A pastoral letter to The Episcopal Church
Pentecost continues!
Pentecost is most fundamentally a continuing gift of the Spirit, rather than a limitation or quenching of that Spirit.
The recent statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury about the struggles within the Anglican Communion seems to equate Pentecost with a single understanding of gospel realities. Those who received the gift of the Spirit on that day all heard good news. The crowd reported, “in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power” (Acts 2:11).
The Spirit does seem to be saying to many within The Episcopal Church that gay and lesbian persons are God’s good creation, that an aspect of good creation is the possibility of lifelong, faithful partnership, and that such persons may indeed be good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the Church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones. The Spirit also seems to be saying the same thing in other parts of the Anglican Communion, and among some of our Christian partners, including Lutheran churches in North America and Europe, the Old Catholic churches of Europe, and a number of others.
That growing awareness does not deny the reality that many Anglicans and not a few Episcopalians still fervently hold traditional views about human sexuality. This Episcopal Church is a broad and inclusive enough tent to hold that variety. The willingness to live in tension is a hallmark of Anglicanism, beginning from its roots in Celtic Christianity pushing up against Roman Christianity in the centuries of the first millennium. That diversity in community was solidified in the Elizabethan Settlement, which really marks the beginning of Anglican Christianity as a distinct movement. Above all, it recognizes that the Spirit may be speaking to all of us, in ways that do not at present seem to cohere or agree. It also recognizes what Jesus says about the Spirit to his followers, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:12-13).
The Episcopal Church has spent nearly 50 years listening to and for the Spirit in these matters. While it is clear that not all within this Church have heard the same message, the current developments do represent a widening understanding. Our canons reflected this shift as long ago as 1985, when sexual orientation was first protected from discrimination in access to the ordination process. At the request of other bodies in the Anglican Communion, this Church held an effective moratorium on the election and consecration of a partnered gay or lesbian priest as bishop from 2003 to 2010. When a diocese elected such a person in late 2009, the ensuing consent process indicated that a majority of the laity, clergy, and bishops responsible for validating that election agreed that there was no substantive bar to the consecration.
The Episcopal Church recognizes that these decisions are problematic to a number of other Anglicans. We have not made these decisions lightly. We recognize that the Spirit has not been widely heard in the same way in other parts of the Communion. In all humility, we recognize that we may be wrong, yet we have proceeded in the belief that the Spirit permeates our decisions.
We also recognize that the attempts to impose a singular understanding in such matters represent the same kind of cultural excesses practiced by many of our colonial forebears in their missionizing activity. Native Hawaiians were forced to abandon their traditional dress in favor of missionaries’ standards of modesty. Native Americans were forced to abandon many of their cultural practices, even though they were fully congruent with orthodox Christianity, because the missionaries did not understand or consider those practices exemplary of the Spirit. The uniformity imposed at the Synod of Whitby did similar violence to a developing, contextual Christianity in the British Isles. In their search for uniformity, our forebears in the faith have repeatedly done much spiritual violence in the name of Christianity.
We do not seek to impose our understanding on others. We do earnestly hope for continued dialogue with those who disagree, for we believe that the Spirit is always calling us to greater understanding.
We live in great concern that colonial attitudes continue, particularly in attempts to impose a single understanding across widely varying contexts and cultures. We note that the cultural contexts in which The Episcopal Church’s decisions have generated the greatest objection and reaction are also often the same contexts where women are barred from full ordained leadership, including the Church of England.
As Episcopalians, we note the troubling push toward centralized authority exemplified in many of the statements of the recent Pentecost letter. Anglicanism as a body began in the repudiation of the control of the Bishop of Rome within an otherwise sovereign nation. Similar concerns over self-determination in the face of colonial control led the Church of Scotland to consecrate Samuel Seabury for The Episcopal Church in the nascent United States ”“ and so began the Anglican Communion.
We have been repeatedly assured that the Anglican Covenant is not an instrument of control, yet we note that the fourth section seems to be just that to Anglicans in many parts of the Communion. So much so, that there are voices calling for stronger sanctions in that fourth section, as well as voices repudiating it as un-Anglican in nature. Unitary control does not characterize Anglicanism; rather, diversity in fellowship and communion does.
We are distressed at the apparent imposition of sanctions on some parts of the Communion. We note that these seem to be limited to those which “have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion.” We are further distressed that such sanctions do not, apparently, apply to those parts of the Communion that continue to hold one view in public and exhibit other behaviors in private. Why is there no sanction on those who continue with a double standard? In our context bowing to anxiety by ignoring that sort of double-mindedness is usually termed a “failure of nerve.” Through many decades of wrestling with our own discomfort about recognizing the full humanity of persons who seem to differ from us, we continue to work at open and transparent communication as well as congruence between word and behavior. We openly admit our failure to achieve perfection!
The baptismal covenant prayed in this Church for more than 30 years calls us to respect the dignity of all other persons and charges us with ongoing labor toward a holy society of justice and peace. That fundamental understanding of Christian vocation underlies our hearing of the Spirit in this context and around these issues of human sexuality. That same understanding of Christian vocation encourages us to hold our convictions with sufficient humility that we can affirm the image of God in the person who disagrees with us. We believe that the Body of Christ is only found when such diversity is welcomed with abundant and radical hospitality.
As a Church of many nations, languages, and peoples, we will continue to seek every opportunity to increase our partnership in God’s mission for a healed creation and holy community. We look forward to the ongoing growth in partnership possible in the Listening Process, Continuing Indaba, Bible in the Life of the Church, Theological Education in the Anglican Communion, and the myriad of less formal and more local partnerships across the Communion ”“ efforts in mission and ministry that inform and transform individuals and communities toward the vision of the Gospel ”“ a healed world, loving God and neighbor, in the love and friendship shown us in God Incarnate.
May God’s peace dwell in your hearts,
(The Most Rev.) Katharine Jefferts Schori is Presiding Bishop and Primate of The Episcopal Church
Not a mention of Scripture.
Disingenuous in the extreme, especially given the purge of those who dissent inside the Episcopal Church.
When Paul and Barnabas went to the Jerusalem Church to advocate for their theological innovation of including Gentiles without requiring them to first become cultural Jews, they advanced their position by advocating in the following:
1) They told their mission stories in the context of the trajectory of God’s redemptive plan in history, a plan that explicitly included the salvation of Gentiles.
2) They submitted their stories and biblically warranted arguments, through due process, to the dominate Jewish-Christian leadership of the Jerusalem Church (mother see) and awaited her decision before proceeding with their innovation (the Gentile mission).
3) Their arguments, testimony and demonstrable success in church planting, thereby creating communities of the new creation, were supplemented by the example of their holy lives and intelligent.
I have always hoped that TEC could muster at least one of these proofs for their innovations. Instead we get this….
The Church of Scotland is the established Kirk and it had nothing to do with non-juring Scottish Episcopalians. Seabury was an ardent Tory, and would have served as a Chaplain for the British Army. He was no founder of an American Church. Til the end of his days he is said to have referred to the church as the Church of England in America. He wanted to be ordained in the Church of England, and it was the oath of conformity that led the English to dissuade him. When the non-jurors consecrated him in Aberdeen, he sailed back to Canada in the first instance, unsure of where he stood. When after the revolution a fledgling church was inaugurated it was Seabury more than anyone else who sought to preserve catholic order and continuity with the C of E (on matters like the descent clause; role of bishops vis-a-vis laity in the new church). To describe Seabury as the great Independent American is to–as with so many things TEC now dreams up–simply re-write history. The morale in this story is that once you ignore the literal/plain sense of scripture, you move into a mindset that permits you to tinker with all past records. Now we have a Seabury who chopped down the English Cherry Tree and created The Anglican Communion, after he threw a sovereign over the River Tay.
