In the face of the tragedy in Haiti, I want to make a proposal. It’s not a realistic proposal, I grant; but it is a serious one. My proposal is this: that all those Anglicans involved in litigation amongst one another in North America ”” both in the Episcopal Church and those outside of TEC; in the Anglican Church of Canada, and those outside ”” herewith cease all court battles over property. And, having done this, they do two further things:
a. devote the forecast amount they were planning to spend on such litigation to the rebuilding of the Episcopal Church and its people in Haiti; and
b. sit down with one another, prayerfully and for however long it takes, and with whatever mediating and facilitating presence they accept, and agree to a mutually agreed process for dealing with contested property.
As far as I know most ACNA congregations would be glad to put the lawsuits behind them and put all of their resources towards the gospel instead of defending property.
If we can’t work our reconciliation between ourselves how can we witness to a broken world about the good news of Christ.
http://www.churchoftheword.net
In my earlier comment regarding T19’s 6:00AM posting entitled “ENS: Haitian bishop, living in tent city, says people are strong,”
I said, “Here is a chance for ECUSA to redeem itself by stopping all law suits against those dioceses, parishes and individuals who who adhere to “…the Faith once given….”
It is a sin, in my eyes, to spend money on lawyers that could instead be spent on assisting the people in need in Haiti.”
For my part, money that I send to help the Haitian people will be sent to the Anglican relief effort operating out of Pittsburgh and will not be sent to ECUSA even though my diocese is still part of ECUSA.
Presumably for this to work [b]all[/b] sides would have to withdraw from court proceedings at the point that the litigation has currently reached. This would in some cases require pro-TEC rulings to stand (although after-the-fact negotiations might take place, there would be no absolute guarantee).
I happen to think that this would be sensible (even though it would work to our ‘disadvantage’ in Pittsburgh), but I don’t imagine that most ACNA congregations will see it that way.
It’s a good proposal, but I fear it won’t go anywhere.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Who is to say that the parties might not use more resources in a long drawn out mediation process. Why is mediation more Christian then litigation? Are St. Paul’s concerns expressed in 1Cor. 6 pertinent to our contemporary judicial system? Are we submitting our grievances to the unrighteous when we go to court?
The diocese of Virginia attempted an out of court settlement with an ADV congregation last summer. But 815 although they played along for months could not bring themselves to accept an out of court solution.
The national churches veto has cost the DoV its reputation and its dollars in the millions.
Glendermott – why would the DoV need 815’s permission to do anything inside the diocese? Is it because 815 is a party to the Virginia lawsuits?
All litigation could cease immediately if the congregations that left The Episcopal Church relinquished the properties. TEC is only acting to preserve the legacy of the Episcopalians who built and supported the churches, as [b]Episcopal[/b] churches, and never intended them to become some other denomination.
The TEClub is terrified that if they show any signs of “weakness”, the pew emptying will accelerate even faster.
The empty buildings will drag down the apostate denomination. That is not a bad thing.
#7 and they intended the ordination and consecration of noncelebate gay clergy, same sex marriage, unitarian to agnostic theology, pagan ceremonies performed by clergy, etc? I thought that in prior generations the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States was known as the “Republican” party at prayer.
#4 wrote: [blockquote]Are St. Paul’s concerns expressed in 1Cor. 6 pertinent to our contemporary judicial system? Are we submitting our grievances to the unrighteous when we go to court?[/blockquote]
Double yes. (Are you implying somehow that the American judicial system is equal to an ecclesiastical court? How absurd.)
As far as mediation goes, though, I don’t know how it works, and as to how it is substantively different from civil litigation (in terms of witness and ecclesial integrity), hard to say… perhaps there are Christian mediators around somewhere? Surely there’s some Mother Superior somewhere who could act the part. That would save Christians the scandal of having their fraternal disputes aired and settled by the pagan state. (I really think that American civil religion is little different from Roman civil religion, but that is an aside.)
#9 — Some may very well have. I think “unitarian to agnostic theology,” “pagan ceremonies” and the like are isolated things and not part of the actual doctrine of the Episcopal Church, which is basically defined by the Book of Common Prayer. Which, BTW, also does not contain rites for same-sex marriage. As far as ordination of non-celibate gay clergy, it’s been happening for centuries. Just not openly. And everybody knows it.
