn’t done the theology, it’s that the scripturalists disagree with the conclusions reached thereby.
David Handy [#4] writes:
David, in the same vein, let me offer a ‘reappraiser’ view: The “intolerably heretical and morally perverse” ones are those who blasphemously insist that one particular set of God’s (putative) instructions to us are supposedly immutable — that God categorically would never, ever have different things to say to us at different stages in our growth as a species.
RE: “The “intolerably heretical and morally perverse†ones are those who blasphemously insist that one particular set of God’s (putative) instructions to us are supposedly immutable — that God categorically would never, ever have different things to say to us at different stages in our growth as a species.”
Understood. That’s why the two gospels represented by DC’s and NRA’s statements won’t be able to co-exist in the same organization.
JPB, you’re right. They simply don’t care about such things — althogh they do make an effort to pretend as if they care so that they can sort of “talk the same language” only without the same meanings. A bit like Lenin “cared” about “laws” . . . ; > )
An interesting view, DCT, one that seems almost Islamic in its belief that God is arbitrary and capricious, able to declare A today and not-A tomorrow. I seem to remember a missive from BXVI on that idea, one that was not kind to the notion that God is irrational.
One of the most powerful aspects of the New Testament, to me, is that these are the last guys you would expect to find writing these books. Granted, most were followers of Christ as He taught, but when He was crucified they couldn’t find themselves far away from Him fst enough…their lives were on the line. Yet each and every one went to his death proclaiming Christ as the Son of God. Something happened there. Similarly, Saul had a cushy gig persecuting the Church, yet he became Paul and the most prolific Christian of the time. Again, something big happened to Saul to make him Paul.
Contrast this with the revisionist crowd, each and every one of whom is doing exactly what you’d expect…leopards and spots. The liklihood that God is speaking through them is negligible. This is a political project from stem to stern.
Now, if ++Akinola, ++Kolini or ++Orombi would stand up and explain why we reasserters have it all wrong, with a Paulian-level explanation of why, I’d pay attention. Until then, no sale.
As best as I can determine, what TEC is calling “theology” is actually a mishmash of anthropology, sociology, psychology and biology–often half baked. Having come up with the political conclusions their hormones wanted, they then rewrote Holy Scripture and Tradition to fit their erotic conclusions.
But that isn’t theology. Theology is the study of God; and the data for theology are precisely Holy Scripture, Tradition and Right reason formed by Holy Scripture, Tradition and prayer.
I find the use of “scripturalist” very interesting. The Church’s liturgy and the writings of the Church Fathers and church leaders since that time have been drenched in scripture, totally immersed in it (even where there have been theological disagreements). To say now that the church should leave it behind or set it aside is an indication of the discontinuity between the old and the new faiths.
[blockquote]An interesting view, DCT, one that seems almost Islamic in its belief that God is arbitrary and capricious, able to declare A today and not-A tomorrow.[/blockquote]
Of course, DC does not really believe that God declares A today and not-A tomorrow. Numerous past discussions make clear that the god DC believes in does not “declare” anything. The god DC believes in is completely silent. It is, then, our job to figure it out. We do that by weighing in on whatever direction the current winds of change seem to indicate in the culture, and then, prophetically announce that the Holy Spirit has spoken thus and so to General Convention.
The consequences are that the god of Liberal Protestantism is entirely circumscribed by the progressive lights of any given culture, and since times and cultures differ considerably, the end effect is that god does indeed appear arbitrary, willing one thing at one time and in one culture, and something completely different in another.
The ancient pagans were at least consistent. They never claimed that their deities were anything more than local. But there is a real incoherence in claiming to believe in a god who is responsible for the whole universe, and who yet refuses to speak except through the conflicting turns of infinitely contradictory and competing particular cultures.
TEC is able to surmount this difficulty by a thorough embracing of the classic Enlightenment sin of ethnocentrism. Just as the Victorian British Empire often seemed convinced that God spread his blessings wherever the Union Jack was planted, and nineteenth century Americans believed that Manifest Destiny gave them the right to conquer an entire continent, the leading lights of TEc believe without irony that their god alights and gives his wisdom exclusively in the triannual meetings of General Convention. This god is even sometimes infallible, as for instance, the Dennis Canon.
Albert Schweitzer said that the Nineteenth Century Questers in Search of the Historical Jesus looked down a well and saw their own reflection. I can not think of a more prescient analogy of how the leadership of TEc justifies its “theology” as the movement of the Holy Spirit.
Rudy (#5),
As always, I’m glad you chimed in. I agree that it’s unhealthy that there’s this Grand Canyon size chasm between [b]responsible, mainstream[/b] biblical and theological scholarship and what is believed and taught in the vast majority of TEC parishes. But what is much worse, it seems to me, is the Atlantic Ocean size gap between the “working theology” of the average parish leader (lay or ordained) and the theology of the Bible itself. IOW (In Other Words), I think the two hands or poles are unfortunately more than a county apart!
David Handy+
D.C. (#7),
I’m not offended by your frank and candid retort. Indeed, I welcome such clear, direct, and unflinching talk. I wish all who held to the supposedly progressive viewpoint were equally forthright and unevasive.
Of course, Sarah Hey is right (#8), your worldview and mine, DC, are utterly incompatible and mutually exclusive. But I’ll add that your accusation of “blasphemy” on my part seems very odd and unjustified. Anyone who has read very many of the hundreds of comments about biblical interpretation that I’ve posted at T19 (and even more over at SFiF) knows that I’m not a fundamentalist or moral absolutist. I readily acknowledge the reality of the development or evolution of doctrine both within the pages of Holy Scriputre and in the 2,000 years of Church history. But along with John Henry Newman, I also insist that it is possible to distinguish legitmate doctrinal developments that enhance the authentic Tradition through organic growth from its apostolic roots and the illegitimate, cancerous corruptions that distort and destroy the true gospel. And I think that when it comes to the question of homosexual behavior, the “gay is OK” position fails ALL SEVEN of Newman’s classic tests.