Gussied up Marc Andrus. Apparently the talking points are the same, the attitude to history the same, and the brush-off of the Church Catholic are the same.
Who has ears to hear, let them hear.
The only way to make the new komunion more evident is to say in words what deeds have done. Why not the gonads to do so, one must wonder?
I believe we are seeing the gauntlet being thrown down by Andrus/Schori. One can but wonder if the great new ‘US-based TEC’ Federation is being birthed. The Declaration of Independence TEC. Colonial uprising in the name of genuine episcopal christianity, as birthed on these shores.
My mother and father raised their four sons to be gentlemen, so I will be polite and not say what I really think of this letter.
Ms. Schori seems to have engaged in a bit of scriptural revisionism here. There’s no mention of different messages being heard by those present at Pentecost; rather, they all heard the same message in their own language. One Gospel, made accessible to all.
What she’s suggesting is that there are many Gospels, and they are somehow interchangeable and all “correct”. That’s not in keeping with the idea of “Truth” as it was expressed by Christ. There is a single Truth; a single Gospel; a single God the Father, and a single way to salvation – Jesus Christ. I can’t decide if Ms. Schori is engaging in pluralism or pantheism – but either way, she presents no scriptural warrant for her position, and declines to explain how the inherent contradictions can be resolved. And the cheap shots at the RCC are evidence of how there’s only a veneer of tolerance; those who believe the “faith received from the fathers” to be the standard of doctrine we are held to aren’t tolerated, they’re denigrated.
RomeAnglican wrote:
Not a mention of Scripture.
++Katharine wrote:
The crowd reported, “in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power†(Acts 2:11).
and
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come†(John 16:12-13).
Perhaps more critical reading and less reactionary politics would work better.
I expect that the Presiding Bishop may find the Church of Scotland if she first finds Quincy and then heads East.
Ms. Schori seems to have engaged in a bit of scriptural revisionism here. There’s no mention of different messages being heard by those present at Pentecost; rather, they all heard the same message in their own language. One Gospel, made accessible to all.
What she’s suggesting is that there are many Gospels, and they are somehow interchangeable and all “correctâ€. That’s not in keeping with the idea of “Truth†as it was expressed by Christ. There is a single Truth; a single Gospel; a single God the Father, and a single way to salvation – Jesus Christ.
++Katharine is talking about two separate events: the initial arrival of the Spirit and the Spirit’s role as a guide to the Truth which the Christians of the first century could not bear.
It’s troubling that Marc Andrus’ rather gauche, double-speak (“I love the Archbishop”) comments on Canterbury’s Pentecost letter completely miss the point. The Archbishop is calling for UNITY, PAUSE and REASON in the face of the turbulence and immediate danger which currently threatens the Anglican Communion. By contrast, Andrus seems defensively preoccupied by the colonial past. If I didn’t know he was a bishop, I’d have thought Andrus’ response had been penned by someone running for office in a small town somewhere.
LEADERSHIP at troubled times is a very different thing from puerile, obsessive “chip-on-the-shoulder” irrelevances about former “Empires” (Andrus) and “colonial attitudes” (Schori). A despot-manque Rowan Williams emphatically is not, as anyone who knows him even vaguely will attest. Indeed, people are over him for his signal lack of it. Talk of “Empires” and “colonial attitudes” is absolute rubbish in this serious context, as indeed both Scori and Andrus surely must know. It’s merely a cynical ruse to exploit uninformed, deep-rooted populist fears ingrained into the American psyche. How unworthy, how manipulative.
As for Schori’s slightly hysterical, unholy little letter, absent of any discernable scripture: cadet corps TEC bishops at their egregious worst, and I fear their particular brand of pastoral leadership will see schism in short order. Incredible. And appalling.
King Henry VIII considered himself the head of the Catholic Church in England, not the head of the Anglican Church. If we can not recognize +Seabury as the ‘founder’ of the Anglican Communion (“it was Seabury more than anyone else who sought to preserve catholic order and continuity with the C of E (on matters like the descent clause; role of bishops vis-a-vis laity in the new church)”), then we must rewrite history to make Queen Elizabeth I the founder of the Anglican Church. The moral in this story is that once you deify the literal/plain sense of scripture, you move into a mindset that permits you to tinker with all past records, in order to make them conform to your literalist world view.
The poor Holy Spirit. Never before, I believe, has a church leader promoted its heretical case for immorality by claiming that the Spirit speaks with a forked tongue.
Dear Brian, kindly pick up any basic historical text and you will learn that the odd confection cooked up by the former RC PB is factually in error. Seabury’s episcopal authority was not even recognised by the 1786 Convention. I know you are worked up, but this is not very difficult history to control.
And as for Acts and ‘new truth’ idea. John makes it clear that proximity to the earthly Jesus was a sort of hindrance to comprehending his truth — ‘you cannot bear this’ and ‘their eyes were kept from seeing’ etc. The Advocate Jesus spoke of was to bring to memory what he had said, in the providential life of the church. Acts 11 concurs: Peter says that the Holy Spirit’s work in Cornelius was to be warranted, because he remembered the word of the Lord. Clear dominical warrant activated by the Spirit’s deliverance of Christ, His only job. In Acts 15, furthermore, there is yet greater agreement — with the apostolic work of Paul and Barnabas but most especially with Lev 17-18’s injunctions regarding the ‘sojourner in the midst of Israel’ — now seen to be those gentiles being grasped via the preaching of Peter and Paul by the Holy Spirit. Continuity and agreement — that is the Holy Spirit’s powerful new work, a work never with such force though shared in Israel and with, acc to Luke, Israel’s brethren and sisters, Elizabeth and Zechariah.
My question is: read the past paragraph. Does this not sound like au revoir? The PB looks forward to lots of lower level cooperation, but nothing to do with AAC, Standing Committee, etc. It is beginning to sound like Andrus and Schori are declaring their new Episcopal Church, US-based.
What really burns me about this… and I assure you, there are many things that rankle… but what really burns me is the way in which she, like +Andrus, characterizes the archbishop’s rather plain handed and even timid imposition of sanctions as if he has attacked us with torches and pitchforks. It’s preposterous. He’s asked us not to represent the Communion in ecumenical dialogue, which is perfectly within his rights and authority. How in the world does that infringe even one iota upon our oh-so-precious sovereignty?
“That same understanding of Christian vocation encourages us to hold our convictions with sufficient humility that we can affirm the image of God in the person who disagrees with us.” — This is a humble statement?
She still seems to be saying that the dying portions of liberal Christianity in the West have heard the Holy Spirit, while the growing and vital parts of Christendom around the world have not.
She also continues to perpetuate the modern myth that the Elizabethan Settlement was not in itself a bloody affair that left so many questions unanswered and helped set the stage for the English Civil War.