Any official changes in the beliefs or practices of TEC have taken place through the action of General Convention, as our polity dictates. If conservatives don’t agree with the changes, they can get elected as Convention deputies and change things back. But apparently the majority of the current membership of TEC approves. As I said, there are appropriate channels for effecting change. Leaving the Church and attempting to take its property are not.
VoiceOfReason: I know it’s considered bad form by the Establishment to mention these aberrations (e.g. Spong) which indeed do not represent official or even mainstream practice. But what nobody seems to notice is that these folks are never disciplined. Spong was never (and still isn’t) disciplined, nor are the crazies over at St Gregory Nyssa disciplined, etc. The well-known permission of these aberrations is precisely why they are scandalous (if it was some heretical priest that nobody had heard of one wouldn’t make such a big deal of it). The fact that a vast majority of bishops let these things happen suggests that they are much closer to the mainstream than the official documentation would allow. General Convention never allowed the godless theology of Spong or the weird gnostic syncretism of San Francisco, nor did the prayer book. Obviously the authority system doesn’t work as well as you seem to think it does. Realistically it’s more like this: do what you want so long as you take the power to do it. It’s a beautifully Nietzschean, post-modern vision of nihilistic competition between arbitrary powers, but it’s not the Catholic Church.
Anyway I’m not sure what this has to do with Radner’s proposal.
“VoiceOfReason” has the same nasty vindictiveness that Ms Schori and her cadre of lawyers. The empty buildings will be the millstones around their necks. And people will look back shamefully on Ms Schori and her lackies seeing the destruction that they have wrought.
#12 — Then perhaps some of this experimental stuff is allowed by some bishops, to see if it may contain some validity. If conservatives want these people disciplined, why are they not pursuing it? Where are the presentments?
#13 — Why is it nasty and vindictive to defend the Church? I seem to remember from the expose of the Chapman Memo years ago that part of the conservative gameplan was to leave with parish property, then try to negotiate to keep it, making TEC look unChristian if they attempted to use the court system. And that seems to me exactly what’s happening. TEC are the bad guys because they’re going to court to preserve the legacy of generations of Episcopalians who gave their time and resources to the [b]Episcopal[/b] Church. Those parishes benefited from being part of the National Church for years. Now they say the parish has the right to just disaffiliate because they don’t agree with everything the National Church does. Fine, change from within, or leave if you must, but don’t expect TEC to not defend the legacy that faithful Episcopalians gave and intended for the Episcopal Church.
And BTW, it’s Bishop Jefferts Schori.
“Why is it nasty and vindictive to defend the Church?”
Because they are not defending the Church. They are defending church buildings against those that built and maintained them and want to use them for what they were built for, so they can sell them off to bankroll their bankrupt ways for a few years more. Defending its legacy? Hah. They are opening the door to heretics and political agendites who spit on the legacy of the Church. Makes me happy that your TEC has its bow below water and you will be going down with it.
Not helpful Robroy,
The motivations are diverse. Some people are vindictive and are trying to make a point; some genuinely believe that a hierarchical ecclesiastical order demands that they not just hand over property. We wouldn’t have any problem with a Roman Catholic bishop going to court to block a liberal congregation from running off with the silver.
And there can be (and has been) petty vindictiveness on both sides of the aisle, especially in the years leading up to realignment, usually directed at those who wouldn’t denounce the other side with sufficient vehemence. But then, I suppose, twas ever thus.
A number of comments have been closed for becoming increasingly off topic and inflammatory and with regret includes other comments relating to those. Please keep on thread with Dr Radner’s article – thanks – Elf
Everybody’s already arguing about why they shouldn’t be called to do this! yikes. Forget about who started it all and who’s in the right or wrong; forget about the past. Just get out of court, and put the money where it Christ is calling. He’ll make it right! Mediation doesn’t have to cost money: we’re not talking about hiring Jimmy Carter or Bono. How about a nice, wise Christian. They exist. “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also….” Not that Luther was great at mediation either, but he did actually try a few times. As did others. And the lost opportunities haunt us still.
