Well, he is a politician, after all. This is consistent with Rowan Williams’ “Keep Everyone at the Table” approach. And that’s gone so swimmingly, why wouldn’t be just what TEC needs? (Tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Truth is – these are VERY important issues, and to paper over them is not the solution. He essentially proposes a congregational solution – which is so far from being Anglican it’s laughable. And exactly the approach TEC has been taking in regard to its place in the Communion.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. John’s Anglican
Park City UT
[blockquote] As an Episcopalian who is concerned about the fracturing of our church, and one who desires to hold it together,[/blockquote]
… for what purpose? If the existence of God, the need for redemption, and the divinity of Christ and his essential role in our salvation are not understood then what does it mean to be Christian?
It is one thing to stay at the same table if we agree on the purpose and goals of the organization but disagree about how to achieve them but it is nonsense to stay at the same table when we don’t agree about the purpose and nature of the organization.
We have a major problem.
If this were simply a matter of disagreement on theological ideas (views of the Eucharist, or models of the Atonement) then we would not be where we are.
But, TEC is not just discussing the changes nor just advocating for the changes. TEC has implimented these changes as if they were approved by the Church catholic. “There is no going back” to quote several leaders.
To put it into an image that Mr. Baker can understand. A dictator has a border dispute with a neighboring country. Both believe that the border area belongs to them. They take their case to the UN and the UN rules for the neighbor. The Dictator decideds that the UN doesn’t really apply and invades the neighboring country and claims the disputed area (and just a bit more) by right of conquest. The UN says to stop and leave. The dictator says that he will discuss it, but never leaves and claims “there is no going back.” Then, when the neighbor responds militarily to the invasion, the dictator goes to the UN seeking sanctions against the neighbor for invading “his” country.
Former Secretary Baker is a skillful negotiator and “deal maker” in the secular political arena. His attempt to apply a “worldly approach” in resolving a fundamental dispute over our appreciation of “heavenly things” is disappointing. I have long admired Mr. Baker, but agree that his proposal is neither new, nor constructive; and what is more, it would not advance us toward a godly resolution of a dispute that is not about sexuality at all, but rather the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of Holy Scripture in Christ’s Church. Peace within The Episcopal Church (and the wider Anglican Communion of Churches) at any price is no more appealing as a solution for our travails as Episcopalian, Anglican Christians in 2010 than it was for the secular travails presented in the 1930’s as the world faced the evil advance of Hitler’s Third Reich. Had Secretary Baker’s approach been the rule of the day in dealing with Hitler, might not we all be speaking German? Had his approach been followed in the first century following the death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord, would Christianity even be known to the modern world? Perhaps this is a worthy matter for our prayerful reflection as we approach Palm Sunday and the beginning of Holy Week? Let us not forget that the path that leads to salvation is narrow (Matthew 7:13,14).
John A. firstly and rightly points out this is not just about homosexuality. We have heresy being preached at all levels.
Secondly, Mr. Baker is simply calling for the status quo: the liberals will keep doing what they are doing completely undermining the message of orthodox remaining in the denomination. Kendall+ or Bp Lawrence preach the unique atoning role of Jesus or that Christian marriage is necessarily heterosexual, but then Bruno marches in a pride parade and Schori preaches universalism and Kendall+’s and +Lawrence’s godly message is undone. Parishioners wanting true Christianity turn away from the orthodox remnant. Some of the fastest declining dioceses are the conservatives. The liberals are most certainly aware of this, and this is why they continue to push the envelope with a great example being the in-your-face election of Mary Glasspool. “Agreeing to disagree” is simply handing the keys of the denomination to the heretics.
What I find interesting is the Mr Baker’s underlying motivating desire for peace – the survival of the institution – spoken just like someone from the “greatest generation.” 🙂
I also find a certain naivete surrounding the high level of conflict we are all living through, the disparity of power that exists between the two parties, and how irreconcilable and deep our differences really are (see #7 above).
One major problem with this is alternative understandings of “inclusiveness.”
It will be argued on one side that Baker’s proposal is tantamount to tolerating bigotry in the church and preventing inclusiveness – and that a church that tolerates bigotry can’t really be “inclusive,” and is an insult to all persons who aren’t tolerated for ordination and consecration by the bigots. Even if statements are made for a period of 2 1/2 years that deny this, after this period of “stalemate,” the debate will continue again, but this time with more pressure put on the “bigots,” and no respite from the National Church in honoring the agreement. If it can’t control what Spong publishes, I don’t see how it could prevent opinion pieces from priests and bishops who dissent from such a measure. The Church of England measure regarding female bishops also shows us what kind of force such a “promise” has in our current culture – it is good for only a short period of time. Clergy would also be put in place who are trying to “steer” the congregations to vote for “inclusion” and measures would be taken to punish any who encourage thinking about sexuality according to God’s Word.
Yes, this is disappointing tripe from a great political leader who understands a lot about trying to build consensus and politics as the pragmatic art of doing what is possible, but appears clueless about the true nature of this church conflict. After all, unlike politics, religion is about ULTIMATE values. And ultimate values by definition aren’t subject to compromise.
But this illustrates why Fr. Russel Levenson, CP rector of St. Martin’s, Houston, has a huge challenge on his hands. With lots of powerful, widely admired folks like Jim Baker in TEC’s largest congregation (that also includes former president Bush Sr.), it’s going to be hard to maintain a strong, firm stand against the pro-gay agenda, especially when the new bishop, +Andy Doyle, privately favors it.
Fortunately, St. Paul didn’t adopt Baker’s soft, “practical,” conciliatory approach when dealing with the Judaizers, nor did St. Irenaeus when dealing with the Gnostics, nor St. Athanasius when dealing with the Arians, or St. Augustine when dealing with the Pelgians. And in fact, Athanasius and Augustine even resisted going along with the seemingly moderate and pragmatic Semi-Arians and Semi-Pelagians. The Via Media isn’t always the right way forward. Sometimes the seemingly unreasonable, hardline approach is the only right way.
One (among many) problem…the Episcopal Church nor the Anglican Communion are Lord; Jesus is Lord. This isn’t a cult to worship a church or heritage; Christianity is clearly secondary to maintaining the status quo and presitge of the Episcopal Club in this article. Sadly, Mr. Baker is out of his area of expertise.
[blockquote]”I make certain assumptions about
our church. It is tolerant of differing
opinions. It gives great latitude for
decision making at the diocesan and
parish levels.”[/blockquote]
This is one of the places in the piece where he errs.
(i) If the church is tolerant of different opinions, where are those opposed to WO? Did I miss the link to FiF on the TEC website?
😉
For the issue at hand, how many reasserters are on the executive committee? Why is it imperative to establish reappraising facts on the ground even without changing C+Cs? Absent a miracle of reformation, can anyone conceive of a reasserting bishop being elected in MA, NJ, LA?
(ii) Latitude at the diocesan and parish levels is in direct proportion to reappraising conformance. The recent interference by 815 in Dio SC demonstrates this.
Applied to TEC and only to TEC, likely as a second tier AC member, should that even be desired, this isn’t a bad approach. ACNA is going to do its thing and there’s nothing TEC can do about it. Ditto the Anglican Communion, which I think is on the whole thoroughly sick and tired of TEC’s lack of seriousness and is going to move on in one way or other without them. The Covenant is a nonstarter for TEC at the moment and no one would take them seriously if they approved it so pretending to be part of the AC is moot.
