If you read the Bible carefully, you may observe that the prophets reserve some of their strongest condemnations for lack of honesty””before God and before others. These people honor me with their lips, Isaiah says, but their hearts are far from me. The God of reality wants his people to face the reality about God, our world and ourselves, and we do nearly everything in our power to avoid it.
All this brings us to the central question facing the House of Bishops meeting this week in New Orleans: Is the leadership of the Episcopal Church going to be honest about what they really believe and are doing or will they hide behind an institutional and verbal smokescreen?
Again and again in Minneapolis in 2003 we heard that God is doing a new thing and that the gospel of justice demanded that we must change our teaching to say that persons in non-celibate same sex unions are appropriate models for Christian leadership. But now that the Archbishop of Canterbury is coming to town and there might be serious consequences, a number of bishops are coming to the meeting like Monty Hall seeking to play “Let’s Make a Deal!!” Instead of owning the new theology they have embraced, they are going to hide behind words and phrases which say one thing while a number of them believe and do something else.
You can arrange the subterfuge yourself. First they will say as Bishop Parsley said to the New York Times this week:
The primates want us to say that we don’t approve public rites of blessing, and we have not done that. They don’t want us to approve gay bishops in committed relationships, and the 2006 general convention resolution makes that unlikely. Basically, what I’m saying is that what they are asking is essentially already the case.
So some are going to claim they are already doing two of the three things they have been asked, and then you add some kind of new Primatial Vicar proposal and–tada!–the institutional smokescreen is up.
Ah, but we need to pay attention to the man behind the curtain because what you see in the Episcopal Church is not what you get.
First, the bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the others who gather in New Orleans need to focus on the key issue of whether there is “local pastoral provision” for same sex blessings in certain parts of the Episcopal Church. Here is the wording in the relevant section of the Tanzania communique:
There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.
The activist group Integrity says it knows of 11 dioceses that have official, written policies allowing the blessing of same-sex relationships:
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware [Bishop Wright’s office will only provide a copy to other bishops, apparently]
Long Island
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Beyond these, there are numerous others which allow for blessings ”“ Newark, [see also here], Los Angeles, Massachusetts [see also here, and here], New York, and the list could go on.
For example the just consecrated new bishop of Olympia said just recently:
he is comfortable continuing Bishop Warner’s stance of letting individual priests decide whether to perform blessing ceremonies for same-sex unions.
The other key phrase is the phrase from Lambeth 1998 1.10, that Anglicans
…cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions
The Bishop of New Jersey just said recently in a New Jersey newspaper:
We in the Diocese of New Jersey respect the discernment of the local congregations as they search for and call clergy to serve in leadership. All clergy candidates are subject to the same reference and background checks, including conversations with the bishops and deployment officers of those applying from other dioceses. Among the questions that I always ask is the following, based upon one of the ordination vows in our Book of Common Prayer: “Is this priest’s personal life a wholesome example to the people?”
I believe that gay and lesbian clergy, living in monogamous, faithful and stable unions, are a wholesome example to the people of our churches. Once assured of that, I welcome congregations to call such clergy to lead them in their life and ministry.
I have met the Rev. Debra Bullock, who comes with the very highest recommendations from her seminary faculty and from the clergy and lay leaders where she served in Chicago. She is a faithful, dedicated, hard-working, warm and talented priest. She will bring new life and new energy to St. Barnabas in Villas and to St. Mary’s, Stone Harbor.
This IS legitimizing a non-celibate same sex relationship for someone ordained, and it is against the mind and teaching of the Anglican Communion.
Second, the bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the others who gather in New Orleans need to focus on the inadequacy of resolution B033 as passed in a hurried and confusing manner on the last day of General Convention 2006. [note from elves: and dissented to immediately by a group of up to 20 bishops, and rejected by at least 9 dioceses at their diocesan conventions last year]
It is very important to quote over and over again the key section of the Windsor Report which invites TEC to
effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” (Windsor Report 134)
Notice three things. First, it is a specific aspect of the person’s life in view””their involvement in a non-celibate same sex union. Second, it is both a moratorium on the election and on the consent to such a person. So it is not just the consent process which is spoken about. Third, VERY IMPORTANT, note that it has a time frame “until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.”