And frankly the only troubling push toward centralized authority has been the actions of the Presiding Bishop herself, who continues to expand her executive powers quite uncanonically. She is the supposed to be merely the President of the House of Bishops, not some unitary executive with the authority to depose clergy and standing committees, create rump dioceses out of thin air, launch lawsuits and rack up legal expenses with no financial accountability, and hire legal counsel to meddle in the affairs of a constituent diocese. Yet Presiding Bishop Pot seems to have a problem with Archbishop Kettle, for no more than suggesting that Anglicans should be a little bit more about the business of mutual submission and less about an uncatholic principle of provincial sovereignty.
Chris Seitz, I always skim down to see what you write, because you are far more factual than the rest of us and you are measured. Supposing that ‘Schori and Andrus are declaring their new US-based church’ certainly fits a pattern of past action: new name – TEC, new geographic definition – Dioceses in several countries, etc. But you sound wildly unrestrained. Can you elaborate a little more on your thinking? Thanks for commenting.
Dr. Seitz, #3 is a polite yet masterful smackdown. 🙂
Other than that, I’ll post what I posted(mostly) over on SF:
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come†(John 16:12-13).
She does an interesting job of twisting the words of Someone who was eminently familiar with the Jewish Law.
I do not believe that, as Jesus speaks of the Spirit “guiding us into all truth†he has in mind the Christian blessing of sodomy, through either marriage or ordination rites.
“In our context bowing to anxiety by ignoring that sort of double-mindedness is usually termed a ‘failure of nerve.’â€
I guess ++RW hit his own nerve(ie hers) with his Pentecost letter, to the tune of her now calling him a coward.
“Saying one thing and doing another?†What, you mean like when a female primate says one thing at Dar es Salaam, then goes home and does another?
I for one have never said that gays are not “fully humanâ€; I just don’t believe in calling blessed(homosex) what God called sin. That’s idolatrous; a situation in which I elevate myself, desires, thoughts, and feelings above God’s words.
“Radical hospitality†does not give ANYONE the right to redefine the sacrament of marriage at will. Apples and oranges…
Did she have any point here other than “right-fighting†and/or calling the AB of C a wimp?
Has anyone done a historic analysis of the use of “our baptismal covenant” as a theological crowbar? Her use of “more than 30 years” leaves me assuming that the 1977-79 BCP is the basis for this; I went to look up the passage once, and don’t see it rising to even the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence let alone a Constitutional precedent. Is this just a “since 1993” thing, or where did the relentless reference back to “baptismal covenant” become a revisionist discussion ender?
I’m also curious because the language is getting picked up in my own, to date more resolute, United Methodist tradition, as groups keep trying to push a GLBT affirmation agenda into the life of the communion. Any pointers for where to read more about the development of this theological wedge would be appreciated.
Professor Seitz
Dear Brian, kindly pick up any basic historical text and you will learn that the odd confection cooked up by the former RC PB is factually in error. Seabury’s episcopal authority was not even recognised by the 1786 Convention. I know you are worked up, but this is not very difficult history to control.
I most certainly agree that this “is not very difficult history to control.” Especially when you control it by only reading the parts of the History books which agree with your point of view. I have read the parts where his consecration was recognized by the General Convention of 1789. I also read the parts where he was made the bishop of Rhode Island in 1790 and where he joined +Provoost, +Madison and +White (all English consecrated bishops) in the consecration of +Claggett in 1792. And his ordination is honored by the Church of England on October 14th of each year. So I can only imagine that the person reappraising history is not the Presiding Bishop.
RomeAnglican (1),
Well, she did start out with a biblical reference (Acts 2:11), and providing a quote, “…in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of powerâ€. (She doesn’t reference it, but she is quoting from the NRSV –‘New Revised Standard Version’)
But past that, and immediately after that for the remainder of the letter, you are correct, she jumped into the “gay and lesbian persons are God’s good creation..” commentary, with no further reference to scripture.
Actually, she didn’t do well with the one verse quoted and her commentary prefacing it.
She said, ‘Those who received the gift of the Spirit on that day all heard good news. The crowd reported, “in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power†(Acts 2:11).’
That would not be an accurate retelling of the event via scripture.
(…..everything between this sentence and the next was really too long for the thread, so I’ll be posting the whole thing at my weblog…)
What is at issue here? If you are going to write a letter – especially a Pastoral Letter – making use of the occasion of Pentecost, and in that Letter state what you consider to be positive discernment of truth from the Holy Spirit, then your use of the scripture regarding the work of the Holy Spirit should be without equivocation a faithful rendering of that text. A further theological reflection and commentary of what the text says is one thing. But retelling the event incorrectly, unfactually and with apparent (I say apparent) disregard for the scripture details casts a dark shadow on the accuracy of the discernment pointed to in the rest of the Letter. It in fact allows the reader to regard such discernment and conclusions as quite untrustworthy.
Which would be the opposite of the work and reason for the Holy Spirit to be sent to us.
Those inaccuracies, therefore, must be pointed out, or else they will be repeated to the detriment of the testimony of the scripture, and thus to the teaching of the Church.
Oh, and when did St. Wilfred start coming in for bashing from the reappraiser/revisionist left? I can see why they wouldn’t like him (and the feeling would have been mutual, I’m sure), but that’s a new riff on the Synod of Whitby to me, and it seems pretty important to her.
Sorry the date of Easter is colonialism run amuck, and I can’t wait to see when the new TEC federation observes the Celebration of the Resurrection — on the Sunday most convenient for local spring break scheduling?
I’m not sure what the point of this is, except repetition.
1. The Church of Scotland is the Kirk, not non-juring Scottish Episcopalians (pace Schori);
2. Scottish Episcopalians acted out of expediency, not in an effort to ‘create a new Anglican Communion’ (pace Schori); that is, they were high church defenders of an Old World catholicism, not a New World Schori-TECism; if alive today, they would be the most ardent opponents of what Schori is proposing;
3. Seabury was a Tory high-churchman who opposed the idea of an american denomination, as against many of his confreres; until he died he signed his name, followed by, Church of England in America (pace Schori)
4. after much struggle he joined in a consecration because his views were finally accommodated, to the degree his conscience allowed;
5. the fact that his ordination is honored in the Cof E — if that is what your are saying — is against the PB’s point, not in favor of it.
Seabury is not an american revolutionary giving birth to a Communion. He is an example of seeking continuity through time, and paying a big price for it, (with all his own personal failings), just as are many today in the Anglican Communion. They are to be differentiated immediately from whatever Schori is inventing.
I have done some work on Bishop Seabury’s history. His father Samuel Sr. (1706-64) was raised in the Congregational Church in Groton, CT, preached in the Congegational churches in North Groton and Yarmouth, ME, but not ordained. Conformed to the Church of England 1730, recommended by Timothy Cutler (one of the Yale Converts) and ordained 1730 in London by the Bishop of Llandaff. He served at New London 1732-43 and then at Hempstead, Long Island, NY 1743-64. Samuel, Jr. (1729-96) born at Groton, Yale 48, Kings, NY, 1751, studied medicine at Aberdeen 1752-53, ordained London December, 1753. SPG missionary New Brunswick, NJ, 1754-57, Jamaica, LI, NY 57-66, Westchester County, NY, 1766-77 where he wrote Loyalist pamphets, hospital chaplain NY 1777, chaplain King’s American Regiment, NY 1778-83. He arrived in Halifax May, 1785, visited daughter and half-brother in Nova Scotia, and held first ordination in Connecticut August 3, 1785. His experience with White and Provoost is summarized in Frederick Mills’ _Bishops by Ballot_, one of the best books about the early history of the General Convention church.