So for a tiny, quirkily Protestant, politically liberal boutique of a demonination skating by largely on religious inertia and dead men’s money, this isn’t bad advice. If you aspire in any real sense to be a recognizably Christian Church (and in spite of their seemingly complete theological ignorance, organizational incoherence, and intellectual lilliputianism, most of TEC’s leadership still has some semblence of desire for Christian faith), reasserters you will always have with you. It wouldn’t hurt to at least pretend to respect them. Often enough, the thing pretended to will in time become the thing itself. It’s not much, but for those of us facing the bleak future of life in TEC for the foreseeable future, it would be something.
I have a lot of respect for Secretary Baker, but he is probably not aware that similar proposals (though I think those would have required a supermajority) for parishes and diocese to relate to orthodox structures within the episcopal church were considered and discarded under Griswold back in 2003 or thereabouts. I actually thought that if the orthodox protections were sufficient, it might well have worked.
However, I think, had he been aware of it, even a diplomat such as Baker would see clearly that suggesting now a proposal already vetted and firmly rejected by 815, much more intransigent now than it was in 2003, is strategically and tactically a pointless gesture.
First let me say that I have great respect for former Secretary Baker. He is true patriot with a long and distinguished career in the service of his country. With that out of the way…
He is mistaken on a number of points beginning with his premise that this is about sexuality. It is not. It is about doctrine and the bounds of the church of which the issue of human sexuality is a symptom or subordinate of the broader issues in contention. He proceeds (as other have noted) with an approach that is well suited to international political and diplomatic disputes. However this approach is ill suited to a disagreement where TRUTH is at stake.
Secretary Baker is in effect proposing that there are no absolutes. That there is nothing which must be accepted by someone who defines him or herself as a Christian. And he proposes that democratic principals be applied to matters of church doctrine. This is particularly disturbing. Have we reached the point where the Ten Commandments are now up for referendum?
(If so, I would like to note that there are several I find rather inconvenient.)
I have a somewhat different suggestion for resolving this great issue. However I have doubts that the Anglican Communion is capable of this course of action.
The Archbishop of Canterbury should move to convene a Great Council of the Church. In ancient times when heresy threatened to tear the Church apart Great Councils (also called OEcumenical Councils) were convened by the Emperor with all of the bishops of the Church assembled to resolve the matters in contention. From these councils we have gained the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and dogmatic definitions on the Trinity as also the condemnation of iconoclasm. This is the customary manner for dealing with heresy.
And let us be clear here. Heresy is what is being discussed. Whichever side of the great divide one is on; logic dictates that if one side is right than contrary opinions must be false.
The question therefore is; is the Anglican Communion up to this challenge? Can the Anglican Communion convene a Great Council to settle this matter once and for all? And if not, then what does that say about the AC’s claims to being a branch of the church catholic?
First, I think it only appropriate to welcome Mr. Baker’s opinion. His recommendations, while I suppose naive to those of us more familiar with the vicious assault on orthodoxy, is indeed a Christian approach to a better outcome than the road TEC is on now. It would certainly be a step forward for the PB to stand down from the policy of running orthodox Christians out of TEC, cease her policy of lawsuits, and reinstate the 500+ clergy who have been deposed (if that were canonically possible, which, I believe, it is not- there is no canon for “un-deposing”). Unfortunately, Baker does not make any of these recommendations, but seems to approach the issue as though those things had not happened.
For his suggested policy to have any effect, it would have been best put in place in 1990. Certainly, his suggestions have no applicability once Glasspool has been consecrated- the consecration seals the breaking of “gracious restraint” (which was actually abrogated- in a technical sense- by the first SSB performed a few days after the acceptance of the Windsor report by the ACC). So, there is no gracious restraint to maintain, and unfortunately never has been. To have been serious, TEC would have had to put a stop to the 50 bishops who have been allowing SSBs either openly or by looking the other way, for a decade (more now, no doubt). The election of KJS as PB, when she was in open and flagrant violation (as well as having consented to VGR) was in itself a violation of “gracious restraint.”
That said, I think Mr. Baker might be a fine candidate in years to come should the ABoC decide to put in place some sort of arbitration panel to offer an alternative to the next 100 lawsuits.
Forgive me for saying this but his piece sort of sounds like the current church problems have filtered down to the country-club parish level. Still it is an honor to have a spokesman of Mr. Baker’s stature address this issue as speaking out on this is like painting a target on your back.
Even the local option he proposes, as he notes in his final paragraphs, requires firm, consistent and fair leadership – exactly what is lacking in an alternatingly ideological and incoherent denomination.
I, too, have the greatest respect for Mr. Baker and his service to our nation. But…
As others have pointed out above, this is essentially a secular/worldly solution to a theological dispute, one that doesn’t merely begin and end with sexuality, but stems from some very fundamental differences over the authority of Holy Scripture, tradition, and [i]biblically[/i] informed reason, to say nothing of a basic difference in what one deems Truth…or if one really believes in certain immutable Truths. If one approaches the current TEC/Anglican troubles from a pragmatic, politically-informed worldview, it’s no surprise that you’ll get an essentially pragmatic, political, “let’s just agree to disagree” solution.
As has been pointed out, this MAY have been workable 10 or 20 years ago, depending on one’s definition of “workable.” But IMHO, there can be no long-term “peaceful coexistence” between two sides that are embracing essentially different gospels. Especially if one side, the currently ascendant side in TEC, believes in its soul that compromise is a denial of “justice” and that “there’s no turning back.” How can that side accept for very long a patchwork quilt of parishes and dioceses that differ on fundamentals?? It’s not like we’re agreeing to disagree on vestments and styles of worship!
I hope Mr Baker reads the above polite, erudite and (dare I say it) devastating ripostes to his proposal. He will learn a great deal about the nature of this issue which, respectfully, he does not seem to have grasped at the time he wrote the article. I say that with all respect and as constructive criticism.
The really positive thing about this article is that it shows (as +David Handy points out) that a particular cosy and influential group in the episcopal church are realising that this will affect them. They have worn their membership in a national church (and an international communion) proudly as a badge; yet they now find that their membership is really in a reviled and somewhat excluded minority. How that must hurt…!
Joshua – Like any diplomat, one has to choose the best time to say something. Perhaps now was the time he felt led to jump in. Also, he has been visibly present to CPs for a couple of years, at least.
After reading the essay, I agree with several commentors above re: nature of the fight, the revelation of Truth, the raw effect of Sectry. Baker’s proposal at the parish level. That said, as I read through the comments 1) I began to hear another technique or strategy possibility and 2) I began to hear some large in-between-the-lines messages from Mr Baker.
I think we should agree that James Baker is not stupid. And he is in fact not naive. And he is very skilled. And he is a committed Christian.