David Handy+
Heh – william Witt – the current African view is a lot more like the 19th century English view than a coherent gospel view.
Its two different kinds of imperialism we’re comparing.
As far as the differences between the reexamining and reasserting: One is critical, one is tyrannical. One is reformed, the other is totalitarian. One permits freedom, the other is a prison. One is offered by the pharisees and crucifies, the other liberates. One is deeply afraid, the other affirms faith, hope and love.
In other words, John, “If it floats your boat do it!”
[blockquote]As far as the differences between the reexamining and reasserting: One is critical, one is tyrannical. One is reformed, the other is totalitarian. One permits freedom, the other is a prison. One is offered by the pharisees and crucifies, the other liberates. One is deeply afraid, the other affirms faith, hope and love. [/blockquote]
Indeed. We might disagree on which is which.
We know which side invades church buildings and changes locks, fires vestries and deposes priests and bishops without canonical authority, sues people for property they have built, paid for, and maintained, and then is stuck with empty church buildings that they cannot sell.
We also know which side is gladly willing, when necessary, to walk away and worship in shopping malls and school gymnasiums, and which side has always been willing to negotiate departures in a Christian manner, and which side insists it is my way or the highway.
We know which side actually does careful exegesis of the biblical Scriptures, and careful study of Christian tradition, and tries to live its life in accord with that; we also know which side ignores 2,000 years of biblical interpretation and catholic tradition, and appeals to private revelations of the Holy Spirit.
I think we know which side is tyrannical and fearful, and which side is critical, reformed, and, indeed, liberating, because it strives first to be orthodox, catholic, and faithful to God’s revelation in Christ.
David Handy’s forthrightness is precisely what is needed – particular in this context in South Carolina. We increasingly confuse civil speech with weak, vacillating, spineless speech; the two are commonly conflated.
What TEC is doing is neither complicated nor obscure nor subtly nuanced. They are engaged in a power play and they are testing their power in the usual way: You know you are powerful when you can force your position down the throats of those who disagree. They have given this gambit unusual force by making all those who disagree with them “sinners,” that is, bigoted, homophobic and the like, for these are the great contemporary sins. And I use sin here quite literally. TEC’s opponents are characterized as being sinful, that is, they deliberately break the laws of the Most Recently Received.
There is no reason to for traditional Anglicans to accept, compromise, listen, meet, discuss endlessly this palpable threat to our continuation and spiritual well being. I saythis again: this is a battle a l’outrance and we should not hesitate any longer to enter the field properly armed. Larry
#17 –
You are exactly right.
Until we understand that we mirror of each other, this won’t get much better.
I suspect God would have us love one another, rather than judge. Instead both of us are looking in a mirror darkly, mistaking our own piety for God’s grace.
If we cannot trust each other, how can we trust God?
Jeffersonian [#12] writes:
It’s a false dichotomy, David, to claim that God’s putative instructions must either be immutable or irrational. Consider a parent who tells his first-grader, “stay in the yard, don’t go in the street.” Ten years later, the same parent asks the same child — now a teenager with a driver’s license — to go to the store to pick up a few things. According to the view you summarized, that parent is arbitrary, capricious, and irrational. But of course that’s not the case: things have changed, and with them, the parentally-prescribed boundaries on the kid’s travels.
Here’s an even simpler example: A friend is leading a blind man along a sidewalk. They come to a crosswalk; the friend holds the blind man back because of oncoming traffic. Then the drivers see them and the cars stop. The friend gently nudges the blind man into the crosswalk, and they cross the street. Surely you don’t think the friend is being arbitrary, capricious, or irrational.
I don’t argue that any particular divine instruction, if such there be, necessarily changes over time. I claim only that she blasphemes (in the literal sense, and doubtless inadvertently) who takes the view that God could not possibly do something not allowed by a particular human conception of him. As +KJS has aptly put it in another context, that would amount to trying to put God in a pretty small box.
And let’s also not leave out the possibility that our forebears might simply have misunderstood what they thought to be God’s will. I don’t want to get into the slavery debate again, but presumably we can all agree that God doesn’t really want us to burn witches — or if he once did, he no longer does.
In the examples of my #20 above, I forgot to include a significant point.
Suppose the blind man at the crosswalk didn’t understand what was going on with the traffic. In that case, his sighted friend’s stop-now / go-now instructions might seem conflicting and even capricious. But that would be a misunderstanding, born of incomplete information and -insight, imposed by the blind man’s natural limitations.
Now imagine humanity as the blind man, and God as the sighted friend. Could it be that God’s instructions to us might likewise change as conditions changed? I don’t know. I do know, though, that categorically ruling out that possibility is above our paygrade.
Straw Man alert!!!!!
The blind man helped by his sighted friend is just that, being helped.
TECs promotion of homosex helps LGBT folks feel better about their sin. No benefit to the church catholic.
21. D. C. Toedt wrote:
[blockquote]I claim only that she blasphemes (in the literal sense, and doubtless inadvertently) who takes the view that God could not possibly do something not allowed by a particular human conception of him. As +KJS has aptly put it in another context, that would amount to trying to put God in a pretty small box.[/blockquote]
You have, interestingly enough, substituted “a particular human conception of” God, for that which He has revealed Himself to be.
And I would submit that having the culture of the moment decide what God thinks is right is (a) blasphemy and (b) puts a “god” of our own making into a very, very minuscule box.
A few years back we decided that divorce was a “generous pastoral response”. Yet after years of easy divorce, look at the misery it has caused to children who are the victims of divorce as well as other social ills arising from it.
We have made sex into a god. We are obsessed with sex. We have made ourselves slaves of sex. And the consequences are rampant STD, broken homes, abused partners, abused children, roughly a million unborn slaughtered annually. And TEC is leading the charge down the wide road to destruction of society.
Sometimes God actually [b]does[/b] know better. Sometimes it is actually better to listen and to obey Him than to follow the world, the flesh and the devil. That’s why Christians renounce those false gods before entering into the Baptismal Covenant with its first promise to follow the apostles’ teaching.