VoiceofReason (#7):
With all due respect, the Episcopal Church is [i][b]itself[/i][/b] a different denomination than the one for whom previous generations had invested time, treasure and talent in building and maintaining churches. As for Dr. Radner’s proposal, I DO think it’s a wonderful idea. TEC’s continued investment of financial resources for litigation over property – when the suffering in Haiti is so acute and widespread – IMHO, is even more obscene than that cruise ship which made its routine port of call 30 miles from Port-au-Prince two days ago.
Ah, censorship. I commented on the reasons for litigation vs. Dr. Radner’s proposal, trying not being inflammatory, yet deleted because it betrays the party strategy. I’m sure this will be deleted too, and I will be banned.
Of course you are only going to allow posts that support the “Chapman strategy.” I expect as much from your sister site (SFIF) but after monitoring this site for several years I believed Kendall was far more open to honest discussion of the issues. Apparently not.
But for those “elves” who would closely guard their propaganda, know that you are losing. You are the last gasps of a dying ideology. God is moving–the Holy Spirit is leading us into a fullness that you can not accept and into which you will unfortunately be left behind. You can try to hold on to your bigoted beliefs, but they will fade, as the other oppressors of women, racial minorities, and all those excluded from mainstream society are. You will remain as small, exclusive minority sects that will increasingly be seen as the same ilk as the KKK and other hate groups. You are dying off–and the new generations in the Church will fully accept all who seek God and would be saved. I pray that your eyes would be opened, even as the Pharisees, and that you would come to accept Christ’s love, for all, without cost, without works, without judgment of others.
The blessing of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be upon you all, now and always.
An interesting proposal.
Certainly it’s always possible for mediation/negotiation to take place. And I think we all understand which side won’t do that because they need to maintain their brand — which in large part are large historic buildings. And without mediation/negotiation than the only other option would be for the leavers to leave the buildings and allow 815 to use those historic buildings like Trojan horses to deceive pagans with their aping of a Christian church. I can’t imagine why the leavers would wish to do that.
But what I find far more unrealistic is the thought that there would be “common commitments” untainted by the two different gospels of the leaders of 815 and ACNA/departers/conservative Anglicans. One has only, of course, to look at the gospel of the “missionary” [sic] assigned to Haiti by our Dear Leaders to recognize, once again, just how mutually opposing and antithetical the gospels are. Why on earth would the two holders of those gospels be capable of forging “common commitments” when we all know that their agendas and foundational worldviews are opposing?
Thus the last thing that needs to be done is to decrease “the successes of entrepreneurial individuals” — in fact there should be [i]more funding of successful entrepreneurial individuals[/i] since those are the ones who are able to do the most good, and also promote the Christian gospel as well. In the lack of “common purpose” between the two gospels, there will be that funding of individuals and localized initiatives, just as, incidentally, is occurring so much more and often in the US, even in TEC.
Why would there be a way to “coordinate priorities that includes taking Christian formation seriously” when the revisionists and traditionalists within TEC don’t define the word “Christian” in the same way, much less “evangelization”? I have no desire at all for money to be spent evangelizing to the 815 gospel, which would be one of many reasons why I don’t give through the local diocese anymore and have not for years.
I find it odd — when dioceses within the US are so divided as to not agree on a common gospel — that one would expect the same people to agree on outside-US “common purposes” or “common commitments.”
I don’t wish to be in a “common partnership in mission” with people who don’t share the same gospel. Indeed, the fact that we are not in “common partnership in mission” is precisely the originating and foundational reason why we are divided within TEC and without in the US.
That division will continue.
Why?
Because we don’t share the same gospel.
I’d prefer to have common purpose and common mission and common commitments and common partnerships with people who believe the Gospel. Otherwise, I’d donate to the Sikhs or the Buddhists or the Marxists.
Now certainly it would be nice if the various groups of Anglicans within the US shared and believed the same gospel. Then we could unite with common purpose and common commitment and common mission. But alas, that is not the case. And so others suffer — not merely in Haiti but in many other parts of the world — because we do not share the same gospel. Those are the consequences of the divide in the organization.
I wish it were not so. But there it is.