So, 1) is it not possible that he has submitted this essay to a publication that will reach arguably the largest of clergy seminary alumnus associations? And all with greater ties to politicos? As well, is it not possible that the master diplomat has dropped only a grain of sand into the oyster, not expecting at all for a serendipitous concensus that immediately makes its way to being facilitated? I think for the sake of this thread it is permissable to consider the possibility of constructive brainstorming. And you know the rules for brainstorming.
and 2) This essay will make the rounds. Those who will be paying close attention will be the members of a strata of laity who have been sitting back, but who have particular leadership skills and gifts. This word from Baker could easily be seen as a calling out of those people to engage in problem-solving, rather than problem-ignoring. As well, this is the same strata where the likes of DBBeers has existed. The comments made, in diplomatic-ease, will not be missed as highly critical of the current regime. I would say this is something out of the play book.
Well you knew the something of the content by the very fact that VTS published it, no? Baker essentially seems to be asking, in the words of Rodney King, can’t we all just get along? I really doubt he is aware of the extent to which ECUSA has in essence declared war on its own, and presided over an unprecedented contraction as small, older parishes shutter their doors and conservatives leave. I have to believe Baker lives in something of a cocoon, his country club demographic parish is holding up well (for now), so he is shielded from the great challenges many of us face.
Okay, the first disturbing statement in this essay is his statement that “some New Hampshire churches” are blessing same sex unions.
HUH?
Does this guy really not know that same sex union blessings are taking place now in closing in on 35 dioceses??????
This sheer ignorance of the facts is further embedded when he states “Until General Convention 2012, the Presiding Bishop, Dioc-
esan Bishops and Standing Committee would continue to honor the call for a time of gracious restraint.”
Huh? “Continue” “gracious restraint”? I mean — it’s as if he’s still back in the 1970s. People on the progressive side have not practiced “gracious restraint” for 6 years now [and truth to tell, they were hiding their same sex blessings long before that, too].
Who on earth is he speaking of as far as bishops and PB practicing “gracious restraint.” Nobody’s doing that, Mr. Baker.
Third, the idea that revisionists — who have *won* at the highest level of the national church — are going to somehow hold back from forcing their belief on every single parish and every single diocese in TEC is sheer lunacy. Again — it’s as if this man is back in the 1970s thinking that he is in some sort of gentleman’s church, rather than the brass knuckled church that we are now in.
Finally, this is just the same old same old chant of “this is not a church-dividing issue.”
But it is. As the church is proving, it is most certainly “church dividing” and will continue to be so, no matter the protests of people like James Baker. Conservatives don’t wish to be in dioceses with heretical non-gospel believing bishops. That’s just the truth. And foaming revisionist activists do not wish to be in dioceses with leaders who believe the Gospel. That’s just the truth.
And the reason for that is that this is a church-dividing issue and is a question of two mutually opposing, and antithetical gospels in one organization.
When that happens . . . well, there will be “public conflict without end in sight.”
This is an incredibly naive “solution” postulated by Mr. Baker, and it simply demonstrates to me that he doesn’t live in the church that he believes he lives in. Maybe he needs to make it a Lenten duty to quietly sit and read blogs every day, and discover what sort of church he does live in. Because right now, he is delusory and in denial and he is postulating “solutions” for a church that does not exist.
At face value it is hard to argue with your observations. I am a little surprised, though, that you didn’t at least recognize your own great and necessary exhortation for “differentiation” found in Baker’s objective, even if you understand the purpose of such objective to be mis-defined.
What we do seem to know is that ANY differentiation, no matter how conceived or so dedicated, will cause turmoil, slander, distrust and obfuscation from the body being differentiated against. And if people don’t see that, then they are indeed naive. And when it comes, the naive, having their naivete blown away, will hopefully be thrown into a spiritual crisis to the point of psalmic prayer. The result of that prayer, “O Lord, what will you have me do?”, will be hearing the Lord say, “Stay and stand firm”, or “Go, be fruitful and multiply.” And if they do not follow their spiritual crisis into prayer, they will succomb into an internal strife with no peace which will manifest in either apparent submission, or separation without vocation. And the spiritual turmoil to follow.
Of course, you know that already, and have come to a proper conclusion.
I would like to hear Sectry Baker, and other well-connected and potentially influential laity, talk about post-differentiated TECUSA, but I don’t think he’s gotten that far. Thankfully, you have. And more power to you.
Maybe I’m way off base, but Mr. Baker essentially suggests adopting a congregational polity to salve this issue. And it seems to me that TEC, following congregational principles, rather than heeding to conciliar polity, is what led us to this mess to begin with. And despite the effectiveness of fighting fire with fire, to attempt to solve problems enabled by congregationalism with more congregationalism seems unworkable.
I have only got round to reading this just now. It seems to me that one should note that Mr Baker is calling for mutual respect, but also for a continuance of “gracious restraint” until at least GC 2012. He issues this call in the interests of his church and its witness, and the vast majority who are at neither extreme.
Now whether you think that his proposal is either desirable or feasible, I think he deserves credit for the effort he has put into making it, and for approaching the issue with the benefit of his experience of international problems, and as a Christian.
We in Britain appreciated the support of the administration of which he was a part, when we needed help, and I am more than willing to give respect and consideration to his advice when he offers this proposal for the church which he clearly loves.
Friends:
As I prepare for Holy Week, and all that this week ahead will tell, I read with great sadness the thread of comments about James Baker’s reflections on the present crisis in the Episcopal Church.
Secretary Baker has no need for anyone to defend him, but given that I found my name somewhere in the thread of comments, I thought I would briefly throw my thoughts in the ring. I had no intention of visiting the article, or this thread of frankly, deeply disturbing responses, but was directed to this posting by a friend.
Sec. Baker wrote this article at the invitation of the Dean of VTS, Ian Markham. It was a companion article to one that I wrote, (Sec. Baker bringing a lifetime of experience as a skilled negotiator) and I, having served six different Dioceses, an a wide variety of settings, and an unapologetic conservative/orthodox and evangelical with a long standing, and clear, record of standing firm against the revisionist agenda. He did not choose to have this article posted or shared beyond the VTS published material, and frankly, I took it as an encouraging sign that Dean Markham would invite both a lay person and a clergy member who hold traditional views on human sexuality to offer possible solutions — (emphasis on possible) to our current crisis, while at the same time calling for continued gracious restraint (where honored) and hopeful outcomes for those Dioceses, clergy, parishes that do want to self-identify.
I suppose what disturbs me most is the mean-spirited and naive responses of those I would hope to find as colleagues in the many issues that currently divide the Church. I thought that T19 had a record (or policy?) against personal attack…but within a few paragraphs, there are sardonic and sarcastic remarks calling the Secretary naive, out of ‘his league,’ ‘clueless,’ and proposing a ‘secular world view that is created by Satan.’ Perhaps the most indefensable comments have to do with taxidermy at the end, (I refer you to those who made those absolutely tasteless comments.).
James Baker is a deeply devoted Christian. His work to bring peace in the Middle East (often successfully) was grounded in a theology that recognized the high calling to honor and protect Israel and his recognition that Christian Palestinians are the descendents of the original followers of Christ. I know him well to be a man of daily prayer, daily reading of the Scripture, uncompromising Christian commitment, and admirably (particularly given his public status) someone who openly speaks of his faith in Jesus Christ and his love of the Church. The comments that are in this strain fail to recognize someone who is a brother, and who has the wisdom, and frankly, Christian charity to try and find a way forward.