22. Old Soldier wrote:
Straw Man alert!!!!!
[blockquote]The blind man helped by his sighted friend is just that, being helped.
TECs promotion of homosex helps LGBT folks feel better about their sin. No benefit to the church catholic.[/blockquote]
Or to LGBT folks, for that matter. It puts their souls in mortal peril. Hardly the loving thing to do. It is rather like letting the blind man walk in front of the moving car.
Ken Peck and Old Soldier, we disagree in some of our crucial suppositions about existence. It’s unarguable that in conducting your lives, ‘reasserters’ are willing to take their chances that their suppositions are correct; ‘reappraisers’ are equally willing to take their chances that theirs are the correct ones.
As long as one side or another doesn’t insist on unconditional surrender to its particular suppositions, I see no reason why that should stop us from praying together — and as the Very Rev. Nick Knisely astutely observed last week, that’s enough.
RE: “Until we understand that we mirror of each other, this won’t get much better.”
Well, except for the fact that mutually opposing and antithetical beliefs is not in fact “mirroring” at all.
RE: “I suspect God would have us love one another, rather than judge.”
Sounds like a good idea. What that has to do with anything in this thread, I have no idea, unless JW is once again using the word “judge” to mean “criticize and reveal errors” which of course are not the same things at all.
RE: “Instead both of us are looking in a mirror darkly, mistaking our own piety for God’s grace. ”
No — John Wilkins is just engaging in his favorite practice of deconstruction and sophism. Fairly standard, and having little to do with “mistaking” anything at all, being deliberate and calculated.
RE: “If we cannot trust each other, how can we trust God?”
Lol. We certainly cannot trust fallen man. Which is one reason why we cast our faith upon God.
Really, JW — do you ever tire of such transparent, vacuous platitudes? They don’t deceive anyone on this thread.
RE: ” I see no reason why that should stop us from praying together . . . ”
Well of course, you don’t, DC — your side doesn’t see anything wrong with its positions, while the other side sees that they are corrupt and a false gospel. I can just as easily pray next to you, however, as I can pray next to a Hindu.
Not really praying “with” but praying “next to” is fine.
But why muddy the waters by claiming that Hindus and Christians actually should be in the same “Christian” organization? It’s insulting to both parties.
Sarah1 [#27], please explain why you think praying ‘with’ someone is materially different than praying ‘next to’ them. Perhaps you’re of the view that God reacts differently to people’s prayers, depending on what they happen to believe about him.
Here’s a proposition for debate: Resolved, that the members of ‘the church’ are those people — reasserter, reappraiser, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. — who are willing:
1)Â to pray ‘next to’ one another, even if the prayer of the person next to you is no more than a grudging acknowledgement that maybe a Creator of some sort might indeed exist;
2) to treat everyone’s prayers with equal dignity, even when there’s grave disagreement over underlying suppositions; and
3)Â to collaborate in seeking the best for others as for themselves, even if for no other reason than that this seems to give a species a survival advantage over the long term.
Under this definition of ‘church,’ a given individual’s theological beliefs would be of no particular relevance or interest, except of course to the extent those beliefs influenced the individual’s actions.
I know you’d object to such a definition of ‘church’; I’m curious how you’d articulate that objection.
28. D. C. Toedt wrote:
[blockquote]Here’s a proposition for debate: Resolved, that the members of ‘the church’ are those people — reasserter, reappraiser, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. — who are willing:[/blockquote]
This has got to be the most novel and absurd definition of “the church” that I’ve ever seen. And I doubt that any reasonably faithful Jew, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist, would buy it for a moment.
[b]Newspeak[/b] and [b]double-think[/b] is obviously where TEC is.
One of the problems with this newspeak is that I and others would have to listen to propaganda from TEC’s Minitrue come sermon time. Another problem is that increasingly TEC’s Minitrue Party members are rewriting the common prayers that members of the Church have agreed upon.
An additional problem is that those who have entered into the Baptismal Covenant have made, as their very first promise, to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship”. And, of course, the apostles’ warn against being yoked with unbelievers.
And finally, in joining with Toedt’s “church” I will be put in the position of having to support the killing of innocents and immorality.
RE: “Sarah1 [#27], please explain why you think praying ‘with’ someone is materially different than praying ‘next to’ them.”
Um, in the same way that I think playing the game of soccer with someone else playing the game of soccer is a far cry from playing the game of soccer “next to” someone playing the game of baseball.
Again — praying next to a Hindu is not praying “with” a Hindu at all. We do not believe in the same God, the same universe, the same creed, the same anthropology; the same as praying next to you, DC. I’m more than happy to pray next to a Hindu — I’ve prayed next to human beings of other religions before. But I’ve never prayed “with” them. Spiritually we are not even on the same playing field.
RE: ” the members of ‘the church’ are those people — reasserter, reappraiser, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. — who are willing . . . ”
The church is the body of Christ — believers and accepters of Christ’s gospel who are in Christ. Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and many revisionist Episcopalians are not believers in the Gospel, and thus are not a part of the body of Christ and thus are not “church” however lovely they individually may be as people.
Your proposition is a bit like saying: “Resolved: the members of ‘the Greenville Tennis Club’ are those people — non-tennis playing, people in other countries, people living in Greenville, people playing tennis, and people despising and castigating tennis altogether and instead advocating skeet shooting — , Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. — who are willing to email one another and treat all emails with respect, even if they delete them without responding to them.”
In other words — and as usual — you’re attempting to deconstruct the meaning of “tennis” and “Greenville” and “club.”
This is not unusual for you and your worldview, and is to be expected.
Sarah 1, you should know by now that DC is, at best, some form of deist or Unitarian theist. By his own words he is not a creedal Christian. In fact, its only by his own definition that he can be called Christian at all.
Did Jesus call his disciples to lead coherent lives?
Luke 14:26:
[blockquote]
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
[/blockquote]
Is coherence a Kingdom standard?