As regards Mrs Schori, Mark Andrus, and TEC in general, why would anyone particularly care about anything she/he/they say, write, or do? Can anyone actually be shocked and horrified by any of this? Is it unexpected? Is it out of character? As to the fig-leaf quotes from Acts and John, they surely don’t actually signify much when used in that context, since to her they are surely no more than imaginative renderings of humanity’s deepest hopes. Oh, and BTW, among her other heterodoxies she is undoubtedly a Pelagian. But why shouldn’t she be, since the divine is merely a Jungian metaphor to such as she.
[edit]However there are 2 things that most on this thread seem to be missing:
1. You can not conflate +Andrus’ attack on ++Rowan with ++Katharine’s attack on a majority view. +Andrus is arguing that this is an attempt at becoming Pope by ++Rowan. ++Katharine is arguing that the majority is attempting to ‘phase out’ the minority. And that among the majority leadership, there are those who support partnered same-sex ordination in private, yet oppose it in public (++Rowan would be among those).
2. The real flaw in her letter is that she is arguing that Anglican history allows for any view that is different. The logical conclusion is that any deviation from accepted teaching has a place in the AC. This is simply false and can not be supported by history. The fact that she has deposed clergy for deviations from the faith and order of TEC shows this. This is where your objections should be focused. Worrying about whether she has more than 2 Bible verses listed or her history agrees with a revisionist history created to make fun of her only cheapens the arguments against her position.
[Edited by Elf]
My first impression is that of surprise. This is a way way way over-reaction on the part of KJS. It comes across as strident and defensive.
What precisely did Rowan Williams, the Cruel, Monstrous, Fascist, Wild-Eyed, Brutal Dictator do? He said . . . “er . . . I don’t think you make very good representatives of the Anglican Communion on our ecumenical thingies because, uh . . . most people in the Anglican Communion think your beliefs are completely loony and do not represent Anglicanism.”
Sort of a no-brainer thought on his part — like not having a bunch of Buddhists represent the RC church in ecumenical thingies.
And to that letter we are treated in response the KJS diatribe, which shifts back and forth between trying to do some theology and church history, to chastising colonialism, to announcing towards the end that all is well and “we” will continue on being the Anglican Communion.
So if “we” are going to continue on being the Anglican Communion then why the stridency and defensiveness?
Has she missed the message of “yawn, who cares, it’s nothing important” that all of her other fellow travelers have been attempting to communicate?
The accepted [and smart] response from TEC has always been the standard “blah blah blah, it’s wonderful that we’re all so unified, peace out, hugs and kisses” line — and she tries to go for that at the end, but the effect is ruined by the umpteen previous paragraphs.”
#19–wildly unrestrained? I am reading these texts alongside you.
1. My impression is that the PB has been given a strong indication that her direction is not to be supported — reading the Naughton and Harris blogs alone would give you that sense.
2. I read the final paragraph of this missive–obviously devised to imitate and challenge the ABC’s–and wonder if already a move is afoot (it has likely been gestating for several years) to counter punch and say that TEC can go it alone, as its own Church;
3. so here we have laid out a kind of ‘last speech of Samuel’ — we are who we are; we are proud; we have our own foundational narrative (Church of Scotland created the Anglican Communion — now that’s a TEC hothouse idea); we are ready to move forward; English people are creating a new Tea Party environment and we did the same thing with native Americans, etc.
So anyone can read RDW’s Pentecost Letter as indicating a very different view of Communion and conclude that, in the light of that, TEC-815 will seek to invent its own and say so — even to the point of saying: it has always been this way, back to of all people Samuel Seabury and the Kirk.
Thank you, Tom. Many people do not know that Seabury actually studied medicine at Aberdeen. There is a very compact historical work produced by a Scottish Episcopalian from St Andrews (where I lived for ten years) which mentions this. One gets the impression that Seabury was genuinely puzzled when the CoE–protecting him from the fallout from consecration by English hands during the revolutionary war–said, No; his trip to Aberdeen appears to be almost an afterthought. I cannot remember myself, but it may have been that the English, seeing the dilemma and wanting to ‘oversee’ the CofE in America all the same, themselves suggested Aberdeen and the non-jurors, and Seabury went back to his educational home. People tend to forget that the Scottish Episcopalians were seeking links to the Eastern Orthodox. That’s where the ‘epiclesis’ came from (the Mass of St John Chrysostom). So we are not talking New World clerics, but high church Episcopalians interested in Communion…with the church outside of Rome! and so avoiding, it was to be hoped, Reformation squabbles.
I struggle to see any resemblence to the PB’s vision. Indeed, it is its opposite.
Well, it may be a spirit leading her and some in the EC but it is not God the Holy Spirit….
Her arrogance is amazing.
Rob (23) Rob, a wonderful, thought-provoking post, if I may say so.
I’m a complete dilettante in these matters, but when I see forces at work whose intent seems flatly hostile and destructive to the Anglican Church into which I was baptised, I feel moved to say something. To see our long heritage of tradition, wisdom, martyrdom, witness, held ransom at the hands of current TEC leadership is the more depressing. I am deeply dismayed by the new order, their arrogance, politicing and self-obsession. The overarching imperative of Ecumenism in John 17,21; John 10.16, seems completely subordinated by the personal ambitions of TEC’s current leadership.
Please forgive my outspokenness.
Alas, I have a cynical feeling that the current leaders of the Roman Church are not unamused by all of this…
Just wait until St. Hilda gets her hands on the PB! (grin).
Perhaps her thinking that Seabury was consecrated by the Kirk was merely a slip. That she seems to think that the Celtic Church differed in any crucial matter from the rest of Catholic Christendom, or that the Elizabethan Settlement was an exercise in compromise over essentials can’t be so easily excused.
I am quite sure that +Rowan would agree that aspects of missionary activity were inappropriate, although “culturally” explainable within an historical context. Yet that argument would seem injected merely to appear to her audience’s patriotic sensibilities.
The PB seems to believe that she and her friends have been anointed to proclaim the message the Holy Spirit has failed to get across since Pentecost. Quite so.
[i]Pentecost is most fundamentally a continuing gift of the Spirit, rather than a limitation or quenching of that Spirit.[/i]
Why then, Ms. Schori, do you and your allies deny the transformative power of Christ, acting through that Holy Spirit your claim to adore, to change people’s lives, and behaviour, and even our “orientations”.
To proffer that homosexuals are “born that way” and can never change is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit by denying his power. It also makes no sense, because every Queer Studies program in America has as its fundamental operational premise that gender is a “chosen sociological construct”. If you can choose, you can un-choose.
A childish mind, generating utterly illogical piffle. It’s difficult to determine whether ++Schori or ++Williams is the greater blithering academic idiot. Schori should have stayed with her squid.
