While preparing for this Convention, and specifically for this Convention address, I felt a bit anxious by all the hydraulics of scarcity we have faced in the past year ”“ as a culture and as a church; and how to respond to them. So I went and read from the wisdom of the two bishops who presided over this diocese during the Great Depression ”“ Wilson Stearly, who served as Diocesan Bishop from 1927-1935; and Benjamin Washburn, who led the diocese from 1935-1958. On one level, scarcity was disarmingly real. Giving from the 158 congregations to the diocese went from $252k in 1929 to $151k in 1933 ”“ a decrease of 40% in 4 years. Giving to the national church went from $136k in 1930 to $40k in 1936 ”“ a 67% decline in six years. The Bishop’s Church Extension Fund (BCEF), then 25 years old, which solicits contributions from people across the diocese to meet needs identified by the bishop, was deployed almost exclusively to help churches with mortgage payments. The hydraulics of scarcity were everywhere ”“ and they caused Bishop Stearly to reflect in his 1932 address: “there is no question about carrying on the work of church although the economic conditions may enforce upon us radical changes of organization and method such perhaps as we had not in former days thought feasible.”
There was, running through eight years of bishops’ addresses, some gentle carping about falling church attendance ”“ and an observation that people were rather unwilling to live fully into their faith; which led to a challenge to live with greater spiritual discipline. Not to mention some advice as to how to cope with the new prayer book.
The scarcity was real, but so was the commitment to abundance ”“ and the willingness to cast out nets again. In 1932, Bishop Stearly proposed what he called a teaching mission in each of the 158 congregations ”“ that would run from Saturday afternoon until Tuesday evening — “to participate in a fresh vision and new understanding of the relationship of the church to the need of the world”. Two years later, over 100 congregations had participated.
Well, this comes as no surprise! It seems that Canon Perry and PB Jefferts Schori are deliberately trying to torpedo any chance that the ACNA will ever be recognized as a province of the Communion. It’s what we’ve all expected.
Hydraulics of scarcity?
Too bad he did not think to exhort his flock to drink deeply from the living water of Christ.
He is sticking with his agenda,
[blockquote]” I see a diocese in which all life long relationships marked by fidelity and commitment are honored and blessed – and that we continue to join with the passion and effort of so many to provide marriage equality in New Jersey.”[/blockquote]
And later he helps me see a problem with “radical hospitality” when he says,
[blockquote]”So – what I see, is a diocese that dares to embrace the stranger; is willing to listen to the story of the stranger; to be transformed by the stranger – and through all of that to be brought deeper into relationship with God.
This is countercultural. It may seem radical. So be it. It is what we have been doing; what we are called to do. It is what God calls us to be. Take a deep breath. We’re going deeper – with the hope and justice of Jesus.”[/blockquote]
The problem I see is with the transforming stranger analogy. He refers to the Benedictine principle of welcoming visitors and showing hospitality. He misses the point that the stranger was not going to be allowed to come in and change the Rule of Benedictine life. The hospitality of the Benedictine might transform the stranger, not the other way around.
what else should we expect, #4, of a diocese which promotes a justice of Christ with no cross?
You beat me to it, frdarin!
The bishop says some smart things.
One of the big myths is that mainline churches are, in general, welcoming or attentive to their local community’s needs. Megachurches often do research and “marketing” to figure out what is missing in a community. Liberal churches kind of expect that, by opening their doors, people will just jump in because of an ideology. But in those churches the liturgy is still obscure, the unspoken rules for “membership” are still hidden, and the work of incorporation remains undone with little follow through. Even in its own liberalism, there is very little discipleship.
Undergroundpewster illustrates the problem, but from a conservative perspective. Most churches still think of themselves as the “elect” with the correct knowledge, slighty patronizing toward the people who are on the outside. It’s an attitude that plenty of heretics throughout history had. A group of individuals has the correct, pure, ideology, everyone else stood condemned.
It seems to me that the church doctrine, the rules, are there precisely to break this stalemate and give everyone a warning. In itsrejection of Arianism, it rejected the consequent perfectionism in spiritual life, while upholding transformation; in its rejection of gnosticism it condemned a radical dualism within the church and in the world. As long as conservatives imply that its the other person who should change first, and not themselves, they stand condemned like liberals, valuing ideology over the brute fact of the suffering that the cross revealed, and our responsibilities to witness and invoke the loving living God that overthrew death.
John Wilkins,
Never thought I’d say this, but I agree completely.
But John,
This would mean that Bishop Beckwith should welcome me in so that I can transform him. Don’t you think such a radical invitation would be highly unlikely?
“Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” Spong must get the big cajones award for telling the biggest whopper. I find it amazing that people are still buying that book. One should also check out the “reviews” speak glowingly of the nonsense. We are still seeing the consequences in Newark of his legacy.
Beckwith quotes the West African proverb: ” if you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.” Apparently, they have a new mission statement! I am sure that will really turn things around!
How about this: “If you are going the wrong direction, stop and turn around.” He talks about “going deeper”. Or how about this one: “If you are in a hole, don’t start digging.”
“Take a deep breath. We’re going deeper.” He’s got that right.
Of course “The hospitality of the Benedictine might transform the stranger” =/ “As long as conservatives imply that its the other person who should change first . . . ”
But that’s SOP for Gawain de Leeuw — change the actual statement, then argue against the new made-up statement while pretending to argue against the original one.
#8 Thank you, Evan.