Let me suggest (as I did once before on T19) that the real problems that we conservatives have — is that we do not know how to ‘play well together.’ We too often get in the business of picking nits, and losing small battles, because we forget there is a much larger war in the Church today — and it is not waged by the revisionists against the conservatives (or vice versa for that matter), but by Satan who knows his best work is to tear the Church and the Body asunder. Both conservatives and liberals are used by him in this dark, dark, work.
One commenter cynically wrote (paraphrase) “Nah, there will always be those who wish sexuality were not a dividing issue.” I wish it were not — and frankly, unless we know not our Scriptures, Jesus certainly would wish it were not.
How can we approach the holy scenes we will this week — particularly on Thursday evening, when we hear once again Jesus utter His last prayer before His trial begins — “…that all of them may be one,” (Jn. 17:21) — how can we read that prayer and believe our continued departure from one another — even those with whom we vastly disagree — how can we believe the answer is yet further schism — and perhaps even worse, further the kind of negative, angry, cynical comments one finds in this string.
In the last Diocese I served (before Texas) there were six varieties of Anglicanism in one small town — and not one of them worked well (played well?) with the other — they were divided over women’s ordination, prayer book usage, human sexuality, charismatic versus evangelical versus traditional worship…and yet, they all said the Creed on Sunday…all used the Scriptures…all prayed for the Church.
Those who say it is a bit naive to believe “staying at the table” has not gone well (first comment in this string I believe), simply ignore the fact that so many of our conservative friends left the table. There are already divisions within ACNA and AMiA — and how long before there will be a “ReformedACNA…” or the “Orthodox AMiA…”? The devil, friends, is having a field day, and conservatives (of which I am one) who believe there is no “middle ground answer” (of which I am not one) make us an increasingly unnattractive option to those who wish to go to other denominations who find ways of being more loving to one another — or frankly toward revisionists, who seem to find a way to move forward because there is very little that divides them (not praise here — just reality — they play much nicer together than we).
Can we, I wonder, find a way to recognize and honor those who have departed — and those, who like Secretary Baker — or a host of others — are willing to put almost anything on the table to find a way to allow parishes to self-identify and not be distracted by our many divisions — our “schisms rent asunder…”?
I noted also, with some interest that someone said that as rector of St. Martin’s with Sec. Baker as a member, and Bishop Doyle as my Bishop — I have a ‘tremendous challenge on my hands…’ Again, neither Bishop Doyle, nor Sec. Baker need a defender…this I know — Bishop Doyle has been a tremendous friend to conservatives in this Diocese — he was the first (at likely to great strain of his relationship with TEC) bishop to put out a public statement that he would not to consent to Glasspool. The only tremendous challenge I face, is the one all of us face — consistently preaching the Gospel from a biblical and orthodox grounding in the midst of a secular world, an increasingly divided Church, and those who applaud, welcome or receive a watered down theology. This is why the comment (somewhere in this thread) that Bishop Bruno marches or preaches and “undoes what orthodox preaching does” is simply a sad proclamation that either wreaks of fatalism and defeatism, or draws back from the challenge to stand firm, preach faithfully and let God bless the work. What I have found now in all six Dioceses I have served; and the various parishes I have served, is that faithful, consistent, orthodox and Biblical preaching, teaching and pastoral care will grow the Christian family — regardless of what parts are infected by sin, self-centeredness, division, or single minded commitment to an issue over Christ.
I Corinthians 2:2 about sums it up…I wonder what Church we would have today if those who left (and I recognize fully the reason why some have…honor that…pray for them….), but I wonder what kind of Church we would have had today if they ‘had’ stayed…and simply focused on — more than any one thing — proclaiming Jesus Christ and Him crucified and Him risen? I have served small parishes and large, in revisionists’ Dioceses and evangelical, as an assistant and as rector — while there have been days I have been deeply distressed, deeply saddened by our present divisions — I have never been ‘stopped’ from preaching the Gospel.
That day may certainly come — may come for all of us — but until then…I cannot ignore the wise counsel I received (for instance) from the lips of that great evangelical father John Stott, only one year ago, “Russell…don’t leave…stay…and continue to preach faithfully…” I look to the models of those who stayed…from Old Testament Prophets, to New Testament Apostles…to great evangelical heroes like Charles Simeon of Cambridge…John Wesley…Dietrich Bonhoeffer….and of course….the Lord we all share, Who when rejected, did not turn and leave for another region…but stayed, served, preached, loved and forgave…until the very end.
I would submit that those who wrote the terribly offensive comments in this strain…owe the readers of T19 an apology, and at the very least a strong reconsideration of using sarcasm, cynicism, and unfounded criticism as a means of honest critique and giving those who look from the outside in the opportunity to say, “That is not the kind of family I would ever want to join.” Surely, we can do better than that.
Offered with sadness on the eve of Palm Sunday, not so much for the greater divisions of the Church, but those that continue and even deepen, among those who desperately need to find more ways to draw together than pull apart; and offered with the hope that those who have left will prosper in ministry and those who stay in TEC will do the same — for the sake of Christ, and the Church not of human making, but the Church Triumphant…
Russell Levenson, Jr.
Rector, St. Martin’s
Houston, Texas
You do NOVA Scout a disservice in your referring to his taxidermic comments. He is a happy revisionist and meant to honor James Baker’s idea. Believe you me, NOVA Scout sees a kindred spirit in Mr. Baker.
I don’t have any interest or need of defending myself but I did want to set the record straight on that. NOVA Scout meant to assert that he wished people like James Baker would be preserved — it’s like a comment saying “may your tribe increase.”
While I am sure that Mr. Baker is a wonderful and Christian, caring man, I am thankful that so many on this comment thread saw his proposed “solution” as so deeply flawed.
Also for the record:
— I am a happy and committed member of TEC. Should I ever leave it is extremely unlikely that I will be a part of ACNA. I have no desire for anyone to leave TEC unless they are called by God to do so, and if that occurs I wish them a wonderful place, whether Anglican in ACNA or elsewhere.
— There were very few “terribly offensive comments” on this thread — the vast majority were thoughtful, helpful critiques of a deeply flawed and incredibly unfortunate “solution” postulated by someone who probably is a lovely Christian. People can be great Christians and still postulate the occasional poor idea. There was almost no “unfounded critique” — the critique was quite founded.
— The whole “stay until we outgrow them” strategy was tried until 2000, and the result was that during that time the revisionist activists took over the political levers of TEC. The “we’re staying and focusing on the Gospel” simply allowed the anti-gospel folks to gain the power that they now have to do as they please, when they please. So the answer to “what would have happened” is highly likely to have been “more of the same.”
— I believe that we [i]should[/i] be “distracted” by the terrible heresies in our church, including the heresy of calling same-gender sexual relations holy and blessed. That “distraction” is actually the battle which we have been given for this time.
— I do not believe the answer is “yet further schism” — I believe the answer is church discipline, as described by Holy Scripture with regards to how to deal with false teachers. And if the Anglican Communion does not enact church discipline, it will end up as TEC is ending up.