[Just a reminder – would commenters please keep to the thread and be careful to deal with other commenters with charity and courtesy – thanks – Elf]
Dr Seitz,
According to Arthur Middleton (in [i]Fathers and Anglicans[/i]), it was Martin Routh, “one of the most interesting and remarkable figures that has ever appeared in Oxford” who at the age of twenty-eight advised “the envoys of the Anglican Church in America” (presumably Samuel Seabury) not to accept episcopal consecration from Danish bishops (because of their irregularity as an invalid succession), saving them from “taking a step which would have been fatal to the catholicity of their church” by directing them to the Scottish Episcopal Church for the creation of an American episcopate.
Dr Routh, born in 1755 and dying in his one hundredth year, having retired as President of Magdalen College at ninety-four after sixty-three years in that office, was one of the – if not [i]the[/i] – preeminent English patristics scholar of his time.
(Can you imagine that? Born in the reign of George II, and dying well into the reign of Victoria, George II’s great-great-granddaughter?)
[blockquote]Just wait until St. Hilda gets her hands on the PB![/blockquote]
Well put, Fr Clavier. I’m glad someone else was bothered by her misprision of the Synod of Whitby.
(Behind which no doubt lurks exactly what you point out – that late 20th century New Age trendy and completely fatuous notion that Celtic Christianity “differed in any crucial matter from the rest of Catholic Christendom”. Talk about your revisionist history….)
Thanks, Todd–this does not fit well with the idea of “revolutionary American Seabury shunning the CofE to start the Anglican Communion in the US.” A Tory, one of the ‘Yale Converts’, ordained in London in the CofE, served in the Kings American Regiment, urged by Catholic Anglicans to assure regularised orders within non-juring Scottish Episcopalians (who sought to preserve an ancient eucharistic rite out of concern for ancient christianity) — none of this fits the revisionist scenario of the PB or whoever wrote her Pentecost Letter.
#28 – Brian wrote: [quote]”++Katharine is arguing that the majority is attempting to ‘phase out’ the minority. . .”[/quote]
My God man, do you not understand the implications of what you have stated here? This is one of the most superb examples of “Freudian Projection” I’ve seen is some time. “Physician, heal thyself!”
Whoa….Words fail me….for so many reasons….Come Lord Jesus Come and soon.
“The accepted [and smart] response from TEC has always been the standard “blah blah blah, it’s wonderful that we’re all so unified, peace out, hugs and kisses†line—and she tries to go for that at the end, but the effect is ruined by the umpteen previous paragraphs.â€
I’d agree, and the poor attempt at last-minute sanguine is negated by the insults slung earlier.
Whatever the agenda, didn’t “counterproductive” occur to her?
Brian from T19,
Brian do you sense that KJS may be going rogue and solo with TEC?
subscribe
Brian from T19,
Brian do you sense that KJS may be going rogue and solo with TEC?
Well, I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The HoB and the HoD have already “gone rogue and solo” with the actions of GC09 and the consecration of +Glasspool. They obviously don’t care for the consequences, but they can’t really claim not to have known that something had to give. I do not believe that there is any intention of leaving the AC. I agree with Sarah that this is an unusual answer by TEC, however, I would not be surprised if ++Katharine is feigning indignation. It is a logical move.
In addition, the consequences aren’t all that great. Does anyone really believe that the leadership of TEC (both lay and clergy) are at all concerned with ecumenical relations? In addition, the doctrine and order of the communion are pretty well established. It’s not like some massive coup will take place while TEC sits in consultative status. And it is even less likely that TEC could effect any real change if they remained on the committee.
As I have said before, ++Katharine does not care about people. Her concern is about ideas and concepts. So the fact that people are actually effected by TEC’s actions is truly irrelevant. Note the language of her letter: “recognize” is the operative word. She doesn’t apologize for hurt caused, she simply recognizes its existence. She has the clinical detachment of a scientist performing an experiment – the problem is that we simply don’t experiment on people. Having known her for several years, I can tell you that watching ‘V’ on ABC and studying Anna will give you some great insight. 😉
So, no, TEC is not leaving the AC. These ‘punitive consequences’ are meaningless to her and provides her with the ability to play the marginalized minority. It’s actually working out quite well for TEC.
#30 – apologies for not putting “wildly unrestrained” in quotes or something. I do appreciate your thinking, thought your remarks astute as always and wanted you to fill out your thinking for me. Thank you. That was helpful.
Brian, when you’re in the water with sharks, the chances of your getting eaten are excellent, as we all know. She is such a creature, and they kill their own kind.
Brian you are so right, that is all I could think of when reading the PB’s Pastoral Letter was Anna from ABC’s V. (Except for Anna is developing human emotions.)
The PB uses Acts 2:11 to say we we can all hear what we want to hear from the “Spirit.” What “spirit” is she listening too? Why does she spend so much time accusing the church? Is that the role of the PB, to accuse the church while ignoring and/or distorting scripture?
[blockquote] Above all, it recognizes that the Spirit may be speaking to all of us, in ways that do not at present seem to cohere or agree. KJS[/blockquote]
[blockquote]But we are constantly reminded that the priorities of mission are experienced differently in different places, and that trying to communicate the Gospel in the diverse tongues of human beings can itself lead to misunderstandings and failures of communication between Christians. The sobering truth is that often our attempts to share the Gospel effectively in our own setting can create problems for those in other settings. ABC[/blockquote]
I agree with Brian’s comments in #10 and #28. KJS is arguing that the HS can be revealing contradictory things to different people but we are still one church. The ABC is arguing that presenting the same message in different contexts can “create problems”. The KJS statement is an odd reversal of Mat 3:25 with the HS divided against himself. The ABC statement is an unsupportable assertion that the clear communication of a message in one place can impede the communication of the [i][b]same[/b][/i] message somewhere else.
For what is worth, TEC’s doctrine which is set out in the BCP says that the Holy Spirit does not contradict scripture. Thus a “new” thing by the Holy Spirit that contradicts scripture is not really from the Holy
Spirit.
See p. 853 BCP: “We recognize truths to be taught by the Holy Spirit when they are in accord with the Scriptures.”
As in everything else TEC and the PB freely ignore doctrine and canons when they get in the way of their agenda.
cseitz has probably touched the right button. There is a sense here that Schori has chosen to go on the attack because her list of failures is growing longer and longer. One of her best protections is to separate TEC from its institutional kin in order to gain independence. This is sound liberal doctrine: The past is a set of shackles; to be free, one must break them. And it looks as if she is going to do just that. Scripture is really not the issue. Social/political agenda is, and she can becomes its mouthpiece better if she is beholden to nothing and no one institutionally. Larry
#45. Brian from T19,
Thanks for your comments. You seem to understand the mind and motives behind her statements. It seems to me that when we examine both Pentecost letters (ABC and KJS) we are back to the tower of Babel.
The point is rather simple: KJS has invented a narrative. It reads “The Anglican Communion begins with TEC.” It is one more example of the self-referentiality of Americans. Seabury the Tory, ordained in the CofE, forced to Aberdeen to be consecrated, returns to Canada, unrecognised by the 1786 Convention — yet all this points to America as the beginning of the Communion. The English have a different narrative, it is oppressive, the See of Canterbury isn’t the Anglican Communion’s center, America is. Great American Myth of throwing off the shackles, as #52 has it, and moving on. The problem is that Seabury is probably the very best example of NOT wanting to do that.
This TEC Myth may also arise right now in force as a new Independence is contemplated in the present period.
The PB also employs a 16th. Century version of the “Roman Church” oppressing a New Age version of “Celtic Christianity”. That neither versions resemble 6th/7th century Christianity is neither here nor there.