With regard to the SECOND aspect just mentioned, it is worthwhile to recall the resolution proposed by the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion for the General Convention 2006 (this wording never made it to the floor but it is important in that it shows the intent of Windsor in this regard WAS understood by the special commission):
Proposed resolution A161 read:
Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. Accordingly, we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.
Please observe that the committee included nomination, election and consent as all these were clearly in view. In the last two years three dioceses””California, Newark and now Chicago, have nominated non-celibate same sex parterned persons to be finalists for bishop in their dioceses. This is not what the Anglican Communion asked for.
Resolution B033 reads
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.
Note that the focus has been broadened and is no longer on the specific issue that Windsor asked for, that the nomination and election aspects are eliminated, and that there is no time frame specified.
In the Episcopal Church we have not done what was requested of us in either case. Bishop Parsley is wrong.
Finally, any discussion of the Tanzania Primatial Vicar proposal–which was rejected by the House of Bishops when they last met, and by the Executive Council thereafter–does not matter until BOTH of these first two matters are resolved and TEC’s leadership makes clear that it will do what the Anglican Communion wants.
I for one will be delighted if all of these issues are resolved on the terms which were called for, and the Anglican Communion finds a future of unity in truth which God intends for us as we proceed further into the twenty-first century. But it must come as we honor the Lord with our lips and our hearts.
So, my prayer for New Orleans is for HONESTY. The leadership of the Episcopal Church changed its teaching and practice climactically in 2003 and moved it away from that of the Anglican Communion. God did a new thing and justice had to be done. So let the TEC leaders have the courage of their convictions and say what they actually believe before God and the global Anglican leaders. If they fail to do so, where is the justice in that?
Thanks for this very important reminder. In looking for some Bible software on the subject of honesty, here are some of the verses I came across:
Exod. 20:16 – “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”
Exod. 23:1 – “you shall not carry a false rumor”
Exod. 23:7 – “keep far from a false charge”
Prov. 6:12 – “a worthless person, a wicked man, is the one who walks with a false mouth”
Prov. 6:19 – “things which the Lord hates…a false witness who utters lies”
Prov. 12:17 – “He who speaks truth tells what is right, but a false witness, deceit”
Prov. 12:22 – “lying lips are an abomination to the Lord”
Prov. 13:5 – “a righteous man hates falsehood”
Prov. 14:5 – “A faithful witness will not lie, but a false witness speaks lies”
Prov. 19:5,9 – “a false witness will not go unpunished”
Prov. 25:18 – “like a club and a sword and a sharp arrow is a man who bears false witness
against his neighbor”
Matt. 15:19 – “out of the heart come evil thoughts…false witness, slanders…”
Lk. 8:15 – “an honest and good heart”
I Cor. 13:6 – “love…rejoices with the truth”
II Cor. 4:2 – “by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves”
Eph. 4:15 – “speaking the truth in love”
Heb. 13:18 – “desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things”
II Pt. 2:3 – “false prophets will exploit you with false words”
I Jn. 2:21 – “no lie is of the truth”
Rev. 21:27 – “no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it (heaven)”
Honesty in TEC is pluriform.
Honesty could take the form of saying, in effect:
1. The Episcopal Church is neutral on the subject of clergy in active SSUs, etc. We know the Bible’s teachings on the subject, and we take them seriously, but we don’t regard our inquiry as ending there.
2. We view local pastoral provisions as experiments, which will give us more data, from which TEC can eventually make a policy decision one way or another.
3. Some insist that our experiments are categorically impermissible, that our investigation must begin and end with the views of the scriptural authors on the subject. We respond that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, and that TEC’s experiments with local pastoral provisions might — repeat, might — be one way in which this is occurring; certainly it would be blasphemous to claim that this cannot possibly be the case.
4. Both sides in this dispute are led by prophets who implicitly claim to be saying what the LORD wants them to say. We recall the words of Deuteronomy 18.21-22, which counsel that time will tell whether or not a given prophet’s message is from the LORD. We are willing to wait patiently for that time to come, confident that in the end all will be well.
[blockquote] We respond that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, and that TEC’s experiments with local pastoral provisions might — repeat, might — be one way in which this is occurring; certainly it would be blasphemous to claim that this cannot possibly be the case.[/blockquote]
By you own standards you cannot test this DC. You who constantly deny the supernatural and the divinity of Christ now give full sway to the operations of an unseen, unvarifiable Holy Spirit. You who deny that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit can be freely contradicted by that same Holy Spirit?