Why is coherence important?
Many of the comments in this thread are [i]ad hominem[/i].
Sarah1 [#30], I don’t see how your soccer-versus-baseball analogy is helpful. Let me explore it by repeating my earlier, unanswered request, this time in the context of a thought experiment:
THE SETTING: Imagine that a group of doctrinally-orthodox reasserter Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc., meet regularly to take turns saying their various prayers. All are devout; all their beliefs and prayers are sincere. When a Christian prayer is said, the non-Christians mentally ‘translate’ the prayer into their own respective religious idioms; the same when a Hindu prays, etc.
QUESTION 1: Do you think God takes a lesser view of, say, the Hindus in this congregation, than he does of the Christians?
QUESTION 2: Do you think that the Christians do any damage to the efficacy of their prayers by praying them in a congregation that happens to include non-Christians?
QUESTION 3: Do you think God takes a lesser view of the Christians, or their prayers, for praying in a theologically-heterogeneous congregation?
If your answer to any of these is “yes,” then please explain. Otherwise, please explain your claim that there’s a cognizable difference between praying “with” someone versus praying “next to” them.
#34 The church you describe already exists. It is called the Unitarian Church. Many of us are under the impression that TEC is supposed to be a Christian church. We do not want to see if become a sacramental unitarian church.
I think the problem with “incoherence” is not that Kendall is wrong, but that the location of “incoherence” isn’t in just one particular location. I find the reasserting position incoherent in places – not in all places – but in some. It tends to get slippery.
I think that there is a lack of understanding in what “coherence” requires, in part because the way most of the modern world works very different than the way biblical culture worked – does coherence mean an easy equivalent between capitalist culture and agrarian culture?
By and large, modern people do interpret scripture differently – and this includes Jews reading the Torah, the Magisterium reading Scripture, and protestants hunting for Jesus’ original sayings. Even now, people ask me “do you really believe that we are descended from two humans?” Because that is what Christians are supposed to believe.
By and large, reasserting theologians don’t really ask why we got to the place we do, locating the change in the modern church, whereas they don’t recognize we are answering different questions.
Personally, I will have to agree that the reappraising position on homosexuality has been relatively weak. I do not think it is wrong, but I also don’t think that the criteria reasserters require for satisfaction is particularly strong either. Their requirement seems to be:
1) The bible says it.
2) It’s always been that way.
For liberals, of course, both are problematic. The bible says a lot of things that both conservative and liberals ignore. What seems to conservatives to be a statement about the moral order seems to liberals to be a matter of purity and taboo. We don’t quite agree what, exactly, the scripture says. Consequently, good theologians who are trying to comprehend each other will find themselves discussing language theory and cultural taxonomies.
When william witt says its been for 2000 years of tradition, he should be a bit more careful. There are counter examples of change: usury; slavery; racism. Scripture itself is evidence of technological change – the fact that the bible is a book, and not a codex; that it is divided into chapters and easily available. These changes seem to be unimportant to Witt. Why? Why are they? For most people, they are, empirically. It has changed how we behave and what we see in the world.
What I don’t think conservatives recognize is that, by and large, they will become recognized not by their fervor for the gospel, but instead by their attitude toward homosexuality. Those biblical churches that down play homosexuality will do much better than those who take a strong stance against it.
[blockquote]It’s a false dichotomy, David, to claim that God’s putative instructions must either be immutable or irrational. Consider a parent who tells his first-grader, “stay in the yard, don’t go in the street.†Ten years later, the same parent asks the same child — now a teenager with a driver’s license — to go to the store to pick up a few things. According to the view you summarized, that parent is arbitrary, capricious, and irrational. But of course that’s not the case: things have changed, and with them, the parentally-prescribed boundaries on the kid’s travels.[/blockquote]
I’m not sure who “David” is, but I see nothing in Scripture to suggest that the sin of homosexual fornication is contextual in the way, say, consenting sexual relations between a man and a woman are. Similarly, nothing I’ve seen from revisionists leads me to believe divine revelation is at work here. The “theology” is, in fact, little more than self-justifying rhetoric.
#26: Sarah1, excellent deconstruction of John Wilkins’ modus operandi/argumendi. In the face of head-on criticism, the thing is to deflect same by changing the subject or by display of humble piety (‘I suspect God wants us to love each other’). Rodney King would be proud! But this doesn’t lead to clarity of thinking. The whole revisionist push has been clothed in rampant faux pietism.
But I’ll give John his due – he doesn’t manifest rancour.
D.C. Toedt, as he does far too often, underestimates the devastation that the Episcopal Church’s faulty process has caused and is continuing to cause.
The foundational flaw was named by myself in 2003 and left unaddressed, and it was named by Bishop Baines later. There are many in the Anglican Communion who agree with the theology TEC has embraced who see the awful process for what it is. This apparently leaves D.C. Toedt unmoved.
Well, perhaps he could consider the Archbishop of Canterbury on the matter:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/640
18. Larry Morse wrote:
[blockquote]There is no reason to for traditional Anglicans to accept, compromise, listen, meet, discuss endlessly this palpable threat to our continuation and spiritual well being. I saythis again: this is a battle a l’outrance and we should not hesitate any longer to enter the field properly armed.[/blockquote]
I’m reminded of a report over a decade ago (I seem to recall it was before Lambeth 1998) when a group of Anglican bishops were in some sort of meeting and the leader of the group indicated that the group was to discuss the blessing of homosexual relationship. A good African bishop picked up his Bible, said “That has already been decided” and left. In that judgment, he stood with the great majority of Christian men and women both then, in the the past and even to this day.
Unfortunately, too many Anglican bishops lacked that clarity and foundation in God’s word and God’s truth, and seemed to think it was something yet to be decided.
36. John Wilkins wrote:
[blockquote]I also don’t think that the criteria reasserters require for satisfaction is particularly strong either. Their requirement seems to be:
1) The bible says it.