I am reminded of a rather breathless term paper produced by a High School student in an exercise of enthusiasm over scholarship. This “pastoral letter” is indeed “purple prose.”
We shall see whether any TEC bishop on the left or in the center has the courage to object to this sort of nonsense.
“‘I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come’ (John 16:12-13).”
The former rector of my former Episcopal church once wrote a letter using this very verse. Forget the rest of the Bible. Apparently, TEC can divine “the Spirit’s” will to justify anything TEC is doing.
When I was in St Andrews I recall reading a compact history of the scottish episcopal church. It is a lovely, small church in Scotland, often called ‘The English Church’ by Scots in places like St Andrews and Fife. In other regions (Aberdeenshire), it is very proud of its own prayer book tradition, links to the East, distinctive history (non-Jurors). The Kirk and the RC church (especially in Glasgow and the West) are much larger bodies — though the former’s proud ‘public role’ has been severely cut into by the creation of a Scottish Parliament (which was housed in the General Assembly of the Kirk while the present building was constructed). I suspect the Sunday morning attendance may be accounted for by 50% in the big evangelical churches on Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, which look nothing like TEC episcopalianism. and more like english evangelical churches. I would be only guessing the figures, but if 15K are in church on Sunday morning, that might be an accurate count. Most dioceses are cash strapped. There is no 3-year seminary (Coates Hall shut years ago). Only a handful of clergy are trained in the divinity schools of Aberdeen, St Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh — which schools are associated with the Kirk. I wrote this on Thinking Anglicans (where my comments have been greeted with the usual cordiality…):
History writing (and its motivations) is a fascinating topic and here is a good example in Bishop Seabury. The fact that the SEC does its own version of history-writing on its 21st century web account only underscores the point. Seabury is a figure who languished in historical obscurity (in Scotland and in the United States), probably because he was such a Tory and did not serve well as an image of Founding Father. Also, much controversy surrounded him, as he insisted on a loyalist version of Episcopalianism unsuited to the Independence theme Americans warm to, and had his struggles with White and other episcopal colleagues over his version of anglicanism. But then in the early twentieth century Aberdeen, without a Cathedral, sought to imbue the English Tory with Scottish Episcopal bona fides. Why? To raise money in America for a nice tribute in the form of a Cathedral. Dowsnplayed was the problematic that Seabury came to Scotland only out of expediency, and encouraged by English Loyalists worried for what the oath of supremacy might mean for his episcopacy. The next bishops to be consecrated for the New World were of course not headed back to Aberdeen for that, but London. As for the the fund raising campaign. The New World liked the idea well enough and things like Seabury publishers and societies emerged to help with the cause. Until the crash on Wall Street. No Cathedral was built. Seabury was returning to his obscurity. But look: again he is being brought out for display. TEC is creating a new mythos: The Anglican Communion begins with us. Not Britain. We are Americans, freeing ourselves from the shackles of the past, moving on. Fine. But few people could serve as worse representatives of that account of time and church than Samuel Seabury, Bishop of the Church of England in America. The question all this begs, therefore, is the myth emerging again with force because TEC is creating its New World church, shaking off the shackles of oppression? It is hard to say from this letter alone, but Bishop Andrus also sounds these notes.
I’m not so convinced that #15 is correct. I don’t, for example, think Schori’s last paragraph is a goodbye to the Anglican Communion, though I confess I am not sure what it means TEC will do. However, TEC knew before it was sent that the letter from the ABC would have no serious consequences for them, while it would be an invitation to the global south, which has no significant representation in the ACC and JSC anyway, to further remove themselves from roles in the communion on a trumped-up charge of border crossing. I’m afraid #45 has got it closer. TEC may not like its new ideas being challenged, but they can live with a few wordy complaints so long as the Archbishop continues to protect TEC from real consequences and principally work to lower the influence of the orthodox global south in the communion and to discourage ACNA’s competition with TEC.
RE: “In addition, the consequences aren’t all that great. Does anyone really believe that the leadership of TEC (both lay and clergy) are at all concerned with ecumenical relations?”
I agree with Brian [sigh]. Obviously the vast vast majority of the leadership don’t give a flying fig about ecumenical relations. The main point of being on those very groups is the transferred credibility that such activities offer to the revisionist activist agenda. But there are plenty of other opportunities for such transferred credibility — like the Primates Meeting, and the ACC, and Lambeth.
So the response here is just very surprising to me.
I think, though, that the notion that TEC is going to leave the Anglican Communion is more wishful thinking on the part of the traditionalists — TEC revisionist leaders need the Anglican Communion for that transferred credibility and I cannot think of anything that would cause them to leave.
I’m always intrigued by the vitriol the PB gets on this blog. It was not a particularly insightful letter, historically imprecise, and brings little new to the table. It does seem a little reactive.
I especially appreciate Cseitz’s historical explanation regarding her reference to the Scottish Church. I didn’t learn that in seminary (but I didn’t attend an Anglican seminary for my MDiv). It fleshes out a very interesting picture of our founding Bishop. I wonder how many Episcopalians are conservative enough to wish a return to the commonwealth?
Where I think Cseitz goes to far is predicting what Seabury might say to Schori. I don’t think it is easily possible to always predict what the dead will say to the living. Much of it is guess work. Do we really know how our fathers would have understood the contemporary world, with its Lady Gaga, the internet, space travel and contraception? Do we think that Augustine, Seabury, or whoever would not have their world rocked by our contemporary condition? Human beings change their minds. They get faced with different situations. And we are all people of our times and conditions. Only the Word is timeless. Language, alas, is not.
I think it might have been a stronger essay if she had simply not discussed sexuality. There are much stronger frames for the reappraising side.
#59–yes, and that is precisely what is at issue: will transferred credibility hold? An explanation for the ‘surprising’ response is that this is not straightforward given LA and other developments.
#60–John, how widespread do you think the confusion is over the origins of this church? Or do people not really care in the end. When I read that Seabury is an example of American independent spirit I confess I am baffled. I cannot think of a worse example for this idea. But is it that people do not know the record or does the record no longer mean anything, really? I am beginning to think the latter. History no longer has any real force. Young students believe that Abraham Lincoln, Moses, Ghandi and Joan or Arc are contemporaries, viz., they are old and don’t live in the last fifty years.
“But is it that people do not know the record or does the record no longer mean anything, really? I am beginning to think the latter. History no longer has any real force”.
But it SHOULD have real force, and unfortunately there are those who seek to twist it to suit their agendas, which is not only foolish, but obvious.
To be frank, I am reading a book re: 19th century history in a place where I once lived/ministered. The behaviors, ethos, and attitudes have not changed AT ALL. Sometimes you can only, also, glean the truth if someone is courageous enough to write a book or speak honestly about a difficult period–I have been amazed, over the years, at the amount of people, instead of being open about and learning from history, instead seek to cover it up or glamorize it, possibly because some of the stuff in it was pretty disturbing or difficult–but this is to put one’s head in the sand and avoid learning information that could be truly valuable, not to mention germane today.
Unfortunately, avoidance–a sad, cowardly, stupid, and counterproductive aspect of human existence.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
(Except for Anna is developing human emotions.)
True. But so far only rage 🙂
JOHN MAY LIVES!