D.C.,
Interesting thoughts in #3. Regarding #2, I wonder if TEC has pondered the consequences of experimenting at the expense of persons` souls.
Matthew 18:6-7
Again, it is clear that the pecusa leadership is incapable of speaking truth. I believe that what we will see out of this HOB meeting is more obfuscation. You have spoken well Kendall about the obvious intent of the liberal leadership in pecusa. The process of change has been dishonest from at least the point of Griswold’s presence and assent at the emergency meeting of the primates.
In any event those Bishops who agree with TEC’s current course should say so boldly, clearly and proudly. This is no experiment that can be rolled back if it goes wrong. It is a perminant change of course and doctrine and it is long since past time for “Anglican fudge”. I pray that there will be clarity and unambiguious language that comes out of this meeting.
Kendall,
The American church has already been more honest and open than Dr. Williams’ C of E and that’s what has got it into such difficulties. He will no doubt hope for a slightly better smokescreen than we have at present, one more like that currently covering the UK churches where priests may enter into same sex partnerships but are encouraged to pretend it’s something other than a marriage and Jeffrey John can’t be a bishop (yet) but can be the dean of St Alban’s which is arguably a more important position in England. I agree with you that it is time for honesty. I hope that TEC bishops will have the courage to speak clearly. If they will just say: “We are not of one mind on these issues, therefore we allow for differences in different places and we hope for pastoral care for all.” That will be honest enough. No matter WHAT the HOB does the new African-made bishops won’t go away and the network won’t settle down to be Episcopalian again. The realignment is REALLY underway and none of us knows what will be left in place when its finished. However—
Ubi caritas et amor Deus iibi est.
Br. Michael [#4], TEC will never know for sure whether the Holy Spirit is inspiring the experiments with local pastoral provisions. But if on the whole the experiments were to turn out well, that would certainly be worthy of note, no?
You write: “You who deny that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit can be freely contradicted by that same Holy Spirit?” Remember that I’m writing in TEC’s voice, and that’s the kind of language that churchmen and -women tend to use. Putting it another way, I’m showing that if we take the Bible seriously, we have to take all of it seriously, including the passages I quoted.
——————–
allyHM [#5], thanks for the open-mindedness. In response to your question, I’m content to trust God to handle things concerning other people’s souls. In any case, the souls I’d worry about would be those of people who imagine that a set of ancient writings, elevated as “sacred” by some group, gives them the right to judge (and a warrant to interfere in) the private lives of others.
Perhaps, as the “Big Book” contends, there are:
[blockquote] …men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. They are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. [/blockquote]
[i]Alcoholics Anonymous[/i], page 58.
When you live by obfuscation long enough, it becomes a trap–an addiction–from which you may no longer be able to escape. I thought this had reached its heights under the previous PB. We are still seeing its effects now. But there is a way out. That way must begin with complete honesty.
Sorry, the correct middle sentence is:
“There are such unfortunates.”
Note to self: Print off this article and save text to Word file for future use. Thanks Kendall.
“DC” #8 –
I think much of what you say here is reasonable. My difficulty is that the basis for the experiment is so faulty. The Homosexual Movement results from the convergence of two historical streams, the Civil Rights movement which is a fundamentally Christian response to very specific, very extreme circumstances with a very specific history and of limited applicability to any other setting or demographic group, and the Sexual Revolution which started in the 19th century as a specifically anti-Christian ideology. The intellectual bases for the Homosexual Movement, the notion of “sexual orientation” in particular, having its roots in 19th century materialism and utterly without pedigree in the Christian tradition, is and should be, highly suspect from a specifically Christian theological perspective. Add to this a highly dubious hermenutical approach that tends in the reading of Holy Scripture to try and tease out the nuggets of disembodied divine truth (“Jesus’ love ethic,” say) from the supposed dross of human misrepresentation vice cojoin the human and divine scriptural elements in an incarnational whole, and you get an experiment the bases of which are entirely subject to outright rejection by Christians such as myself and many, many others, who find the intellectual approach, hermenutics, anthropology, and understanding of the nature of Divine Revelation reflected therein fundamentally unsound. It is not in the least blasphemous to reject a proposed experiment that rests on such theologically unsupported grounds. At the very least, it is entirely reasonable for many of us to request that the experiment be carried on elsewhere.