2) It’s always been that way.[/blockquote]
I think that is a gross misrepresentation of the “reasserters” view. It would be equivalent to saying that the “reappraisers” position is
1) A few bishops and priests do it.
2) That’s the way it must be.
[blockquote]There are counter examples of change: usury; slavery; racism.[/blockquote]
In each case there was and is a consensus among Christians; there is no consensus among Christians regarding the blessing of homosexual activity or the ordination of those who engage in homosexual activity. If there is anything like a consensus of the faithful, the weight falls [b]against[/b] such a change.
[blockquote]Scripture itself is evidence of technological change – the fact that the bible is a book, and not a codex; that it is divided into chapters and easily available.[/blockquote]
??? What the devil are you talking about? A codex is a book; a book is a codex. Codex and book are different words for the same sort of thing.
RE: “By his own words he is not a creedal Christian.”
Yep — I know. But you don’t need the word “creedal” to modify “Christian” in that case.
RE: “Did Jesus call his disciples to lead coherent lives?”
Not at all . . . schizophrenics, of course, cannot help their mental illness that causes incoherence.
RE: “When a Christian prayer is said, the non-Christians mentally ‘translate’ the prayer into their own respective religious idioms; the same when a Hindu prays, etc.”
Even though the answers to DC’s three questions are “no,” the questions are irrelevant to the difference between praying “with” and praying “next to”. Christians do not “mentally ‘translate’ the prayer [of the Hindu] into their own respective religious idioms . . . since Christians don’t recognize “idiom” as the sole difference amongst prayers of those of different faiths. Christians, when praying next to others of other faiths who are also praying, merely pray their own prayer to the Christian God . . . which is precisely what I have done in those situation. We are not, thus, praying “with” one another at all, even while within one another’s company. The Hindu is playing the game of baseball while the Christian is playing the game of tennis — neither are playing the same game with one another.
RE: “Sarah1 [#30], I don’t see how your soccer-versus-baseball analogy is helpful.”
No it wouldn’t be helpful at all for DC’s purposes. An apt metaphor . . . but not “helpful” for DC.
RE: “Otherwise, please explain your claim that there’s a cognizable difference between praying “with†someone versus praying “next to†them.”
Already done — you just didn’t like the answer.
RE: “In the face of head-on criticism, the thing is to deflect same by changing the subject or by display of humble piety (‘I suspect God wants us to love each other’).”
Yup — that’s the way JW works — and I have zero respect for such deflection and calculated misdirection, transparent even as such actions are.
Kendall [#39] writes:
What you call ‘devastation’ is mostly a temper tantrum by certain scripturalists that things didn’t go their way.
(Anticipating the likely response about the extent of the ‘devastation’: I seriously doubt that Muslim fanatics who attack Christians in Africa would refrain from doing so if only TEC would expel its homosexuals.)
Sometimes things just don’t go your way in life. For example, I’m guessing that a lot of Diocese of Texas liberals are seriously disappointed that our bishops all voted against D025 and C056. By and large, though, you don’t see us rending our garments and publicly wailing about the ‘devastation’ they’re thereby causing.
If you [in the generic sense, not you specifically Kendall] oppose homosexual marriage, then don’t marry a homosexual. If you don’t want your diocese to have a homosexual bishop, then don’t vote for one — and if you’re not someone eligible to vote in the episcopal election, then seek an office where you can do so.
In any case, be a grown-up, for God’s sake, and accept that you don’t always get your way — then try to change things for the next time around (life isn’t a snapshot, it’s a movie). If God doesn’t like the way things turned out, presumably he’ll deal with matters in his own good time.
Kendall [#39] quotes the ABC as bemoaning “the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop … without even the American church itself … having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.”
TEC has indeed formally decided something about same-sex blessings: The decision was that we don’t yet know enough to think anything. Sometimes “I don’t know” is not just a legitimate decision, it might be the only legitimate decision.
Sarah1 [#42], sorry, you still haven’t explained your soccer-baseball metaphor. It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s that you haven’t shown that it has any relevance.
A baseball team and a soccer team playing at the same time on the same field would interfere with each other’s play. The point of my three questions was to ask the corresponding question about your metaphor: How, exactly, would a theologically-heterogeneous congregation interfere with each other’s prayers?
As to the different religions praying to different gods: So?
43. D. C. Toedt wrote:
[blockquote]Kendall [#39] writes:
D.C. Toedt, as he does far too often, underestimates the devastation that the Episcopal Church’s faulty process has caused and is continuing to cause.
What you call ‘devastation’ is mostly a temper tantrum by certain scripturalists [sic] that things didn’t go their way.[/blockquote]
The sharply reduced revenues of 815 and the resulting major layoffs of personnel there are partly due to the actions of the leadership. It will get worse as General Convention and the leadership of TEC becomes more and more eccentric. (The argument that the radical drop in income is due to the recession’s effects on endowments is tacit admission that TEC is living off the dead rather than being supported by the living men and women in the pews. Of course millions are being diverted into law suits, which is another of the problems and has raised the eyebrows of TEC’s own audit committee.)
Four dioceses, a hundred or so parishes, a number of bishops, scores of other clergy and around 100,000 lay people have departed for other provinces of the Communion or Rome or Orthodoxy. More will depart. (Actually if you go back to the early 1960s you will discover that more like a million people are gone from TEC.)
But never mind, all is well. It’s just a tiny few “scripturalists” that are causing all the trouble. (Please don’t pay any attention to the people behind the curtain.)
[blockquote]Sometimes things just don’t go your way in life. For example, I’m guessing that a lot of Diocese of Texas liberals are seriously disappointed that our bishops all voted against D025 and C056. By and large, though, you don’t see us rending our garments and publicly wailing about the ‘devastation’ they’re thereby causing.[/blockquote]
Well, actually, I’ve seen a rant from a rector of an Austin, Texas, parish over the bishops’ votes–particularly the new bishop–and their refusal to authorize blessings of same sex unions. I suspect that he isn’t the only one.