Offered with peace on a rainy Palm Sunday [we had a hail storm!],
Well, he is a politician, after all. This is consistent with Rowan Williams’ “Keep Everyone at the Table” approach. And that’s gone so swimmingly, why wouldn’t be just what TEC needs? (Tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Truth is – these are VERY important issues, and to paper over them is not the solution. He essentially proposes a congregational solution – which is so far from being Anglican it’s laughable. And exactly the approach TEC has been taking in regard to its place in the Communion.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. John’s Anglican
Park City UT
[blockquote] As an Episcopalian who is concerned about the fracturing of our church, and one who desires to hold it together,[/blockquote]
… for what purpose? If the existence of God, the need for redemption, and the divinity of Christ and his essential role in our salvation are not understood then what does it mean to be Christian?
It is one thing to stay at the same table if we agree on the purpose and goals of the organization but disagree about how to achieve them but it is nonsense to stay at the same table when we don’t agree about the purpose and nature of the organization.
Nothing new or constructive here.
We have a major problem.
If this were simply a matter of disagreement on theological ideas (views of the Eucharist, or models of the Atonement) then we would not be where we are.
But, TEC is not just discussing the changes nor just advocating for the changes. TEC has implimented these changes as if they were approved by the Church catholic. “There is no going back” to quote several leaders.
To put it into an image that Mr. Baker can understand. A dictator has a border dispute with a neighboring country. Both believe that the border area belongs to them. They take their case to the UN and the UN rules for the neighbor. The Dictator decideds that the UN doesn’t really apply and invades the neighboring country and claims the disputed area (and just a bit more) by right of conquest. The UN says to stop and leave. The dictator says that he will discuss it, but never leaves and claims “there is no going back.” Then, when the neighbor responds militarily to the invasion, the dictator goes to the UN seeking sanctions against the neighbor for invading “his” country.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Yum! A recipe for fudge. Sounds delicious.
“… a reasonable and democratic solution.” Sorry, Mr. Secretary, but you are out of your league.
Former Secretary Baker is a skillful negotiator and “deal maker” in the secular political arena. His attempt to apply a “worldly approach” in resolving a fundamental dispute over our appreciation of “heavenly things” is disappointing. I have long admired Mr. Baker, but agree that his proposal is neither new, nor constructive; and what is more, it would not advance us toward a godly resolution of a dispute that is not about sexuality at all, but rather the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of Holy Scripture in Christ’s Church. Peace within The Episcopal Church (and the wider Anglican Communion of Churches) at any price is no more appealing as a solution for our travails as Episcopalian, Anglican Christians in 2010 than it was for the secular travails presented in the 1930’s as the world faced the evil advance of Hitler’s Third Reich. Had Secretary Baker’s approach been the rule of the day in dealing with Hitler, might not we all be speaking German? Had his approach been followed in the first century following the death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord, would Christianity even be known to the modern world? Perhaps this is a worthy matter for our prayerful reflection as we approach Palm Sunday and the beginning of Holy Week? Let us not forget that the path that leads to salvation is narrow (Matthew 7:13,14).
God’s peace,
Joe Roberts
John A. firstly and rightly points out this is not just about homosexuality. We have heresy being preached at all levels.
Secondly, Mr. Baker is simply calling for the status quo: the liberals will keep doing what they are doing completely undermining the message of orthodox remaining in the denomination. Kendall+ or Bp Lawrence preach the unique atoning role of Jesus or that Christian marriage is necessarily heterosexual, but then Bruno marches in a pride parade and Schori preaches universalism and Kendall+’s and +Lawrence’s godly message is undone. Parishioners wanting true Christianity turn away from the orthodox remnant. Some of the fastest declining dioceses are the conservatives. The liberals are most certainly aware of this, and this is why they continue to push the envelope with a great example being the in-your-face election of Mary Glasspool. “Agreeing to disagree” is simply handing the keys of the denomination to the heretics.
“Peace in our time.”
What I find interesting is the Mr Baker’s underlying motivating desire for peace – the survival of the institution – spoken just like someone from the “greatest generation.” 🙂
I also find a certain naivete surrounding the high level of conflict we are all living through, the disparity of power that exists between the two parties, and how irreconcilable and deep our differences really are (see #7 above).
One major problem with this is alternative understandings of “inclusiveness.”
It will be argued on one side that Baker’s proposal is tantamount to tolerating bigotry in the church and preventing inclusiveness – and that a church that tolerates bigotry can’t really be “inclusive,” and is an insult to all persons who aren’t tolerated for ordination and consecration by the bigots. Even if statements are made for a period of 2 1/2 years that deny this, after this period of “stalemate,” the debate will continue again, but this time with more pressure put on the “bigots,” and no respite from the National Church in honoring the agreement. If it can’t control what Spong publishes, I don’t see how it could prevent opinion pieces from priests and bishops who dissent from such a measure. The Church of England measure regarding female bishops also shows us what kind of force such a “promise” has in our current culture – it is good for only a short period of time. Clergy would also be put in place who are trying to “steer” the congregations to vote for “inclusion” and measures would be taken to punish any who encourage thinking about sexuality according to God’s Word.
Yes, this is disappointing tripe from a great political leader who understands a lot about trying to build consensus and politics as the pragmatic art of doing what is possible, but appears clueless about the true nature of this church conflict. After all, unlike politics, religion is about ULTIMATE values. And ultimate values by definition aren’t subject to compromise.
But this illustrates why Fr. Russel Levenson, CP rector of St. Martin’s, Houston, has a huge challenge on his hands. With lots of powerful, widely admired folks like Jim Baker in TEC’s largest congregation (that also includes former president Bush Sr.), it’s going to be hard to maintain a strong, firm stand against the pro-gay agenda, especially when the new bishop, +Andy Doyle, privately favors it.
Fortunately, St. Paul didn’t adopt Baker’s soft, “practical,” conciliatory approach when dealing with the Judaizers, nor did St. Irenaeus when dealing with the Gnostics, nor St. Athanasius when dealing with the Arians, or St. Augustine when dealing with the Pelgians. And in fact, Athanasius and Augustine even resisted going along with the seemingly moderate and pragmatic Semi-Arians and Semi-Pelagians. The Via Media isn’t always the right way forward. Sometimes the seemingly unreasonable, hardline approach is the only right way.
David Handy+
One (among many) problem…the Episcopal Church nor the Anglican Communion are Lord; Jesus is Lord. This isn’t a cult to worship a church or heritage; Christianity is clearly secondary to maintaining the status quo and presitge of the Episcopal Club in this article. Sadly, Mr. Baker is out of his area of expertise.
[blockquote]”I make certain assumptions about
our church. It is tolerant of differing
opinions. It gives great latitude for
decision making at the diocesan and
parish levels.”[/blockquote]
This is one of the places in the piece where he errs.
(i) If the church is tolerant of different opinions, where are those opposed to WO? Did I miss the link to FiF on the TEC website?
😉
For the issue at hand, how many reasserters are on the executive committee? Why is it imperative to establish reappraising facts on the ground even without changing C+Cs? Absent a miracle of reformation, can anyone conceive of a reasserting bishop being elected in MA, NJ, LA?
(ii) Latitude at the diocesan and parish levels is in direct proportion to reappraising conformance. The recent interference by 815 in Dio SC demonstrates this.
Applied to TEC and only to TEC, likely as a second tier AC member, should that even be desired, this isn’t a bad approach. ACNA is going to do its thing and there’s nothing TEC can do about it. Ditto the Anglican Communion, which I think is on the whole thoroughly sick and tired of TEC’s lack of seriousness and is going to move on in one way or other without them. The Covenant is a nonstarter for TEC at the moment and no one would take them seriously if they approved it so pretending to be part of the AC is moot.