Sorry. I meant #3 in my first line. – DWM
FOr all the divinations and qualifications, Kendall’s question in bold face is at the very heart of the matter. Does The ABC and his English kin need more honesty? I daresay they do, but Kendall has focused on the issue at hand, the time and place at hand, and the turning point of the AC. We have all seen the waffling, the backing and filling, the divinity fudge peddled by TEC and we have all observed that, behind all the qualifications and shuffling of feet, there is a core of TEC for whom the die is cast, and this Caesar is already marching on our Rome. We need to keep Kendall’s question in the forefront, and demand and demand that it be answered in a clear, straightforward way: Who are you really, and what do you beleve?
And I will go further. We had better keep asking outselves that question because our house is by no means in order. Larry
D.C. writes, “but if on the whole the experiment turns out well…”
Not to pull the thread off-topic, but D.C. who will be the judge of whether the experiment succeeds or fail, and what are the criteria (indicators) of success, and who sets them?
Certain experiments may appear successful from worldly standards, but will fail when it comes to eternity and God’s standard.
Psalm 73 comes to mind. The wicked appear to have succeeded. By the world’s standards, they are happy and blessed:
[i]But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled,
my steps had nearly slipped.
3 For I was envious of the arrogant
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
4 For they have no pangs until death;
their bodies are fat and sleek.
5 They are not in trouble as others are;
they are not stricken like the rest of mankind.[/i]
But God says, look at things from an eternal perspective. Come into my sanctuary and hear how I will judge:
[i]16 But when I thought how to understand this,
it seemed to me a wearisome task,
17 until I went into the sanctuary of God;
then I discerned their end.
18 Truly you set them in slippery places;
you make them fall to ruin.
19 How they are destroyed in a moment,
swept away utterly by terrors!
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength [2] of my heart and my portion forever.
27 For behold, those who are far from you shall perish;
you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you.
28 But for me it is good to be near God;
I have made the Lord God my refuge,
that I may tell of all your works.[/i]
ECUSA risks gaining the world but losing souls for eternity. May the Lord have mercy.
How right Kendall is on point after point.
I’d particularly emphasize these:
— Given ECUSA’s recalcitrance and drift towards apostasy, the primates demands are quite modest—and already embody a compromise between Global South primates and the leaders of revisionist-leaning rich-country churches. Now ECUSA’s rulers want to get away with half-measures giving partial lip service to those compromise demands.
— Resolution B033 was a grudging, manipulatively imposed substitute for Resolution A161, which itself fell short of what the primates had called for. Remember coy phrasing like “exercise very considerable caution” regarding “bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church”? ECUSA is a bit like someone who breaks your legs with a sledgehammer and then says, “I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, and I’ll exercise considerable caution before I do it again.”
— Even a magnificent primatial vicar arrangement means little unless ECUSA fully complies with the primates’ other demands.
Thank you Kendall. I too am praying for honesty; yesterday when we kept the feast day of St Theodore of Tarsus, the collect from LFF was remarkable for the eve of the HOB meeting.
I’m not only praying for honesty from the House of Bishops, from from Rowan Williams as well. If he colludes with the obfuscation that I expect but pray will not be the case, then the clarity that we presently have from our PB and other top leaders will extend to him. That will help me know where the dry land of the future is.
I already believe that I know the dry land is with the GS primates; Rowan Williams’ enabling “corrupt tribunal” will lift the clouds a little more. I pray that it will not be so.
Brien
Thanks, Karen, #16
[i] Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God [/i] Matt 5:8
make that “Rowan Williams enabling the ‘corrupt tribunal’ will lift the clouds…”
The Diocese of Washington does not have a written policy on gay blessings. We produced a trial rite for blessings before the Windsor Report was released. After the report was released we withdrew it.
Jim, as always, we appreciate your commenting here.