Yes, agreed Sarah, there can be no “common mission” with an organization that supports the Religious Coalition for aborting babies and calls it “social justice”
“Certainly it’s always possible for mediation/negotiation to take place. And I think we all understand which side won’t do that because they need to maintain their brand—which in large part are large historic buildings. And without mediation/negotiation than [sic] the only other option would be for the leavers to leave the buildings and allow 815 to use those historic buildings like Trojan horses to deceive pagans with their aping of a Christian church. I can’t imagine why the leavers would wish to do that.”
Sarah, you have put in a nutshell why my proposal is “unrealistic”.
Of course, it is always possible that “815-ers” and “leavers” might heed Jesus’ words (Mt. 5:22-26), or Paul’s (1 Cor. 6:7). Or even just one of the groups might. Possible, but as you demonstrate, not likely.
On the matter of the church’s work in Haiti, however, I can be more certain. It is indeed possible for people of different theological committments from the outside to be helpful in Haiti at this time. They can give the church money, and in doing so, they can work to let the Haitian church itself organize itself more rationally and serve in a coordinated way. I am not suggesting that Americans tell the Haitian church what to do; and indeed, even if they try it won’t work. The problem with leaving matters as they stand, with parish-to-parish relations standing for all, is precisely that all depends on individuals, entrepeneurial or not. When the former leave — which they often do for all kinds of reasons — the mission falls apart, and who suffers? The people left behind. When the partner parish has a fight and money gets diverted, who suffers? The local Haitian Christians. I have seen this over and over. Relying on balkanized parish-to-parish or parish-to-project support may have been a necessary stop-gap measure in a time of chaos; it is not responsible mission in any extended way, and we have a chance to change matters.
In the face of tremendous human need and ecclesial destruction, there is no reason other than greed, subborness, and/or malice why conservative and progressive Anglicans cannot leave the courtroom — and even leave their buildings! Gracious, at least we have them or even have them to rent, if necessary! — and take their money and support a church that, as ordered by its own leaders and people, can build anew according to its needs. Yes, suggestions, engagement, and the rest by American brethren is also necssary; and when conservative Anglicans get involved in the Episcopal Diocese of Haiti, they may even have some positive influence (as long as they, like others, don’t try to control everything), in terms of sharing a spirit of formative evangelism and theological training that the Haitian church needs (as it needs other things), and for which it has received little support in the recent past.
Why you bring up the problem of anger with a Christian brother [lawsuits often occur with no anger whatsoever — that would be why we have the law] one cannot imagine.
As to the injunction against lawsuits amongst Christians . . . I think we all know that the leavers [and folks like me, too] assert something rather differently than some others do about the “Christians” of 815. So that’s really nothing more than the usual “spinning of the Bible assertion wheel” rather like liberals calling out “shellfish and polyester” to the conservatives across the chasm.
Obviously the leavers and Dr. Radner don’t at all share the same opinions about the nature or identity of those suing them for their property.
But those are old and tedious exchanges. We could all mouth the opposing responses in our sleep now and that’s why I didn’t focus on the property issue as much in my comment.
RE: “In the face of tremendous human need and ecclesial destruction, there is no reason other than greed, subborness, [sic] and/or malice why conservative and progressive Anglicans cannot leave the courtroom—and even leave their buildings!”
An interesting judgement. Of course . . . *if* that were true then it would be true regardless of Haiti’s earthquake and was true prior to it as well since there is “tremendous human need” and “ecclesial destruction” in the Sudan and elsewhere.
I don’t grant the judgement as true.
RE: “Relying on balkanized parish-to-parish or parish-to-project support may have been a necessary stop-gap measure in a time of chaos; it is not responsible mission in any extended way, and we have a chance to change matters.”
Again, neither I nor thousands of other conservative Anglicans wish to do “mission” with a body that is attempting to import a false and pernicious gospel as best they can into other impoverished countries.
That’s, as I said, what is far more unrealistic about the proposal. Even were the leavers to abandon their property to the Trojan Horsemen aping the Christian faith, I’d hope they wouldn’t use that money to consort with those same Trojan Horsemen aping the Christian faith or in any way help those Trojan Horsemen aping the Christian faith import it into other countries.