So for a tiny, quirkily Protestant, politically liberal boutique of a demonination skating by largely on religious inertia and dead men’s money, this isn’t bad advice. If you aspire in any real sense to be a recognizably Christian Church (and in spite of their seemingly complete theological ignorance, organizational incoherence, and intellectual lilliputianism, most of TEC’s leadership still has some semblence of desire for Christian faith), reasserters you will always have with you. It wouldn’t hurt to at least pretend to respect them. Often enough, the thing pretended to will in time become the thing itself. It’s not much, but for those of us facing the bleak future of life in TEC for the foreseeable future, it would be something.
I have a lot of respect for Secretary Baker, but he is probably not aware that similar proposals (though I think those would have required a supermajority) for parishes and diocese to relate to orthodox structures within the episcopal church were considered and discarded under Griswold back in 2003 or thereabouts. I actually thought that if the orthodox protections were sufficient, it might well have worked.
However, I think, had he been aware of it, even a diplomat such as Baker would see clearly that suggesting now a proposal already vetted and firmly rejected by 815, much more intransigent now than it was in 2003, is strategically and tactically a pointless gesture.
[i] Ad Hominem comment deleted by elf. [/i]
First let me say that I have great respect for former Secretary Baker. He is true patriot with a long and distinguished career in the service of his country. With that out of the way…
He is mistaken on a number of points beginning with his premise that this is about sexuality. It is not. It is about doctrine and the bounds of the church of which the issue of human sexuality is a symptom or subordinate of the broader issues in contention. He proceeds (as other have noted) with an approach that is well suited to international political and diplomatic disputes. However this approach is ill suited to a disagreement where TRUTH is at stake.
Secretary Baker is in effect proposing that there are no absolutes. That there is nothing which must be accepted by someone who defines him or herself as a Christian. And he proposes that democratic principals be applied to matters of church doctrine. This is particularly disturbing. Have we reached the point where the Ten Commandments are now up for referendum?
(If so, I would like to note that there are several I find rather inconvenient.)
I have a somewhat different suggestion for resolving this great issue. However I have doubts that the Anglican Communion is capable of this course of action.
The Archbishop of Canterbury should move to convene a Great Council of the Church. In ancient times when heresy threatened to tear the Church apart Great Councils (also called OEcumenical Councils) were convened by the Emperor with all of the bishops of the Church assembled to resolve the matters in contention. From these councils we have gained the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and dogmatic definitions on the Trinity as also the condemnation of iconoclasm. This is the customary manner for dealing with heresy.
And let us be clear here. Heresy is what is being discussed. Whichever side of the great divide one is on; logic dictates that if one side is right than contrary opinions must be false.
The question therefore is; is the Anglican Communion up to this challenge? Can the Anglican Communion convene a Great Council to settle this matter once and for all? And if not, then what does that say about the AC’s claims to being a branch of the church catholic?
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
First, I think it only appropriate to welcome Mr. Baker’s opinion. His recommendations, while I suppose naive to those of us more familiar with the vicious assault on orthodoxy, is indeed a Christian approach to a better outcome than the road TEC is on now. It would certainly be a step forward for the PB to stand down from the policy of running orthodox Christians out of TEC, cease her policy of lawsuits, and reinstate the 500+ clergy who have been deposed (if that were canonically possible, which, I believe, it is not- there is no canon for “un-deposing”). Unfortunately, Baker does not make any of these recommendations, but seems to approach the issue as though those things had not happened.
For his suggested policy to have any effect, it would have been best put in place in 1990. Certainly, his suggestions have no applicability once Glasspool has been consecrated- the consecration seals the breaking of “gracious restraint” (which was actually abrogated- in a technical sense- by the first SSB performed a few days after the acceptance of the Windsor report by the ACC). So, there is no gracious restraint to maintain, and unfortunately never has been. To have been serious, TEC would have had to put a stop to the 50 bishops who have been allowing SSBs either openly or by looking the other way, for a decade (more now, no doubt). The election of KJS as PB, when she was in open and flagrant violation (as well as having consented to VGR) was in itself a violation of “gracious restraint.”
That said, I think Mr. Baker might be a fine candidate in years to come should the ABoC decide to put in place some sort of arbitration panel to offer an alternative to the next 100 lawsuits.
Forgive me for saying this but his piece sort of sounds like the current church problems have filtered down to the country-club parish level. Still it is an honor to have a spokesman of Mr. Baker’s stature address this issue as speaking out on this is like painting a target on your back.
Even the local option he proposes, as he notes in his final paragraphs, requires firm, consistent and fair leadership – exactly what is lacking in an alternatingly ideological and incoherent denomination.
I, too, have the greatest respect for Mr. Baker and his service to our nation. But…
As others have pointed out above, this is essentially a secular/worldly solution to a theological dispute, one that doesn’t merely begin and end with sexuality, but stems from some very fundamental differences over the authority of Holy Scripture, tradition, and [i]biblically[/i] informed reason, to say nothing of a basic difference in what one deems Truth…or if one really believes in certain immutable Truths. If one approaches the current TEC/Anglican troubles from a pragmatic, politically-informed worldview, it’s no surprise that you’ll get an essentially pragmatic, political, “let’s just agree to disagree” solution.
As has been pointed out, this MAY have been workable 10 or 20 years ago, depending on one’s definition of “workable.” But IMHO, there can be no long-term “peaceful coexistence” between two sides that are embracing essentially different gospels. Especially if one side, the currently ascendant side in TEC, believes in its soul that compromise is a denial of “justice” and that “there’s no turning back.” How can that side accept for very long a patchwork quilt of parishes and dioceses that differ on fundamentals?? It’s not like we’re agreeing to disagree on vestments and styles of worship!
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
I hope Mr Baker reads the above polite, erudite and (dare I say it) devastating ripostes to his proposal. He will learn a great deal about the nature of this issue which, respectfully, he does not seem to have grasped at the time he wrote the article. I say that with all respect and as constructive criticism.
The really positive thing about this article is that it shows (as +David Handy points out) that a particular cosy and influential group in the episcopal church are realising that this will affect them. They have worn their membership in a national church (and an international communion) proudly as a badge; yet they now find that their membership is really in a reviled and somewhat excluded minority. How that must hurt…!
Joshua – Like any diplomat, one has to choose the best time to say something. Perhaps now was the time he felt led to jump in. Also, he has been visibly present to CPs for a couple of years, at least.
After reading the essay, I agree with several commentors above re: nature of the fight, the revelation of Truth, the raw effect of Sectry. Baker’s proposal at the parish level. That said, as I read through the comments 1) I began to hear another technique or strategy possibility and 2) I began to hear some large in-between-the-lines messages from Mr Baker.
I think we should agree that James Baker is not stupid. And he is in fact not naive. And he is very skilled. And he is a committed Christian.