I’m not sure, however, that you’re giving the whole story, since in January 2006 in your diocesan convention, well AFTER the Windsor report, the diocese passed a new resolution promoting SSBs:
A portion of which states:
[blockquote]RESOLVED, that the Convention uphold the right of every person of faith to participate
– – – fully in the sacraments and life of our Church; that it reaffirm the authority of the rubrics
– – – of the Book of Common Prayer (at page 13), which permit a parish, subject to the
– – – direction of the bishop, to use special devotions taken from the Book of Common Prayer,
– – – or from Holy Scripture, “when the needs of the congregation so require;” and that it
– – – reaffirm the authority of individual parishes to develop and adopt rites for the blessing of
– – – same-sex unions, which honor and address the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian couples,
– – – in accordance with such rubrics; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Convention reaffirm its support for the procedures set forth in the
– – – Constitution and Canons of the General Convention, in particular Canon III.16, which
– – – outlines the process for election of a bishop; that it confirm its support for the right of
– – – each diocese to elect its bishops in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the
– – – General Convention and of the respective dioceses; and that it affirm the statements in the
– – – Windsor Report concerning the right of each province and diocese to determine their own
– – – procedures for the election of bishops and other ministers; and be it further
– – – – – – RESOLVED, that the Convention affirm its support for its bishops, John Chane and
– – – Barbara Harris, in their efforts to find common ground and to end the divisiveness within
– – – the Anglican Communion; that it commend the bishops for inviting all people of faith to
– – – gather at God’s table; and that it encourage them in their endeavors to heal the hurt that
– – – we all have suffered, but particularly our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. [/blockquote]
http://www.edow.org/diocese/governance/convention/2006pages/res-6.html
+Chane was also among the leading bishops in repudiating B033
http://www.edow.org/news/window/special/generalconvention/2006/0621conscience.html
Sorry, but that does not sound like Windsor-compliance to me.
–elfgirl
Thanks for your note, Elf girl, I was not discussing Windsor compliance. (And I don’t think the information you cite bears on it, but that is an argument that I am not going to have.) I was simply informing your readers that an erroneous assertion had been made.
#24 “I was simply informing your readers that an erroneous assertion had been made.”
I agree, this does get so very confusing, there may not be a written policy, sometimes we can take actions of a bishop and confuse that to be policy.
Jim Naughton, thanks for the correction.
Then DC, the Holy Spirit does not contradict Scripture.
#24 Jim,
Since the information regarding official, written policies comes from Integrity’s own website, surely they, of all people, would know whether it was accurate or not.
Policies can be and often are unwritten.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
In Comment #17, my statement about “coy phrasing like ‘exercise very considerable caution'” refers to the stillborn Resolution A161. Even that was too much for GC 2006.
Mcudney says, “let’s start with the closeted bishops now in New Orleans.”
I keep hearing about closeted bishops, but I have yet to see any evidence that any exist. Who might they be, and how do you know that they exist? Are you simply asserting for effect, or do you somehow know something few if any others know?
I have heard of the “polygamous African bishops” for years — but no one can name any. They do not exist.
I really liked Kendall’s post too. One of the things I like about it is that his sentiments are a place where everyone of good will on BOTH sides can unite. I know that Susan R and others have been unhappy with TEC leadership telling them one thing in private and then passing resolutions that seem to be steps toward banning gay bishops or SSUs, or signing primatial agreements that call for such actions.
Kendall’s essay is something that all decent people should be able to agree to: which is a call for openness and transparency about intentions for the future. How could that possibly be a bad thing? And how could evasion and lies be anything but wicked and cruel to both reappraisers and reasserters alike?
An immensely helpful thing in my view would be for a lot of bishops to go on record now about whether they think their dioceses plan to elect more gay bishops (if they find a gay candidate they like) and whether they think that public same-sex wedding ceremonies (things that look like a marriage ceremony, regardless of what they are officially called) will be in practice happening at some parishes in their dioceses with TEC priests officiating at them. I think that such clarity would be immensely helpful to this whole process.
Daniel Muth [#13], I certainly understand your perspective. “On the merits” (as we lawyers sometimes say), I simply don’t have an opinion whether homosexual activity is a good thing or a bad thing.
And in principle I can’t disagree when you say, “At the very least, it is entirely reasonable for many of us to request that the experiment be carried on elsewhere.” If the General Convention had adopted that attitude, I would have been mildly disappointed out of sympathy for our gay brothers and sisters, but I would have accepted it — to paraphrase the mobster character Hyman Roth in Godfather II, “this is the [governance] we’ve chosen.”