RE: “It is indeed possible for people of different theological committments from the outside to be helpful in Haiti at this time.”
Oh certainly.
RE: “They can give the church money, and in doing so, they can work to let the Haitian church itself organize itself more rationally and serve in a coordinated way.”
No, I don’t think so, if by “the church” you mean the bishop and ecclesial structures of the Diocese of Haiti, so enmeshed as they are with TEC/815.
RE: “The problem with leaving matters as they stand, with parish-to-parish relations standing for all, is precisely that all depends on individuals, entrepeneurial or not.”
Again, in a corrupt structure, this is a good thing. That’s what happens when the larger structure is corrupt and tied to something even worse, 815 and their “missionaries.” Money devolves to the smaller entity and to the individual.
RE: “When the former leave—which they often do for all kinds of reasons—the mission falls apart, and who suffers? The people left behind. When the partner parish has a fight and money gets diverted, who suffers? The local Haitian Christians. I have seen this over and over. Relying on balkanized parish-to-parish or parish-to-project support may have been a necessary stop-gap measure in a time of chaos; it is not responsible mission in any extended way, and we have a chance to change matters.”
Certainly a corrupt larger structure does mean dire consequences when the smaller structures fall apart. But I have great confidence in the entrepreneurial smaller entities while The Episcopal Church is in this very long-term time of chaos and corruption.
Ephraim’s reference to 1Cor 6 is interesting. It looks to me in the larger context that St. Paul is talking about the Church’s authority to judge(excommunicate) immoral members(1Cor5:9-13). St. Paul then goes on in chap.6 to say that the Church is the proper jurisdiction in which this judgment should take place. In passing St. Paul talks about lawsuits in general between members. In all of this St. Paul is talking about the Church’s God -given authority to judge its members. It’s ironic that Ephraim is using a passage about excommunication for sexual sins for the proposition that same-sex blessers and their opponents should work together in the church. But, perhaps, I’m missing the point.
Thanks, Sarah: I see where you are coming from: The Episcopal church in Haiti is corrupt and beyond the pale of coordinated Christian aid, because it is part of TEC. I can see, with this conviction, why you see no point to my proposal. Needless to say, I not only disagree, I find the judgment — based on my own relationship with many Haitian Episcopalians and their people — sadly misplaced.
I’m not sure what Phil’s concern is: “In passing St. Paul talks about lawsuits in general between members”. Whether “in passing” or not, I assume he meant it. Maybe I shouldn’t.
Why engage in very much idle speculation? The reality is that Ms Schori’s fiat regnum is that no parish will fall into the hands of the ACNA. That is the end of story. Appealing to Christian virtue to the likes of Bruno or Schori is of dubious value because they are dubious Christians. Appealing to integrity won’t work. They have both shown that they are quite comfortable with lying (Schori: “I didn’t sign anything” and “B033 is still in place.” Bruno: “Not in my diocese.”). Appealing to Holy Scriptures won’t work because they will say that not filing lawsuits is only mentioned once and thus can be ignored by their use of numerical exegesis: anything mentioned less than ten times can be ignored except for “tolerance” which is mentioned zero times but overrides all.
So, is this proposition really directed only at the ACNA churches, asking them to unilaterally walk away?
The lawsuits are scandalous and scurrilous, to be sure. But for the most part, they bring shame primarily to the TEClub. As Ephraim+ pointed out in a good letter several weeks ago, the TEClub as we knew it is basically dead. There is no hope for reform. It is actively leading people away from Christ. With this point of view, helping to accelerate the demise is a good thing. Also, other denominations can look upon the self immolation and take warning.
St. Paul condemned taking believers to court. He did not condemn defending oneself in court, in fact, he demanded it for himself. All the lawsuits save one were brought forth by the TEClub.
What a ridiculous idea this is. What a sorry exchange–to surrender the resources of the Kingdom to those who kill souls in order to serve the false hope saving bodies through the same organization. Much better to defend resources here And contribute directly to an uncorrupted Christian mission in country.
Just because you disagree and don’t want to commit Good Shepherd’s resources to it (which is your prerogative) doesn’t make it ridiculous.