So, 1) is it not possible that he has submitted this essay to a publication that will reach arguably the largest of clergy seminary alumnus associations? And all with greater ties to politicos? As well, is it not possible that the master diplomat has dropped only a grain of sand into the oyster, not expecting at all for a serendipitous concensus that immediately makes its way to being facilitated? I think for the sake of this thread it is permissable to consider the possibility of constructive brainstorming. And you know the rules for brainstorming.
and 2) This essay will make the rounds. Those who will be paying close attention will be the members of a strata of laity who have been sitting back, but who have particular leadership skills and gifts. This word from Baker could easily be seen as a calling out of those people to engage in problem-solving, rather than problem-ignoring. As well, this is the same strata where the likes of DBBeers has existed. The comments made, in diplomatic-ease, will not be missed as highly critical of the current regime. I would say this is something out of the play book.
I would encourage Mr Baker to continue to rile.
Well you knew the something of the content by the very fact that VTS published it, no? Baker essentially seems to be asking, in the words of Rodney King, can’t we all just get along? I really doubt he is aware of the extent to which ECUSA has in essence declared war on its own, and presided over an unprecedented contraction as small, older parishes shutter their doors and conservatives leave. I have to believe Baker lives in something of a cocoon, his country club demographic parish is holding up well (for now), so he is shielded from the great challenges many of us face.
Okay, the first disturbing statement in this essay is his statement that “some New Hampshire churches” are blessing same sex unions.
HUH?
Does this guy really not know that same sex union blessings are taking place now in closing in on 35 dioceses??????
This sheer ignorance of the facts is further embedded when he states “Until General Convention 2012, the Presiding Bishop, Dioc-
esan Bishops and Standing Committee would continue to honor the call for a time of gracious restraint.”
Huh? “Continue” “gracious restraint”? I mean — it’s as if he’s still back in the 1970s. People on the progressive side have not practiced “gracious restraint” for 6 years now [and truth to tell, they were hiding their same sex blessings long before that, too].
Who on earth is he speaking of as far as bishops and PB practicing “gracious restraint.” Nobody’s doing that, Mr. Baker.
Third, the idea that revisionists — who have *won* at the highest level of the national church — are going to somehow hold back from forcing their belief on every single parish and every single diocese in TEC is sheer lunacy. Again — it’s as if this man is back in the 1970s thinking that he is in some sort of gentleman’s church, rather than the brass knuckled church that we are now in.
Finally, this is just the same old same old chant of “this is not a church-dividing issue.”
But it is. As the church is proving, it is most certainly “church dividing” and will continue to be so, no matter the protests of people like James Baker. Conservatives don’t wish to be in dioceses with heretical non-gospel believing bishops. That’s just the truth. And foaming revisionist activists do not wish to be in dioceses with leaders who believe the Gospel. That’s just the truth.
And the reason for that is that this is a church-dividing issue and is a question of two mutually opposing, and antithetical gospels in one organization.
When that happens . . . well, there will be “public conflict without end in sight.”
This is an incredibly naive “solution” postulated by Mr. Baker, and it simply demonstrates to me that he doesn’t live in the church that he believes he lives in. Maybe he needs to make it a Lenten duty to quietly sit and read blogs every day, and discover what sort of church he does live in. Because right now, he is delusory and in denial and he is postulating “solutions” for a church that does not exist.
Sarah,
So much for the value of brainstorming.
Be that as it may….
At face value it is hard to argue with your observations. I am a little surprised, though, that you didn’t at least recognize your own great and necessary exhortation for “differentiation” found in Baker’s objective, even if you understand the purpose of such objective to be mis-defined.
What we do seem to know is that ANY differentiation, no matter how conceived or so dedicated, will cause turmoil, slander, distrust and obfuscation from the body being differentiated against. And if people don’t see that, then they are indeed naive. And when it comes, the naive, having their naivete blown away, will hopefully be thrown into a spiritual crisis to the point of psalmic prayer. The result of that prayer, “O Lord, what will you have me do?”, will be hearing the Lord say, “Stay and stand firm”, or “Go, be fruitful and multiply.” And if they do not follow their spiritual crisis into prayer, they will succomb into an internal strife with no peace which will manifest in either apparent submission, or separation without vocation. And the spiritual turmoil to follow.
Of course, you know that already, and have come to a proper conclusion.
I would like to hear Sectry Baker, and other well-connected and potentially influential laity, talk about post-differentiated TECUSA, but I don’t think he’s gotten that far. Thankfully, you have. And more power to you.
Maybe I’m way off base, but Mr. Baker essentially suggests adopting a congregational polity to salve this issue. And it seems to me that TEC, following congregational principles, rather than heeding to conciliar polity, is what led us to this mess to begin with. And despite the effectiveness of fighting fire with fire, to attempt to solve problems enabled by congregationalism with more congregationalism seems unworkable.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
[i] Response to #30 edited by elf. [/i]
I have only got round to reading this just now. It seems to me that one should note that Mr Baker is calling for mutual respect, but also for a continuance of “gracious restraint” until at least GC 2012. He issues this call in the interests of his church and its witness, and the vast majority who are at neither extreme.
Now whether you think that his proposal is either desirable or feasible, I think he deserves credit for the effort he has put into making it, and for approaching the issue with the benefit of his experience of international problems, and as a Christian.
We in Britain appreciated the support of the administration of which he was a part, when we needed help, and I am more than willing to give respect and consideration to his advice when he offers this proposal for the church which he clearly loves.
Friends:
As I prepare for Holy Week, and all that this week ahead will tell, I read with great sadness the thread of comments about James Baker’s reflections on the present crisis in the Episcopal Church.
Secretary Baker has no need for anyone to defend him, but given that I found my name somewhere in the thread of comments, I thought I would briefly throw my thoughts in the ring. I had no intention of visiting the article, or this thread of frankly, deeply disturbing responses, but was directed to this posting by a friend.
Sec. Baker wrote this article at the invitation of the Dean of VTS, Ian Markham. It was a companion article to one that I wrote, (Sec. Baker bringing a lifetime of experience as a skilled negotiator) and I, having served six different Dioceses, an a wide variety of settings, and an unapologetic conservative/orthodox and evangelical with a long standing, and clear, record of standing firm against the revisionist agenda. He did not choose to have this article posted or shared beyond the VTS published material, and frankly, I took it as an encouraging sign that Dean Markham would invite both a lay person and a clergy member who hold traditional views on human sexuality to offer possible solutions — (emphasis on possible) to our current crisis, while at the same time calling for continued gracious restraint (where honored) and hopeful outcomes for those Dioceses, clergy, parishes that do want to self-identify.
I suppose what disturbs me most is the mean-spirited and naive responses of those I would hope to find as colleagues in the many issues that currently divide the Church. I thought that T19 had a record (or policy?) against personal attack…but within a few paragraphs, there are sardonic and sarcastic remarks calling the Secretary naive, out of ‘his league,’ ‘clueless,’ and proposing a ‘secular world view that is created by Satan.’ Perhaps the most indefensable comments have to do with taxidermy at the end, (I refer you to those who made those absolutely tasteless comments.).
James Baker is a deeply devoted Christian. His work to bring peace in the Middle East (often successfully) was grounded in a theology that recognized the high calling to honor and protect Israel and his recognition that Christian Palestinians are the descendents of the original followers of Christ. I know him well to be a man of daily prayer, daily reading of the Scripture, uncompromising Christian commitment, and admirably (particularly given his public status) someone who openly speaks of his faith in Jesus Christ and his love of the Church. The comments that are in this strain fail to recognize someone who is a brother, and who has the wisdom, and frankly, Christian charity to try and find a way forward.