But the General Convention didn’t go in that direction, and isn’t likely to do so in the future. Yet on this one issue — in contrast to WO and divorce — traditionalists don’t seem willing to accept the Hyman Roth dictum, not even grudgingly. Seems more than a little inconsistent to me.
——————
Br. Michael [#27], when you say “the Holy Spirit does not contradict Scripture,” I wonder how you imagine that’s for you, or even the church catholic, to say. It strikes me as way, way, way above our pay grade(s).
Jim Naughton – Re #21, #22 and #24. If DioWash indeed proscribes SSBs your complaint should be with Integrity not T19. Integrity certainly thinks DioWash supports SSBs through “Guidelines of Blessings” and “Order of Worship.” See Integrity’s website – http://www.integrityusa.org/samesexblessings/index.htm. If DioWash is cool with Integrity’s assertion, just do nothing and let it stand as is.
“D.C.” #32 –
Understood. We can go back and forth over whether there is a significant difference between inappropriate application of a valid sacrament as in the case of WO and the proposed invalid sacrament of homosexual imitations of marriage and/or or whether a change in course in how we address the tragic inevitability of divorce in a sinful, broken world is like unto the celebration of homosexual imitations of copulation. Also, I suspect that my wording was overly gentle – it is not a matter of some of us asking that the experiment you propose be conducted elsewhare as demanding that it not take place within our fellowship. My point is that it is reasonable to conclude that the experiment is a fundamentally invalid one for Christians to conduct and thus cannot be tolerated. This is a matter of honesty as well as clarity, and indeed, charity. I appreciate an honest attempt to make the opposite case, but in the end, it is not inappropriate for people ike myself to conclude that the experiment, however well intentioned, simply cannot be allowed in the Christian Church.
Jim Naughton knows better — the official line in DioWash may be that there is no written policy, but the practice of blessing SSU is very well established here. It’s gone much further than “wink wink nod nod” to articles in the diocesan newspaper glowing about blessing ceremonies done in various parishes; the most recent of these in conjunction with the gay pride march in DC this summer. One needs to remember that Chane himself presided at the “marriage” of Michael Hopkins and John Clinton Bradley before that pair left for Rochester a few years ago.
Chane has been very open about his advocacy of SS causes in the diocese. Why does Jim Naughton need to be dishonest about what’s going on?
I really appreciate Kendall, as usual, cutting to the chase. I think this is absolutely critical for all of us to consider, and not just in how we will analyze the HOB’s responses. I would submit that the ethos of TEC/usa is the way it is, in large part, because of our general acceptance of careerism as a legitimate part of the American way of life. We all are guilty of shading (sometimes hiding, sometimes embellishing, etc.) the truth in our individual pursuits of reaching that higher place, that next level, in our professions. And we have allowed and tacitly approved that our clergy will approach their work in the church, to a significant degree, as an effort to reach certain plateaus, certain clearly identifiable levels of success and achievement.
Principally, in the American upper-middle/upper class context of episcopalianism, this advancing of clerical careers has involved either various kinds of academic or scholarly recognition or credentials, or doing something that gets one recognized as an innovator. Both of these paths tend to involve a bit too much interaction with ideas and trends among the intelligensia and media-savvy, and making relationships in this ephimeral world that has steadily become more and more progressive and stridently anti-traditional. These paths also don’t tend to lead many but the hardiest to take on intense and challenging ministries among the hidden that are the true places where God educates us on the realities of human nature and the remedies to be found in His glorious grace.
So, we watch most of our clergy climb the ladder – the best of the “lower” clergy posture very well, in sermon or writing, about getting tough with the other side, and occassionally do stand-up to real evil. But once they are on the radar as good candidates for the office of bishop, all but a handful become “very effective” reconcilers and mediators. We watch a disturbing change taking place in many (sometimes we call it “mellowing”), but rarely say anything because we know it’s just part of the process. When these once solid men finally settle in to being a bishop, most of them do what sophisticated men do to stay in power. More tea with the hardcore of the TEC/usa lay leadership makes for good discussion and thoughtful “dialogue”, but it doesn’t tend to keep one focused on the Gospel and the real hurt in the world.
32, it’s in the catacism. You know the Book of Common Prayer which sets out Church Doctrine. I have quoted it to you before and you don’t accept it, but it says:
[blockquote]BCP 853
Q. How do we recognize the truths taught by the Holy
Spirit?