Hi Jeremy Bonner,
I did not say it was ridiculous because “I disagree” and “do not want to commit Good Shepherd’s resources to it”.
It is ridiculous because it represents a “sorry exchange”
I endorse posts by Robroy, Sarah, and Matt above.
I am not sure I have fully understood the thrust of Dr Radner’s article – Is he complaining about duplication of effort by ACNA and TEC relief agencies in Haiti, or is it purely a complaint that resources spent on law suits in the US could be better devoted to overseas relief work?
If the former (i.e. complaint about duplication of effort), then he appears to assume a principle that relief work is always more efficient if brought under the largest organisation and widest umbrella possible. In which case, his article should not be restricted to ACNA and TEC: surely we should also be urging the Roman Catholic Relief agencies, the Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Orthodox etc to combine into one? Yet, experience suggests that larger does NOT mean more efficient, often the reverse. Why shouldn’t TEC and ACNA conduct separate relief work – its not as though there are limited opportunities (nor are they limited to Haiti). Both TEC, ACNA and other Anglican groups can provide relief, and indeed might be stirred by “godly jealousy” to outdo each other in good works – I don’t think our brethren in Haiti will complain about that!
But if Dr Radner’s position is simply that money spent on lawsuits would be better spent on relief work, then I would ask: what is the point of such an argument in the absence of a detailed consideration of why the law suits are considered important in the first place? One might just as well argue that both TEC and ACNA should cancel their entire utilities budget and conduct services and administration by candlelight so as to make more funds available for overseas relief work.
I think it would be fair to say that many intelligent and erudite leaders in both TEC and its opponents (not all of whom are ACNA) consider the law-suits to be a particularly important issue. What if they are right? (even though opposed to each other, they can still be both right that the issue is worth litigating) If so, then Dr Radner’s proposal is misconceived from the start – not idealistic, just failing to consider a very important factor.
I would suggest that Dr. Radner’s premise is that the lawsuits themselves are unproductive and that Haiti offers a Crucifixion moment in which the unworthiness on all sides that has accompanied those lawsuits can be subsumed.
Now if you take the Gresham Machen view – which Sarah has neatly summarized above – that between Liberal Christianity and Orthodox Christianity is a gulf that cannot be bridged, then Dr. Radner’s proposal is akin to suggesting that a joint mission effort with – say – the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be preferable to petty disputes with them over matters of doctrine. If you take that view, then obviously it would clearly be inexpedient to go along with the proposal.
However, it isn’t necessarily as simple as that. First, TEC, even in its current guise, isn’t yet monolithic Liberal Christianity (despite the efforts of some). Second, this isn’t a proposal that offers a pragmatic solution to what divides us; rather it proposes bypassing these divisions by acting in a fashion that has more in common with Mennonite non-resistance to authority than anything else. In practice, I would say that it might be easier to achieve now that ACNA is a discrete entity than it was when ACN was a confessing network. Any joint mission undertaking would require agreement on what could and could not be done under such an arrangement.
Now many people don’t want to employ their finite spiritual resources on putting something like this together, but would prefer to focus on what they understand the Holy Spirit to be calling them to do. That seems eminently sensible – one shouldn’t participate in something to which one can’t commit – but I fail to understand why that makes it a bad idea per se. As to why Dr. Radner doesn’t propose a pan-Christian relief effort, I think it’s fairly obvious. He is suggesting an ecumenical endeavor for Anglicans in which common participation in the relief of human suffering will not only serve the Master but contribute to the relief of the tyranny of unChristian hostility that disputes over earthly property have engendered.
This proposal doesn’t require doctrinal compromise – ground rules on Christian formation programs could be agreed upon in advance – and it doesn’t mean that we will suddenly find ourselves reuniting as one Church. You don’t have either to agree with his view of lawsuits or to set aside concerns about the “other side.” Perhaps it’s a prophetic ministry that no one will adopt, perhaps it’s a Cross-shaped ministry intended for a few.
Jeremy at #25
I see the force of some of your points, however:
1. “I would suggest that Dr. Radner’s premise is that the lawsuits themselves are unproductive ….”