[blockquote]In any case, be a grown-up, for God’s sake, and accept that you don’t always get your way — then try to change things for the next time around (life isn’t a snapshot, it’s a movie). If God doesn’t like the way things turned out, presumably he’ll deal with matters in his own good time.[/blockquote]
I suspect that he is dealing with TEC has it implodes into total irrelevance and apostasy.
“Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.” (Richard John Neuhaus) We’ve seen that in the case of the ordination of women priests and bishops. History will repeat itself as the TEC leadership pushes its radical agenda of change and the abolition of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
44. D. C. Toedt wrote:
[blockquote]TEC has indeed formally decided something about same-sex blessings: The decision was that we don’t yet know enough to think anything.[/blockquote]
Wrong! TEC speaking through a number of resolutions of General Convention and the House of Bishops prior to 2003 resolved that sexual relations were appropriate only between husband and wife and that the blessing of “same-sex unions” and that ordinations of those living in such arrangements was not appropriate. When pressured by Spong to rule on such, the Lambeth Conference adopted a similar statement.
45. D. C. Toedt wrote:
[blockquote]How, exactly, would a theologically-heterogeneous congregation interfere with each other’s prayers?[/blockquote]
I, at least, would find the constant striking of gongs and spinning of prayer-wheels distracting — not to mention the sacrifice of animals and even humans practiced by some religions as part of their prayer.
Probably some of my practices would bug Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists as well.
Your “church” actually is an insult to every major religion.
It also departs from the apostles’ teaching and fellowship. (See the first promise of the Baptismal Covenant.)
Ken Peck [#47], obviously D025 and C056 were a statement that the pre-2003 resolutions you cite no longer represented the mind of the [local] church.
(I need to correct my #44: TEC’s 2009 decision was that we don’t know enough yet to think anything definitive.)
Ken Peck [#48] writes: “It [that is, ‘my’ [sic] church] also departs from the apostles’ teaching and fellowship.”
Oh? The apostles’ teaching included their teachings by example that received doctrines could be reexamined, and that traditional fellowship boundaries were not immutable.
I think Kendall Harmon has indicated a relevant weakness in the liberal argument. It’s current position were not theological decisions – they are pastoral ones. It may have been the wrong pastoral decision, but for TEC, the pastoral decision trumped other considerations. In many ways it was driven by the market: it was serving its constituents.
For the episcopacy, it was not homosexuality but secrecy which was causing pastoral trouble. After women became ordained, further, the men’s club that had protected closeted men dissembled.
I get the impression that reasserters believe that reappraisers have chosen this path because they hate God, the bible and the Gospel. What we saw empirically was that closeted gay people were in pain, and often caused pain upon other people. Or they left the church. We did not ask that straight people become gay, nor did we ask for straight people to approve of homosexuality. My own reappraising view is that my own approval doesn’t matter: and that God wins in the end. So let there be more honesty and charity and magnanimity: even if I think scripture is clear about its stance on gay people, it is more clear about calling people toward honesty and magnanimity.
I actually would agree that pastoral decisions shouldn’t dictate how a church moves forward – personal and communal transformation should. But by and large the church succumbed to the notion that the priest was a chaplain (and a mediocre psychotherapist), rather than a truth teller. Chaplains are useful: they won’t challenge people on issues such as race; nor will they ask people to take care of their communities. Such individualism served both liberals and conservatives well.
Ken a couple things: I meant a scroll, not a codex.
I’m not sure if there was ever a consensus about racism, slavery and usury until it had been long proven inconvenient otherwise. Racism was still considered justifiable by plenty of Dutch Reformed pastors until 25 years ago. I don’t think the Southern Baptists condemned it until relatively recently either. Usury just became inconvenient and was ignored.
Which is what will happen with homosexuality.
You mention that the reappraisers say that:
1) A few bishops and priests do it.
2) That’s the way it must be.
Is that really what reasserters think?
I think more reasserters would argue:
1) reappraisers don’t love Jesus
2) they believe whatever the culture tells them to
Hi Sarah1, always a delight:
You say that mutually opposing and antithetical beliefs is not in fact “mirroring†at all. I find this confusing. You constantly imply that we have two “antithetical” gospels. That is, if I believe in X, you have to believe that not-X. It is, in a sense, a constant mirroring. I say “God is” and you say, “no, God is not.” You seem to insist that whatever I believe, you must believe differently. That is a sort of mirroring.
I don’t have such a view. I think that we probably have sets of beliefs that are practically similar.
I said: “I suspect God would have us love one another, rather than judge.â€
You said: Sounds like a good idea. What that has to do with anything in this thread, I have no idea, unless JW is once again using the word “judge†to mean “criticize and reveal errors†which of course are not the same things at all.
I have no problem with revealing errors. You have continually revealed mine, and I am thankful for that. God bless you! I do pray that my errors will be laid at the foot of the cross and that you will be among the perfect who will forgive us fallen people in error. I have faith that your faith will lead you to forgiveness of my sin, rather than in vengeance or hostility.
You then mention your favorite word: “deconstruction.” Again, you are just too smart for me because I don’t know what you are talking about. I remember asking you, and you decided not to define it.
I do think that human knowledge has changed and that the stories empires tell the world may conceal other stories. But I’m not sure why you find this troubling. After all, the African story of Christianity is clearly challenging the neat European story of Christianity. The African narrative about Christianity is doing exactly what Deconstructionists have argued: destroying the “modern” Christian of Christianity.
Of course, I don’t buy this interpretation at all.
Heh – you mention that “we certainly cannot trust fallen man. Which is one reason why we cast our faith upon God.” Sarah, you can do better. Really. We are made in the image of God.
There are criteria the church sets forth for trusting other human beings. There are criteria for people trusting the church. We may have different criteria, but without trust, its all a house of cards.
As far as loving platitudes – I admit, I’m not surprised that you would call loving one’s neighbor “vacuous.” And yet, blogging seems to invite them.