The reason history is not a real force is that it is history, if I may put it that way. The past is by definition dead and gone, and for most Americans, this is the way it should be, because maintaining continuity with the past is to carry its shackles into the future. We say, “He’s history,” the way we say, “He’s toast.”
What has happened is that the 60’s mantra, “Never trust anyone over 30,” has become institutionalized as doctrine, and so has become generalized as the speakers themselves passed thirty. And this childish bumper sticker has attached itself to the much old Emersonian argument that we must free ourselves from any attachment to The Old World. We are the New People, remaking ourselves every generation. This last phrase is common as dirt now, it is a basic American belief, and a very hostile environment for an real Anglican to prosper in.
One of the most striking features of this astonishing letter is the PB’s repeated harping on the idea that the Pentecost letter by ++RW is some kind of heavy-handed attempt at controlling or punishing TEC. I wholehertedly agree with Sarah’s #29 that this is an amazing over-reaction, since the “sanctions” that the ABoC proposed were so extremely mild and half-hearted. Yet she goes ballistic.
I call attention particularly to the following lines:
“[i]We are DISTRESSED at the apparent imposition of sanctions on some parts of the AC[/i].”
“[i]As Episcopalians, we not the troubling push toward CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY exemplified in many of the statements of the recent Pentecost letter…[/i]”
“[i]We have been repeatedly assured that the Anglican Covenant is not an instrument of CONTROL, yet we note that the fourth section seems to be just that…[/i]”
Clearly, in typical American fashion, the PB wants and claims totally unlimited autonomy, with no accountability whatsoever.
No one can tell her what TEC can or can’t do. Not even God himself. And certainly not the hapless, ineffectual ABoC.
Such a stunning rant is completely disproportionate to the extremely mild and tentative consequences (that are so minor they hardly deserve to be called sanctions) that Cantaur has reluctantly called for. In some ways ++RW’s Pentecost letter simply gave ++KJS enough rope to hang herself with. And she promptly obliged and did herself in with this ridiculous and offensive letter.
David Handy+
The PB’s pastoral confirms what I have long believed: The difference between Frank Griswold and KJS is that Griswold was well-educated in the ways of classical theology… he simply stopped believing it. KJS has never had a classical theological education. She is obviously intelligent. She is certainly well-educated as a scientist. But in liberal seminaries, you can take electives in the things that you are interested in… and for her, that was not Church History, Patristics, Systematic Theology, etc.
Let’s go back to Dr. Seitz’ point in his #5, i.e., that this stridently defiant letter represents a direct challenge to the ABoC, a throwing down of the gauntlet, daring him to accept a duel, to see who will prevail. I agree. This is high stakes poker, and she just bet all her chips. Very dramatic, but also very risky, even reckless.
I suspect that Dr. Seitz is also correct that this amounts, for all practical purposes, to a virtual Declaration of Independence. It’s not however so much a declaration that the Episcopal Church bas become The Episcopal Communion as an attempt to unilaterally redefine the nature of the AC as involving completely unrestricted provincial autonomy (thus declaring independence in that sense). This isn’t merely “walking apart” from the majority of the AC; it’s a bid to impose the American desire for unfettered autonomy on the AC. And if her bold bid fails, as it should, it’s clear that she’s fully prepared to go stomping off in a huff, saying, “[i]Well, who wants to eat those lousy sour grapes anyway.[/i]”
David Handy+
sub
#67 David Handy+
I wish to endorse cseitz’s statement from comment # 30
[blockquote] I read the final paragraph of this missive—obviously devised to imitate and challenge the ABC’s—and wonder if already a move is afoot (it has likely been gestating for several years) to counter punch and say that TEC can go it alone, as its own Church [/blockquote]
I acknowledge Sarah’s comment #59 that my following comments could be wishful thinking.
But the response which KJS takes seems to indicate that she is preparing to take action should the ABC exclude her from the January 2011 Primates meeting and/or remove TEC reps from the ACC and Stranding Committee.
Her message seems to be for two audiences in addition to the ABC. One audience is the far left revisionist Bishops. The other is the center revisionist Bishops.
To the far left Bishops she upholds the new understanding of the Spirit regarding human sexuality. To the center Bishops, she rejects the overly controlling ABC and she defends the autonomy of the Provinces of the AC. For both sets of Bishops she seems to be preparing the ground for the new TEC led Communion.
As a follow-up to my #67, and in light of the fact that the Canadian General Synod begins today, I find the timing of this defiant rant or manifesto very striking. The PB has been invited as a keynote speaker next week, and I fully expect that she may make a similar speech in Halifax, issuing a trumpet call, summoning all lovers of justice, social progress, and inclusivity to join her battle against the repressive reactionary forces within the AC. And the main theme would appear to be sounded already here in this letter (although, heaven knows, it’s been implicit all along), namely, a call to stout resistance to any and all attempts to foist and impose some kind of CONTROL over the rightful autonomy of provinces as totally “unAnglican.”
I call attention to proposed resolution A137, moved by the Bishop of Ontario (significantly enough, one of the three ACoC dioceses already defiantly approving SSM’s). The last part of the explanatory rationale behind A137 reassuringly stresses that the Covenant poses no threat to Canada’s untrammeled and absolute autonomy. The none-too-subtle implication is that because the Covenant is really toothless and harmless they can play along for a while and pretend to be considering endorsement of the Covenant. The resolution calls for the ACoC to engage in more discussion (naturally!), putting off a decision until 2013.
But if the PB riles them up enough next week with her battle cries, who knows? Maybe our neighbors to the north will dare to be more openly defiant and adopt a stance similar to New Zealand. Or even TEC.
Anyway, ++KJS is framing the issue as a defense of Anglican openness, diversity, and especially, the inviolable tradition of total and absolutely unqualified provincial autonomy.
On second thought, this letter may not be a Declaration of Independence so much as a Declaration of War. And the astonishing thing is the foolishness of that, when the weak, vacillating, chief ditherer in Canterbury is probably the best friend that TEC has got in the AC.
David Handy+
Somewhere I missed the Andrus connection. Would someone be kind and fill me in?
#73 See
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/30411/
I’ve been away at a pre-ordination retreat for Diocese of Dallas ordinands. We will be ordaining eight to the (transitional) diaconate. I have only a little to add.
What Bishop Schori seems to be complaining about is not the centralization of authority in the Anglican Communion; rather, she seems actually to be complaining about the exercise of collegial authority in the Anglican Communion. She wants a Communion in which “everyone does what is right in his own eyes.†She complains about imposing sanctions at the (macro) Communion level—withdrawal from theological and ecumenical (and Inter-Anglican?) bodies—while she imposes sanctions at the (micro) Provincial (TEC) level through lawsuits and depositions of bishops.
Her historical survey paints a picture of and attempts to place TEC in the parade of victimization and righteous rebellion against authority: the imposition of foreign values at Whitby (so, why did they submit if this was so odious? Because it is in the nature of catholic Christians to submit to agreed upon collegial authority; we have a term for it; it’s called “autonomy in communionâ€); the imposition of foreign culture on the Hawaiians; the rebellion of Samuel Seabury against the Brits (as Dr. Chris Seitz has pointed out: Samuel Seabury, a Tory Rebel? now that is a contradiction in terms!).