Well, precisely. As I noted earlier, there are clearly a very large number of godly, intelligent and educated people who don’t accept that premise.
2. “Now if you take the Gresham Machen view – …” – I don’t know that its necessary even to go that far. Its more that initial theshold question of: “Why?” If TEC, ACNA and other non-TEC Anglicans are running their own assistance programs effectively, why interfere with that?
3. “He is suggesting an ecumenical endeavor for Anglicans in which common participation in the relief of human suffering will not only serve the Master but contribute to the relief of the tyranny of unChristian hostility that disputes over earthly property have engendered.”
But separate participation will serve the Master just as much as common participation. Hence my point above: My Roman Catholic neighbour contributes to different charities to me, yet both do wonderful and godly work, and each respects the other – what possible reason is there to interfere with that?
Secondly, I think on any view the disputes over property have not engendered hostility; surely it is the other way around!
Finally, you assume that the hostility is “unChristian” – but why is that? The apostles Paul, Peter and Jude were all hostile to those who taught heresy in their churches, yet that hostility was not in any sense “unChristian”.
I propose that Ms Schori resign and join a convent, doing penance for her terribly destructive ways and that +Mark Lawrence be elected the new presiding bishop.
I also definitely worry that the Haitian churches will suffer with the demise of the Episcopal once-Church. At my former church, we had two major fundraisers each year to benefit the sister church and school. This year, those monies collected at the fundraisers are going into the general fund instead of to Haiti because giving is way down.
And it is not just Haitian churches that will suffer. All of the foreign churches of Ms Schori’s “Episcopal Communion” will suffer. I hope that the leaders in Haiti, Colombia, Ecuador, etc., know that the membership of the TEClub is plummeting and that falling revenues will surely follow. They need to be securing alternate resources now. Given Ms Schori’s vindictiveness, I doubt those alternative resources could include ACNA churches lest they face her considerable wrath.
RE: “The Episcopal church in Haiti is corrupt and beyond the pale of coordinated Christian aid, because it is part of TEC.”
No, it simply shouldn’t have coordinated *unChristian* aid pretending to be Christian. I thought I’d made that point pretty clear. ; > )
I’m just fine with the Christians giving aid, and the non-Christians giving aid — but not coordinated together in a way that aids the non-Christians pretending to be Christians importing their “gospel” into the Episcopal Church in Haiti.
RE: “I can see, with this conviction, why you see no point to my proposal.”
Me too. We don’t seem to share the same opinions about [i]the nature and identity of the structures of TEC at its highest level.[/i]
RE: “Needless to say, I not only disagree, I find the judgment—based on my own relationship with many Haitian Episcopalians and their people—sadly misplaced.”
My judgement, of course, was about the structures and identity of TEC at its highest level. But regardless, yes, we don’t share the same judgements. For where, for instance, you judge the actions of ACNA parishes striving to keep their property as “greed, subborness, and/or malice” I see those actions as courage, conviction, and commitment. And I suppose where I judge the structures and identity of TEC at its highest level to be anti-gospel, perhaps you see them as sharing the same gospel.
The chasm is, indeed, great between both our judgements on the nature of TEC at its highest levels and the nature of the actions of ACNA parishes striving to keep their property.
RE: “what is the point of such an argument in the absence of a detailed consideration of why the law suits are considered important in the first place?”
MichaelA, I think that Dr. Radner’s point is in part that the law suits should not take place. They are only “important” in so far as they are *intrinsically wrong* in his opinion. At least that is what I took. But like I said earlier that’s an old and tired debate from my perspective.
Jeremy Bonner:
RE: “Dr. Radner’s premise is that the lawsuits themselves are unproductive and that Haiti offers a Crucifixion moment in which the unworthiness on all sides that has accompanied those lawsuits can be subsumed.”
Understood — but obviously some people think the lawsuits very productive. Speaking personally and not for others, I think the material world is important, and I think it the kind of pietism that I grew up around that attempts to make the claim that somehow material goods like property are not important and they should be surrendered to others, particularly others who are purporting to be Christian believers who will use that property to further their pretences. Just a few more Christianized-gnostic steps and some Christians will begin making the claim that relief efforts in Haiti aren’t important because after all, people’s souls are all that matter and not those physical things.