Azusa, I do hope I didn’t write any of this in rancour. Blogging is entertainment. The real work is in the parish. I know of few people whose lives have been saved by a blog.
I have seen plenty of blogs, however, evoke anger, resentment and hostility. I admit, I share in that sin, to my regret.
49. D. C. Toedt wrote:
[blockquote]Ken Peck [#47], obviously D025 and C056 were a statement that the pre-2003 resolutions you cite no longer represented the mind of the [local] church.[/blockquote]
Gasp! And Bonnie and Kate told Rowan that those resolutions changed nothing!
Seriously, though, I think that Kendall’s point was that the matter of “same sex unions” had not been favorably addressed by TEC prior to consenting to the consecration of one who because of that was an inappropriate candidate.
50. D. C. Toedt wrote:
That is incorrect. I commend to you the apostle Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians which deals with this very point. You might also see what the apostle Paul has to say about “another gospel” in 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
I would also point out to you that your definition of “church” is quite at odds with the doctrine and discipline of even TEC. See for example, the BCP, pp. 854-5 which gives a quite different definition of church than you do.
It is also contrary to the discipline of TEC as set forth in the canons, which requires baptism in order to receive the Holy Communion.
51. John Wilkins wrote:
[blockquote]nor did we ask for straight people to approve of homosexuality.[/blockquote]
You have got to be kidding! Do you actually believe that nonsense?
[blockquote]I’m not sure if there was ever a consensus about racism, slavery and usury until it had been long proven inconvenient otherwise. Racism was still considered justifiable by plenty of Dutch Reformed pastors until 25 years ago. I don’t think the Southern Baptists condemned it until relatively recently either. Usury just became inconvenient and was ignored.[/blockquote]
The Dutch Reformed and Southern Baptists aren’t Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. They are at best a tiny part of it. Nor do they determine the theology and practice of TEC. (If they did, there would be no clergy living in same sex unions.
BTW, the African Christians are simply reminding the Church of England and TEC what the Anglican missionaries taught them in the 19th century. They’ve become Christians; TEC has abandoned the gospel it once preached to the nations.
[blockquote]As to the different religions praying to different gods: So? [/blockquote]
There’s another one for TGC’s headstone. Bravo, DC!
Ken Peck [#52], apropos of my point that the apostles taught by example that received doctrines could be reexamined, see Acts 11. (Paul’s rantings that ‘his’ gospel was supposedly the only legitimate one can be taken with a large grain of salt, given that he never knew Jesus in life yet claimed to have received his gospel directly from Jesus in a ‘vision.’)
Ken Peck [#52], it’s interesting but not dispositive that ‘my’ [sic] definition of church is contrary to the BCP’s rubrics. “We’ve always done it that way,” and its sibling, “we’ve never done it that way,” are not substitutes for careful consideration of the facts.
He’s all yours, John.
#42:
[blockquote]
RE: “Did Jesus call his disciples to lead coherent lives?â€
Not at all . . . schizophrenics, of course, cannot help their mental illness that causes incoherence.
[/blockquote]
An off point deflection unless one thinks that Luke 14:26 (cited at #32) refers to schizophrenia.
In other words, in light of Luke, isn’t it hard to describe the degree of incoherence in the life of a married follower of Jesus? Particularly, a happily married bishop.
There is an analogy here.
55. D. C. Toedt wrote:
[blockquote]Ken Peck [#52], apropos of my point that the apostles taught by example that received doctrines could be reexamined, see Acts 11. (Paul’s rantings that ‘his’ gospel was supposedly the only legitimate one can be taken with a large grain of salt, given that he never knew Jesus in life yet claimed to have received his gospel directly from Jesus in a ‘vision.’)[/blockquote]
Well, according to Acts 11:5, Peter did not “reexamine” “received doctrine.” According to Acts 11:5 ” “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision”. Interestingly, when the issue of Jewish law came before the Apostolic Council (Acts 15) “received doctrine” (or actually Torah) plays a role. At that council the decision that gentile converts to the way were not required to observe circumcision and the Mosaic Covenant, because they were not parties to those covenants. On the other hand they were required to observe the covenant with Noah because they were parties to that covenant. (And relative to the departure of TEC from the apostles’ teaching, the Apostolic Council did rule that gentile converts to the way were obligated to refrain from [i]porneia[/i], which for those first century Palestinians would have most certainly included sexual activity between members of the same sex.
But that being said, dismissing an apostle’s teaching as a rant and “can be taken with a large grain of salt” can hardly be an example of fidelity to the Baptismal Covenant and its promise “to continue in the apostles’ teaching.”
But that is, of course, one of the problems of this post-modern age, where vows and promises are “mere words” to be cast aside when they interfere with what I want.
56. D. C. Toedt wrote:
We, actually the definition of the BCP is the definitive doctrine of TEC, approved by two successive General Convention which all bishops, priests and deacons have promised to follow and to teach. (It is also grounded in Scripture and is consistent with the consensus of most Christians past and present.)
On the other hand, D. C. has his own definition. The “careful examination of the facts” is the “church” is comprised of those individuals who (a) have confessed Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior and (b) have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
D.C.’s definition of “church” is not only contrary to the doctrine of TEC, as set forth by General Convention in the BCP, it is also contrary to the discipline of TEC as set forth in the canons of TEC as set forth by General Convention. TEC’s canons do not count unbaptized Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc. as “members” of TEC.
The fact also is that D.C.’s definition of “church” is so broad as to be totally meaningless. If “church” means everything, then it means nothing. It is nonsense.
Now of course, nothing but the religion invented by D.C. counts for anything. Scripture doesn’t count. Tradition doesn’t count. Reason doesn’t count. The BCP doesn’t count. The canons of TEC don’t count. The promises made at baptism don’t count. The promises made at ordination don’t count. Nothing matters but that which D.C. invented for himself.
RE: “How, exactly, would a theologically-heterogeneous congregation interfere with each other’s prayers?”
