While the Episcopal Church has responded to questions and requests put to it by the instruments of unity over the past seven years, it has not until now invited its theologians and scholars to tackle the theological and doctrinal issues at stake in this great debate.
If this quote means what I think it means, the bishops have a short memory. There was a notoriously infamous HOB Teaching Document that appeared in 1994, dealing with the same issue. As now, there were two sides reaching contrary conclusions, equally unable to reach agreement.
#1 is correct – as I recall, it was the HOB’s own theology cmte., and their conclusion was that the lack of agreement meant that the church should [b] not [/b] proceed with VGR and other expressions of “the agenda” until some common way forward could be established. And the cmte. included “new-thingers” like Roskam/NY – even they saw the coming damage to the church.
The Scriptures are unsparing in their warnings about shepherds who harm the flock. There are lots of us who need to repent, some probably to the point of resigning if we can’t reverse some of the madness we’ve created or condoned.
The bishops are thorough revisionists, not only of doctrine but of history as well. The document in question was The Virginia Report. How easily is forgotten that which is desired to be forgotten! And this little bit of current history proves Thucydides correct yet again.
The production of these papers, not as majority and minority statements but as equal productions may be perhaps the most honest initiative to emerge in years.
There has not been time to do more than skim the texts. I am, at first glance, impressed by the sharply different approaches to biblical interpretation, the role of natural law and modern scientific contributions. Even more so I am acutely aware of the starkly different use of language and reason itself.
That this sort of study and debate should precede action would seem to be obvious. That the study and debate arrives after TEC has made up its mind will continue to amaze the rest of the Christian world and I suspect even those who sympathize with the liberal position.
The 1994 HOB “teaching document” was more than “notorious”, it was an embarrassment. I
It is no swipe here to say that the conservatives didn’t come out as well. They set out the standard arguments and gave a good deal of evidence that they had thought through the other perspective, but their effort lacked a certain, well, grace. In the beginning of the conservative reply there is even an acknowledgment of the excellent presentation of the “expansionist” side.
You had two different presentations to the jury here and one was a solid, workmanlike restatement of many things said before and one was an outstanding, clear and well written statement. Perhaps the church would have better served by having two outstanding presentations of this material. Only time will tell.
It is difficult to fight rear-guard action, and harder still to do it in a way that is convincing. This was not the best presentation for the conservative approach and I’ve seen many conservative Anglican bloggers do a better presentation of your side’s arguments.
All this was inevitable, given TEC and 1st world Anglicans in general brought this on themselves by their doctrinal equivocating over the past centuries, together with the vast ignorance of both clergy and laity. At best I find all this amusing, and at worst very, very sad. Here’s a review I wrote of Canon Edward Norman’s book, Anglican Difficulties: “Edward Norman successfully attempts to help the reader understand how and why the Anglican Church (and, by extension, the Anglican Communion) arrived at the lamentable condition in which it finds itself today. A gripping read for those who are interested in this sort of thing. After reading Anglican Difficulties with care, one can only conclude that the whole enterprise has always been not much more than an erastian sham which finds itself (now that most people are educated and well-informed) finally unable to convincingly sustain the pretense of being an authentic Church at all, as distinct from the ecclesiastical pastiche which it truly is and always was. As a senior Anglican priest I was able to see the truth of what Canon Norman says quite clearly, alas.”
It goes back even before 1994 to 1992, when the HOB commissioned four Episcopal seminary professors (Hint: TEC “abandoned” one of them last year) to write essays on hermeneutics, which were duly reported to the HOB in September 1992. The book, [url=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field;-keywords=Frederick+Borsch,+Bible+Today’s+Church&x=18&y=17]The Bible’s Authority in Today’s Church[/url] is, amazingly, still available.
On a practical and not theological level, I don’t think most seekers are looking for more ambiguity from clergy (and certainly not from Bishops) on these issues. I think they are looking for authenticity. The question is: is this “Christianity thing” something I should be committing my time and resources to? Equivocation is not going to help people make sound decisions. As a somewhat educated Christian I can appreciate the effort to produce this study, but it seems somewhat apologetic in its tone. I other words, I am positive that “Big Tent” theology isn’t compelling enough for most non-believers.
Interesting look back. I often said during this trouble that someone should be taking notes. I didn’t but I do try to remember.
In case someone doesn’t have access to the “Virginia Report”:
http://www.lambethconference.org/1998/documents/report-1.pdf
I remember that my key thought at that time was, “too many words”.
Don
RE: “It is no swipe here to say that the conservatives didn’t come out as well.”
And conservatives think that progressives didn’t come out as well. What a shock!
RE: “They set out the standard arguments and gave a good deal of evidence that they had thought through the other perspective, but their effort lacked a certain, well, grace.”
Oh. No. It lacked a certain “grace?” Whatever shall be done!???
; > )
RE: “You had two different presentations to the jury here . . . ”
The jury being the foaming revisionist bishops, I assume. What a “jury of one’s peers.”
RE: “It is difficult to fight rear-guard action, and harder still to do it in a way that is convincing.”
I think DennisWine might be deluding himself. Nobody’s trying to “convince” the heretics in the HOB of anything at all. The theologians were put on a committee, they quickly recognized that the two views were antithetical and mutually opposing and could not be put into one paper, they wrote the two papers [each side] and now it’s done.
End of story.
Those who believe one gospel won’t be convinced of the truth of the other Gospel. And vice versa of course.
Well, I have to say that the liberal position as argued in this paper is about as unpersuasive as I can imagine and, worse, really astounding in many ways, especially the use of incarnation and eucharist to justify, well, anything bodily, really. It is an embarassing piece theologically.
So much better to say IMHO that psychosexual development can go wrong in this world and, given that, companionship is a help to get through life instead of asserting, as the liberal position does, that sexual desire–in whatever state, is implanted by and leads to, Christ. Just crazy!
Parsley says that both views are “rooted in the church and in Holy Scripture.” If that’s so, what’s the argument about?