RE: “First, TEC, even in its current guise, isn’t yet monolithic Liberal Christianity (despite the efforts of some).”
I completely agree. I myself am in TEC and have done my own little promotion bit for various aid endeavors, including my own parish’s Haiti mission. That is part of the point — I’m all for the orthodox pockets of TEC putting money into localized initiatives in Haiti. But that was in part precisely what Dr. Radner was opposed to in his proposal. Dr. Radner suggested a more global alliance between the ACNA and TEC funds in “common purposes” and “common commitments” and “common partnership in mission.”
Obviously, we don’t have that — not in the least. Speaking as a TEC insider person I have no desire to support the bureaucratic structures of “the diocese of Haiti” and TEC. We don’t have such “common” commitments or “common partnership in mission.”
RE: “In practice, I would say that it might be easier to achieve now that ACNA is a discrete entity than it was when ACN was a confessing network. Any joint mission undertaking would require agreement on what could and could not be done under such an arrangement.”
My word. It’s as if you don’t even realize what has happened. There is no “joint mission” between ACNA as an entity and TEC as an entity. There is only “joint mission” between pockets of Gospel-believing TEC and other Christians, including ACNA. Jeremy Bonner, do you really not see what has occurred over the past years within TEC and now without? The departure of so many Anglicans and Christians who are [now] in other denominations represents a wholesale [i]repudiation, castigation, denunciation, and any other word of rejection that one can think of[/i] of the gospel that TEC at its highest levels has promoted for so many years now, through websites and “evangelism staff” and newsletters and videos and Via Media classes and new women’s rites and resolutions and Executive Committee actions and budgets and bishops and . . . on and on. This was not a “oh, we have some troubling disagreements so we’ll go over here and start afresh — you go one way and we’ll go another” — this was a “oh, wow, we didn’t realize that you didn’t believe the Gospel — we waited for discipline against those who are preaching a false gospel and when that did not occur, recognized that we needed to depart from these false teachers” departure.
RE: “He is suggesting an ecumenical endeavor for Anglicans . . . ”
My word [again]. An endeavor between ACNA and TEC as a whole is, again, not “ecumenical” but rather inter-faith. That is precisely why we have gone through the past six hideous years. Because the structures of national-TEC aren’t recognizably Christian and instead promote a foul corrupt parody of some sort of gospel that I don’t recognize.
If there had been “common partnership in mission” then ACNA wouldn’t exist, for heaven’s sakes, much less the now thousands of folks like me within TEC who no longer give to the structures of TEC.
I can’t conceive of the leaders of ACNA saying “yeh, now that we’ve left TEC because of the hideous foundational worldview that the leaders at its highest level promote, let’s engage in an ‘ecumenical’ effort with them and help them import whatever it is they’re smoking to Haiti more.”
RE: ” . . . ground rules on Christian formation programs could be agreed upon in advance . . . ”
So we start with deciding which “missionaries” [sic] TEC sends home? And then face a thousand other consequences of their gospel that riddle their structures, staff, programs, funding, communications vehicles, and on and on and on?
Why not simply keep on the way it is going. Orthodox parishes and dioceses within TEC work with ACNA and all other Christians to funnel money into localized support and aid within Haiti, circumventing the power structures there. TEC at the national level keeps doing what it is doing.
RobRoy:
RE: “I propose that Ms Schori resign and join a convent, doing penance for her terribly destructive ways and that +Mark Lawrence be elected the new presiding bishop.”
Now see . . . that is a really really *great* unrealistic proposal!!!
; > )
Your only mistake was in not titling your proposal in advance “an unrealistic proposal.”
Hey Jeremy Bonner, I don’t think you would misread the tone, but in case you would, please know that any tone above in my comment should be more of the “throw up one’s hands in befuddlement” than anything at all stronger. Sometimes the emotions of the commenter don’t come through in blog commenting . . . but I’m sitting here watching sports and having a good time. So the above was said with “an argumentative smile” on my face.
Robroy:
“I propose that Ms Schori resign and join a convent,…”
I predict you will shortly be receiving very aggrieved messages from Mothers Superior all over America…