A. We recognize truths to be taught by the Holy Spirit
when they are in accord with the Scriptures.[/blockquote]
If you are going to argue on behalf to the Church, and not what you personally believe, then you have to accept what they are bound by.
Besides sheer common sense tells you that God does not contridict Himself, unless you want to believe in a God that plays cynical mind game on people. So, Yes, I dare to say this as truth because God is reliable and we can rely on Him.
And the Holy Spirit does not contradict what He has caused to be written in earlier times!
Br. Michael [#37, 38], I think we’ve had this discussion before, but still: It’s simply not for us to say that the Holy Spirit absolutely will not contradict himself. If you think otherwise, you’re worshiping your own wishful thinking of what the Holy Spirit must be like, not the reality (whatever it is).
An example I’ve used before is “Alice,” who is sighted, holding the elbow of “Bob,” who is blind, as she guides him on a busy street. When the light is red, she holds him back; when the light turns green, she nudges him forward. Only a short-sighed person (no pun intended) would say that Alice is contradicting herself.
Or another example I’ve used before: When we were toddlers, our parents said, “never go in the street by yourself; always have an adult holding your hand.” When we got older, our parents seemingly contradicted themselves, saying, “it’s OK to go in the street by yourself, but only to cross it, and only if you look both ways first.”
Who are we to decree so categorically that God does not (which means he may not) act in a similar way? Just because we think he’s contradicting himself, doesn’t automatically mean he is; it may be that we don’t understand the full context of the seeming contradiction.
Br. Michael:
Excellent.
This also dovetails with a refutation of Archbishop Morgan (of Wales)recently stated position that the Lambeth Quadrilateral should be sufficient in defining the parameters of how Anglicans do theology and therefore, any “particular perspective on sexuality”, as one finds suggested or implied in the draft version of the Covenant, is ipso facto un-Anglican. Of course, the good archbishop ignores the clear meaning of the language of the first article of the Quadrilateral (regarding Holy Scripture) in his assertion. But he is also contradicting the second article regarding the Creeds if read properly in the context of the first – because the Nicene Creed tells us that the Holy Spirit “spake by the prophets”, we are bound to follow the overarching principles of the prophets’ (including Moses) teaching and regulation on sexuality as part of the doctrine of the Church on sexuality (certainly in the light of New Testament priorities, but without forcing contradictions that aren’t there) because the Prophets’ voices are part of Holy Scripture, “the rule and ultimate standard of faith”. We need not look anywhere else for our basic values on these questions because the second article of the Quadrilateral is clear that the Nicene Creed is “sufficient” to express the core teachings of the Faith.
There is a Quadrilateral, dear progressivists, but it has an historic meaning that takes precedence over what your school generally feels it should mean. And there is a Book of Common Prayer of which we can say the same. If you’re going to have your cake, you must eat it. Honestly, at this point, I’d be happy to see any progressivist/revisionist express in even the slightest way that he or she would just consider following what has generally been understood to be the normative principles and values behind either one.
D.C.:
Your second analogy would suggest that God in one epoch worked to prevent his children from engaging in homosexual acts because they were dangerous, but now because of something – __________(???) (please explain) these acts are no longer dangerous, and in fact, a social good, as long as we “look both ways”. Is that what you’re suggesting? A long and clear record of psychological and medical data provides umistakable evidence quite to the contrary.
D.C.:
We’re still just children. That fundamental reality has not changed.
Joe from old OC [#41], you may be reading more into my comments to Brother Michael than I was intending. I was pointing out that Brother Michael’s statement — that God never contradicts himself, and specifically that he never contradicts what he [supposedly] said in the Bible — is not especially defensible.
On the merits, as I said in an earlier comment, I don’t have an opinion one way or another about the goodness or badness of homosexual practices. I’m inclined to think of such practices as neutral in value (that is, good in the context of a committed relationship, bad in the context of promiscuity), but I could be persuaded otherwise by solid data one way or another.
As to the extant psychological and medical data, my guess is that those data are distorted, in that they’re derived largely from promiscuous gays, not from those in life-long committed relationships — there being comparatively few of those, at least few that are “out,” because of the long-time social condemnation. If that’s the case, then the data probably won’t let us make reliable predictions about committed same-sex relationships.