They wouldn’t. But that question, again, has no relevance to your original and even your follow-up questions. Nobody’s complaining about other people’s prayers “interfering” with one another. All you did was try to redefine church and then when that failed you’ve substituted the word “congregation” for “church.” Heh — standard operating procedure for DC.
I don’t see that I said that the different folks playing baseball and soccer were on the same fields. I merely said they were “next to” one another — perhaps, DC, they are on adjoining fields. As I said, those of one faith don’t pray “with” those of another faith, although they certainly may pray “next to” one another.
But if you think praying “with” one another is the same as praying “next to” one another, then why is it so important to you to use the word “with” rather than “next to”? ; > )
John Wilkins:
RE: “Hi Sarah1, always a delight: . . . I do pray that my errors will be laid at the foot of the cross and that you will be among the perfect who will forgive us fallen people in error. I have faith that your faith will lead you to forgiveness of my sin, rather than in vengeance or hostility.”
Heh — yes I can tell it is a “delight” for you. Hard for you to hold all that “delight” in, it seems. ; > )
RE: “You say that mutually opposing and antithetical beliefs is not in fact “mirroring†at all. I find this confusing.”
Ah well . . . c’est la vie.
RE: “Again, you are just too smart for me because I don’t know what you are talking about.”
Ah well . . . c’est la vie. Ignorance shall be your punishment I suppose. How tragic that your “advanced” seminary education didn’t cover basic philosophical terms. ; > )
RE: “Sarah, you can do better. Really. We are made in the image of God.”
No I can’t, fortunately, do “better” as John Wilkins has defined it. The image of God is fallen — and therefore human beings are certainly untrustworthy. John Wilkins himself has demonstrated that on thread after thread here at T19 over the years.
Take, for example, this statement right here: “I admit, I’m not surprised that you would call loving one’s neighbor “vacuous.â€
Of course, that is a frank lie. The platitude to which I referred as “vacuous” was this one: “If we cannot trust each other, how can we trust God?â€
This has been consistent behavior on the part of John Wilkins for the past four years now. He doesn’t like something someone says, gets challenged about his identity and his assertions on a thread, flounders . . . and then simply lies about another person’s comments within his own comments.
All that shows to me is that John Wilkins is too insecure in his abilities to be able to stand on his own arguments and his own ideas.
So he resorts to stating and then “responding” to things others didn’t say — and hoping others don’t notice it.
Hi Stabill:
You asked “Why is coherence important?”
I merely pointed out that incoherence — along with disjunction and fragmentation — is a symptom of schizophrenia, a mental illness. I do think that schizophrenia is an excellent metaphor for TEC’s condition — and so I agree with Kendall’s statement about its “incoherence.” I certainly can understand a liberal recognizing that it is “incoherent” and then attempting to state that “incoherence” is not so bad after all, however.
[blockquote]
… I certainly can understand a liberal recognizing that it is “incoherent†and then attempting to state that “incoherence†is not so bad after all, however. …
[/blockquote]
An [i]ad hominem[/i] comment. Moreover, it does not faithfully reflect what was said.
TEC has acknowledged that (a) it has not completed the theology and (b) there is disagreement. Decisions made by voting, consistent with the Constitution and Canons, come out the way they do. That’s reality. It’s the American way.
Sarah1,
I don’t quite follow your argument. I admire your skill with insults, however. Followed by a wink.
Perhaps I wasn’t precise with the vacuous comment, assuming you might make the connection between love and trust. Well, I’ll admit my mistake on that one.
You say that “John Wilkins is too insecure in his abilities to be able to stand on his own arguments and his own ideas.”
Did I touch a nerve?
Actually I don’t have my own arguments. I take them from other people.
However, I get the suspicion you didn’t read my general comment, which was that Kendall has a good point; and that for most of us we have caricatures of each other’s views. I don’t mind admitting I’m wrong. Nor do I pretend to get everything right.
This is blogging, not a theological article. It’s entertainment.
I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt with “deconstruction” because it’s not anything like what I believe – or what people taught me that deconstruction is. When I ask for a definition, you toss me the “we believe opposite things anyway” or a “I don’t really care about what you think.” It represents a fair amount of our dialogue. It’s dissatisfying for me, if amusing in its own way.
This is what I was taught Deconstruction was: a way of reading texts that displaced the motives or existence of an author. All that was important is the reader – and even their reading could be whimsical. It has some relationship with other that set of ideas called “post-modern” in which a broad narrative of “truth” was made completely subjective or, perhaps, only responsive to forms of political or social power. It tended to reject moralism or objectivity. It arose when Marxism ceased to provide a coherent narrative in light of the anti-colonial wars in the 50’s and 60’s. That’s what I was taught, and it was about 15 years ago.
“Post modernism” is probably right that people do read the same texts differently. An Arab woman and an American soldier can have different reactions to the same youtube video. It also challenges “modern” thinking: not everyone believes that the Modern world (like, say, African bishops) is an accurate description of the world. A good post-modern would note that African Bishops have as much access to truth as enlightened modernists.
I think you might call me a “deconstructionist” because I’m suspicious of arguments that are based on the “clear meaning” of the text. The caricature of this argument is that all meanings are equal, which I don’t believe. A different argument is that our own interpretations are more interesting – and relevant – than authorial intent. Is that what you mean? I’m just not sure.
I’m closer to being a “cultural marxist” when it comes to reading a text. This does not mean I read scripture like a Marxist, with class conflict everywhere. Instead, I think that people “fetishize” scripture and that the bible acts more like a commodity in relationships. In the marketplace of the church, if you have more bible, you’re richer. If you have less, you’re poorer. Again, this is descriptive, not normative. And I think there are probably other ways to read texts: there is Jesus’ way.
My “normative” reading of scripture is that people should read for encouragement and edification and for God’s glory.
62. John Wilkins wrote:
[blockquote]A different argument is that our own interpretations are more interesting – and relevant – than authorial intent.[/blockquote]
Now there’s something!
I’ll agree that my own interpretation of what John writes is more interesting and relevant than whatever his authorial intent might have been.