#9 If Bishop Beckwith could not entertain the possibility that you were speaking the Truth, and had the spirit of Christ as a stranger, he would be a poor bishop. Reappraisers should seek to understand the best interpretation and understanding of the reasserting side, not a caricature of their beliefs (although sometimes reasserters, like reappraisers, act like their own caricatures). And they, like reasserters, should also entertain the possibility they could be wrong.
The experience of some Reappraisers is of Reasserters who do not think of Reappraisers as Christian, and thus not worthy of Christian dialogue. They do not respect the possibility that a Christian can have a different view in good conscience. Some do – several priests in my diocese are very conservative but work with liberal priests and bishops quite collegially. But this is not the atmosphere, especially in the blogosphere. I’m sure some reasserters have felt the same way.
Credible reappraisers have argued that the risk of the change in interpretation is worth taking. They may be wrong, and you are welcome to make your case. As a Christian, every bishop has a responsibility to listen thoughtfully, understand its logic, and make a choice.
As Episcopalians, however, we do submit to authority, which is quite unsexy in our libertine times. I would hope that, in a conservative diocese, I would have the resilience to obey my bishop in all things essential, while hoping he would give me some freedom in preaching. In our tradition, it seems to end at the diocesan bishop, under the responsibility of General Convention.
In some sense, our current conflict is because of our democratic tradition, inflamed by our enjoyment of immediate communication, which seems to inhibit, rather than reward, reflective and charitable argument.
“The hospitality of the Benedictine might transform the stranger, not the other way around.” This may be true. It most surely is. But it is not a requirement, nor is it a guarantee. Hospitality is offered because it is commended by the tradition and it is expected of Christians. It will not always mean we make more Christians.
That’s the error. Otherwise, its more like a market exchange, giving with expectations, with the temptation of pulling back if the recipient doesn’t behave according to our religious expectations. We love our enemies. Period.
And loving means persisting in willing that which is good, resisting the temptation to pull back if the one we love doesn’t will the good.
RE: “The experience of some Reappraisers is of Reasserters who do not think of Reappraisers as Christian, and thus not worthy of Christian dialogue.”
Those two things don’t connect. Let’s rephrase.
“The experience of some Reappraisers is of Reasserters who note that Reappraisers do not believe or promote the Christian gospel, from their own mouths admitting so. All people are, of course, ‘worthy’ — or equally unworthy. But some reappraisers’ [i]actions [/i] [not persons, but actions] are indeed contemptible, particularly the lying, the dissembling, the knowing sophism, the calculated re-defining of words while pretending they haven’t, knowingly pretending and claiming traditional beliefs, etc, etc, etc. And when such reappraisers behave so, and demonstrate that they are mere crass not-even-very-good deconstructionists in their worldview — and not even honest deconstructionists at that as some who happily claim the mantle are — then it is best not to “dialogue” with them, but merely to counter-assert and demonstrate the chasms of values and worldview that appear.”
There — much better.
RE: “They do not respect the possibility that a Christian can have a different view in good conscience.”
Begging the question. “Christians” certainly can have different views in conscience. But once a person who claims to be a Christian also then claims not to believe the Christian gospel in clear sermons, essays, and comments, one then finds no evidence of his or her being a “Christian.” That’s not to say that such a person is or is not a Christian. It’s simply that there is no evidence for it, and lots of evidence against it, rather like a person claiming to be a Buddhist but loudly proclaiming that he does not believe the Four Noble Truths and never meditates. The best thing to do is to simply assert the facts, without interpretation. Who can say if a person who loudly declaims the Gospel and proclaims another gospel in writing “shall not be saved” or “is not a Christian.” One can only say “look — the man does not believe or proclaim the Gospel.”
RE: “Some do – several priests in my diocese are very conservative . . . ”
Given the past deliberate and calculated deconstructionism of words, nobody can know whether those “several priests” are indeed “very conservative” or not. It is a mystery. But such mysteries occur when language and definitions are so willfully abused.
RE: “I’m sure some reasserters have felt the same way.”
This reasserter in particular does not. She feels just fine, nor does she venture over to revisionist blogs and engage either, recognizing as she does that they don’t hold similar enough values or foundational worldviews to engage in a meaningful dialogue, other than to simply counter-assert. And why do that at revisionist blogs when there is ample opportunity over here? ; > )
Its a long address by +Beckwith. There is even a neat little scripture reference at the start.
But the scriptures, i.e. the teachings of our Risen Lord, are really absent from the address. This address could have been delivered by anyone, secular or clerical. The secular humanist probably would have chosen a different illustrative example (rather than Jesus telling Peter to go out and cast his net again), but in substance the address would be the same.
Perhaps I am too spoiled with some of the bishops I have listened to over the years – e.g. ++Harry Goodhew of Sydney, +Ken Short of Wollongong, +Michael Baughan of Chester, +Mathuscla Nyagwaswa of Tanzania. Their sermons brought the fundamentals of the christian faith directly home to their readers. They were pertinent, relevant and inspiring, and could not possibly have been delivered by a secular humanist. An insipid bishop is worse than none at all.
Another matter: Despite +Beckwith’s desperate attempts to dress it up, there is really no leadership for his flock on highly controversial issues which must concern all Anglicans in America. What for instance should his listeners think about the Mary Glasspool election? There are not many points on which both liberals and orthodox are agreed, but one of them is that the Glasspool election is a matter of extreme significance to the Anglican church in America. +Beckwith may not have firm view one way or the other or he may have a highly nuanced view, but whatever, you might think he could have some words of wisdom for his flock about this. But instead we get nothing at all, not even an exhortation to pray for their leaders’ minds on this.
If this is the sort of leadership Newark is getting, why should anyone expect any change there, except a continuation of the same decline?