Let me suggest (as I did once before on T19) that the real problems that we conservatives have — is that we do not know how to ‘play well together.’ We too often get in the business of picking nits, and losing small battles, because we forget there is a much larger war in the Church today — and it is not waged by the revisionists against the conservatives (or vice versa for that matter), but by Satan who knows his best work is to tear the Church and the Body asunder. Both conservatives and liberals are used by him in this dark, dark, work.
One commenter cynically wrote (paraphrase) “Nah, there will always be those who wish sexuality were not a dividing issue.” I wish it were not — and frankly, unless we know not our Scriptures, Jesus certainly would wish it were not.
How can we approach the holy scenes we will this week — particularly on Thursday evening, when we hear once again Jesus utter His last prayer before His trial begins — “…that all of them may be one,” (Jn. 17:21) — how can we read that prayer and believe our continued departure from one another — even those with whom we vastly disagree — how can we believe the answer is yet further schism — and perhaps even worse, further the kind of negative, angry, cynical comments one finds in this string.
In the last Diocese I served (before Texas) there were six varieties of Anglicanism in one small town — and not one of them worked well (played well?) with the other — they were divided over women’s ordination, prayer book usage, human sexuality, charismatic versus evangelical versus traditional worship…and yet, they all said the Creed on Sunday…all used the Scriptures…all prayed for the Church.
Those who say it is a bit naive to believe “staying at the table” has not gone well (first comment in this string I believe), simply ignore the fact that so many of our conservative friends left the table. There are already divisions within ACNA and AMiA — and how long before there will be a “ReformedACNA…” or the “Orthodox AMiA…”? The devil, friends, is having a field day, and conservatives (of which I am one) who believe there is no “middle ground answer” (of which I am not one) make us an increasingly unnattractive option to those who wish to go to other denominations who find ways of being more loving to one another — or frankly toward revisionists, who seem to find a way to move forward because there is very little that divides them (not praise here — just reality — they play much nicer together than we).
Can we, I wonder, find a way to recognize and honor those who have departed — and those, who like Secretary Baker — or a host of others — are willing to put almost anything on the table to find a way to allow parishes to self-identify and not be distracted by our many divisions — our “schisms rent asunder…”?
I noted also, with some interest that someone said that as rector of St. Martin’s with Sec. Baker as a member, and Bishop Doyle as my Bishop — I have a ‘tremendous challenge on my hands…’ Again, neither Bishop Doyle, nor Sec. Baker need a defender…this I know — Bishop Doyle has been a tremendous friend to conservatives in this Diocese — he was the first (at likely to great strain of his relationship with TEC) bishop to put out a public statement that he would not to consent to Glasspool. The only tremendous challenge I face, is the one all of us face — consistently preaching the Gospel from a biblical and orthodox grounding in the midst of a secular world, an increasingly divided Church, and those who applaud, welcome or receive a watered down theology. This is why the comment (somewhere in this thread) that Bishop Bruno marches or preaches and “undoes what orthodox preaching does” is simply a sad proclamation that either wreaks of fatalism and defeatism, or draws back from the challenge to stand firm, preach faithfully and let God bless the work. What I have found now in all six Dioceses I have served; and the various parishes I have served, is that faithful, consistent, orthodox and Biblical preaching, teaching and pastoral care will grow the Christian family — regardless of what parts are infected by sin, self-centeredness, division, or single minded commitment to an issue over Christ.
I Corinthians 2:2 about sums it up…I wonder what Church we would have today if those who left (and I recognize fully the reason why some have…honor that…pray for them….), but I wonder what kind of Church we would have had today if they ‘had’ stayed…and simply focused on — more than any one thing — proclaiming Jesus Christ and Him crucified and Him risen? I have served small parishes and large, in revisionists’ Dioceses and evangelical, as an assistant and as rector — while there have been days I have been deeply distressed, deeply saddened by our present divisions — I have never been ‘stopped’ from preaching the Gospel.
That day may certainly come — may come for all of us — but until then…I cannot ignore the wise counsel I received (for instance) from the lips of that great evangelical father John Stott, only one year ago, “Russell…don’t leave…stay…and continue to preach faithfully…” I look to the models of those who stayed…from Old Testament Prophets, to New Testament Apostles…to great evangelical heroes like Charles Simeon of Cambridge…John Wesley…Dietrich Bonhoeffer….and of course….the Lord we all share, Who when rejected, did not turn and leave for another region…but stayed, served, preached, loved and forgave…until the very end.
I would submit that those who wrote the terribly offensive comments in this strain…owe the readers of T19 an apology, and at the very least a strong reconsideration of using sarcasm, cynicism, and unfounded criticism as a means of honest critique and giving those who look from the outside in the opportunity to say, “That is not the kind of family I would ever want to join.” Surely, we can do better than that.
Offered with sadness on the eve of Palm Sunday, not so much for the greater divisions of the Church, but those that continue and even deepen, among those who desperately need to find more ways to draw together than pull apart; and offered with the hope that those who have left will prosper in ministry and those who stay in TEC will do the same — for the sake of Christ, and the Church not of human making, but the Church Triumphant…
Russell Levenson, Jr.
Rector, St. Martin’s
Houston, Texas
Russell Levenson,
You do NOVA Scout a disservice in your referring to his taxidermic comments. He is a happy revisionist and meant to honor James Baker’s idea. Believe you me, NOVA Scout sees a kindred spirit in Mr. Baker.
I don’t have any interest or need of defending myself but I did want to set the record straight on that. NOVA Scout meant to assert that he wished people like James Baker would be preserved — it’s like a comment saying “may your tribe increase.”
While I am sure that Mr. Baker is a wonderful and Christian, caring man, I am thankful that so many on this comment thread saw his proposed “solution” as so deeply flawed.
Also for the record:
— I am a happy and committed member of TEC. Should I ever leave it is extremely unlikely that I will be a part of ACNA. I have no desire for anyone to leave TEC unless they are called by God to do so, and if that occurs I wish them a wonderful place, whether Anglican in ACNA or elsewhere.
— There were very few “terribly offensive comments” on this thread — the vast majority were thoughtful, helpful critiques of a deeply flawed and incredibly unfortunate “solution” postulated by someone who probably is a lovely Christian. People can be great Christians and still postulate the occasional poor idea. There was almost no “unfounded critique” — the critique was quite founded.
— The whole “stay until we outgrow them” strategy was tried until 2000, and the result was that during that time the revisionist activists took over the political levers of TEC. The “we’re staying and focusing on the Gospel” simply allowed the anti-gospel folks to gain the power that they now have to do as they please, when they please. So the answer to “what would have happened” is highly likely to have been “more of the same.”
— I believe that we [i]should[/i] be “distracted” by the terrible heresies in our church, including the heresy of calling same-gender sexual relations holy and blessed. That “distraction” is actually the battle which we have been given for this time.
— I do not believe the answer is “yet further schism” — I believe the answer is church discipline, as described by Holy Scripture with regards to how to deal with false teachers. And if the Anglican Communion does not enact church discipline, it will end up as TEC is ending up.
Offered with peace on a rainy Palm Sunday [we had a hail storm!],
Sarah