I expect the psychological and medical data to change as “the culture” becomes more accepting of SSUs — and make no mistake, that’s happening, gradually but inexorably; traditionalists are decisively losing that particular battle in the culture wars. Because of the media and the culture of political correctness, the young adults of 10 or 20 years from now are currently being soaked in gay-friendly values. Given that we have a First Amendment, traditionalists won’t be able to stop this. So, a great many of those future young adults will have internalized gay-friendly values. That’s likely to be the ball game; in 50 years everyone will be wondering how anyone could have been so horrid as to condemn homosexual activity, let alone criminalize it. I express no opinion whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing, just that it seems to be inevitable.
D.C.:
In response to your 3rd and 4th paragraph, your hopes that things improve as society is more accepting of “SSUs” will not be realized if the data has any credibility at all. One major study done in the early part of this decade was set-up to examine the mental health of homosexuals across several different countries and nationalities. While homosexuals consistently had higher rates of a range of neuroses, there was almost no variation in rates from country to country. Those nations where there was supposedly greater acceptance of various kinds of sexual orientation and practice (such as the Netherlands and Denmark) had virtually the same rates of mental illness among homosexuals as those countries that were less tolerant (such as the U.S. and England). In addition, the rate of those who considered themselves to have strictly same-sex attraction remained fairly constant from country to country, generally at about 2-4 percent.
And D.C., your entire 4th paragraph is a string of hypotheses of supposed inevitabilities that appear to be based entirely on neo-socialist/progressivist ideological presuppositions. There is nothing remotely factual in 80 percent of what you’re saying, but you write as if each previous statement is reality simply by your assertion of it; it’s generally
“…”the culture†becomes more accepting of SSUs — and make no mistake, that’s happening, gradually but inexorably..” AND
“…soaked in gay-friendly values” AND “…traditionalists won’t be able to stop this” AND “That’s likely to be the ball game”. Please understand that in the context of your 3rd paragraph which shows great faith in concept of the committed same-sex relationship, I have a hard time believing that you are neutral on this issue. Or if you are neutral, you’ve already put your money in with the secular progressives, and that’s who you’re rootin’ for.
Furthermore, you could easily find plenty of excellent survey data that indicates that a much larger percentage of teenagers today are committed to the idea of chastity and traditional views of sex and marriage then they were 10 years ago. There are indeed growing numbers of children on the periphery (generally in major urban centers) who are involved in deviant or extreme sexual behavior, but this is by far the exception.
Kendall has in essence said to TEC: What is your identity? This can in fact be explained, be purt into words. TEc would start by saying, “We believe…” and then write their own 39 Articles. If they say, “All the baptized are included in all of the church’s operations,” then they have made their identity clear in one unconditional statement. The issue is identity. The theoretical question is “Who are we?” The practical question is,”What are we willing to pay to make it so?” LM
Thank you 44. DC is simply an unbeliever and he must be dealt with on that level.
Br. Michael:
I found this the quote other day, and found it pertinent again regarding this thread. Not much has really changed since the 2nd century, according to Iranaeus:
The slippery way is to redefine without informing. When we say “the resurrectionâ€, they agree they believe in it, but it means something else entirely different from the received understanding. TEC embodies polytheism, and it would take a bold courageous TEC clergy to simply state it clearly. They would have my respect and even admiration. But if they do, they lose a lot of money.
The way to absolve oneself of guilt, to many, seems to be to attempt to call the simple the complex, and leave the demon of guilt conversing with the demon of confusion, thus compounding the error. How on earth can a person, nevermind an institution, chat its way out of that? Except for God’s grace, it’s utterly impossible, a black hole that grows stronger every second the feigned confusion goes unnamed. However, once the powers at work are named and proclaimed, they retreat into darkness. We aren’t there yet.
As it says in Proverbs, God made humankind straightforward, but they have devised many schemes.
I wonder if the spirit of TEC is really something like “monotheistic polytheism” (I just made that up), where they believe their mission is really to unite all religions under themselves, with the genius of TEC religion being the revelation that all is one, and as prophets of this new inclusiveness, they are the administrators. It seems more and more that their vision of “broad Anglicanism” is really polytheism complete with sanctified licentiousness.
Douglas