I’m not sure whom this letter is addressed to. If it is addressed to the people in the pew, I think it misses the mark. She is trying to legitimize what has been done, and if these actions by TEC have such broad-based support, why does she need to articulate a defense? I think she would do better to tell us, “Tut, tut, these sanctions have little relevance to our everyday life as a part of the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself said that we are full-fledged members of the Communion, and these little distractions don’t really affect our ongoing missionary endeavors at so many levels.â€
If it is addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is surely a classic example of how not to win friends and influence people. It will serve only to anger him and try his patience—and this man has proven to have enormous patience.
One has to conclude that there is more going on behind the scenes than has been reported, and this (rather offensive) letter is really a pre-emptive strike at the other shoe that is about to drop (to mix metaphors).
I agree with others that this is an odd and offensive letter in many respects. I wonder if there is yet a different strategy behind it then that suggested by either Brian or Dr. Seitz. I have agreed with those who suggest that there are (at least) three broad political strategies being pursued in the Anglican Communion. The first is the conservative strategy, and that has been to create a non-centralized, confessionally based authority which determines AC membership. The second is Rowan Williams’ strategy of rule by communion bureaucracy, which effectively removes power from any Instruments of Unity except the ABC, yet not exercising any of this power except to appoint bureaucrats to control the processes. The third is TEC’s strategy of basically taking over the Anglican Communion in the same way that the liberal activists took over TEC.
TEC’s strategy would logically follow these steps:
1. At the outset, push for the Anglican Communion to see itself as a federation, such that each Province can pursue its own theological agenda unhindered.
2. Gradually gain control of the political machinery.
3. Push out as many conservatives as you can, to make pursuit of Goal #2 easier.
4. Once you have achieved control of the political machinery, drop Goal #1, and institute a mandatory TEC agenda of liberalism.
Perhaps this letter is a bold gambit meant to challenge Rowan Williams’ authority in the Communion. KJS can gain two things with this letter. First, if Rowan Williams does nothing and keeps letting TEC get away with pursuing its agenda, she holds Rowan up to be an impotent leader and one who can be ignored. This serves the purpose of undercutting Rowan’s political strategy. Second, if Rowan does nothing, this will most likely lead to further Global South defections and make it easier to seize control of the AC political machinery (especially with moles like Kearon in power).
Basically, if seen in this light it is a testimony to the utter contempt that KJS has for Rowan Williams. It definitely won’t win her Rowan’s friendship, but obviously, KJS no longer believes that is necessary, nor does she believe that there is any reason to fear Rowan.
One can continue to explore the detail of Dr Williams’ inadequate Pastoral letter or the ranting ignorance of Dr Schori’s response, but little thought is apparently given by either of them to the impact on the mission of other parts of the Communion.
There are two stories I have seen today:
1. An attack on the Anglican Church in Egypt from the Coptic Church; and
2. An attack on the Angican Church of Nigeria [Anglican Communion] by the government of Nigeria for the Glasspool consecrations.
Actions have consequences, but this is unlikely to get through the self absorbed rhinoceros skin of the Presiding Bishop. ‘Coz after all it’s all about ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
#72: New Reformation Advocate, unless I am mistaken, I think you may have confused the diocese of Ontario with the diocese of Ottawa. From the information I have, it is the latter, not the former, that has decides to go ahead with the blessing of same-sex relationships.
Someone has said this, I’m sure on another blog. However, at the risk of repeating what has been said, the reappraises use the Spirit as an end run around Holy Scripture, aka “the dog ate my homework” excuse.
But,David, she does not need to stomp off in a huff. What she is doing has substantial sanction irrespective of religion. She is re-inventing herself/TEC as all good Americans are supposed to do. She can simply ditch the past because only thereby can one reinvent oneself. The AofC is, we all observe, past. He and his cohort are therefore ditch-able.
So she is indeed going to war in a fashion, but she is setting the campaign so that it is fought on her own terms, one of the great benefits of the re-invention technique. The battlefield is hers because her reinvention includes the geography. And who can say her nay?
Scripture and continuity become irrelevant, a benefit that occurs when all common ground (and so, opportunity for rational debate) is expropriated. This is solipsism on a grand scale., She can’t win, but what’s more to the point, she can’t lose. Larry
For all their faults, at least Andrus and Schori are standing up for their principles……not the like the ABC who wants institutional unity with all sides sacrificing principles (that is how he ends up criticising both those who have pursued revisionist and biblical actions).
Thank goodness we do not have doublespeaking, Griswoldian, ‘play the long game’ strategy coming from TEC….this gives the AC a better chance to reform itself…… at least Schori et al have the courage of their convictions (or endowments……whatever gives them courage)
#62 cseitz – I think you raise here a much more fundamental question, one that describes part of our current context. I do think there is a forgetfulness in our culture that impacts church teaching.
I’m neutral about “forgetfulness.” I think there is worth in handing down traditions; but I also think that traditions become idols. I also believe that we have to talk about the “past” with great care. We don’t inherit history that was guaranteed to be objective. We get the side of the winners.
It’s unpacking our current condition – the changes of public/private, the immediate transmission of information, geography – that may allow us to comprehend what is exactly going on. It’s not merely that reappraisers are becoming more liberal and the reasserters are protecting the truth. We are both caught in our context. But it takes a lot of self-examination to describe our context (without supposing that what is descriptive equals what is proscriptive).
I believe that the Archbishop has a greater sense. On the other hand, perhaps what is meritorious about the PB’s sentiment is that it is… unfettered by history, just an immediate claim about the Gospel.
Unfettered by the Gospel, too, John Wilkins. Aye, what glorious liberty of the American persons of the Revolution. No fetters, no guiding principles, just pure, unadulterated experentiality, coated with religious language as justification. But such selectivity has its price. Glorious realized self-hood to the exclusion of all else. There is a place to which this leads – total involution and voluntary exclusion of all that is not the self – Voldemort at Kings Cross Station, under the seats, incapable of being reached, incapable of any experience other than the self. The Good News frees humans from that end, but only if they receive it. There is no such reception in EcUSA/TEc, Instead, they contend “Hath God really said … ?”
hereIstand: Thank you for the link. I haven’t been keeping up; I won’t be keeping up. You were kind to respond.
The gushing praise for the PB in comments at The Lead from Diocese of Washington (D.C.), contrasted to comments here, reveals two church-worlds.
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/episcopal_church/a_pastoral_letter_to_the_episc.html#comments
I have to say that the effusions of admiration there gave me the heebies.
Looks like I got to these comments just as they were dying out. I’ll go ahead and put in some miscellaneous notes:
Thank you Dr. Seitz in 14 for your very enlightening capsule on the Spirit and truth (“Clear dominical warrant activated by the Spirit’s deliverance of Christ, His only job” [I think you mean the *only* job in this regard]). I appreciate the way you turn the tables on the changeniks: “Continuity and agreement—that is the Holy Spirit’s powerful new work….”
On your repeated question/musing about the PB saying “au revoir” #15, #30, #57. My humble opinion is that she is building this, but will at the same time hang on as long as she can (she can probably make it to the end of her term) maintaining the cache of the historic Communion.
You asked in #62. “How widespread do you think the confusion is over the origins of this church.” I think Episcopal seminarians grasp a basic story: We needed bishops after independence, Seabury sallied forth and followed the rabbit trail to Scotland for consecration, he brought back elements of the Eastern Eucharist, wrangled with the middle states over the shape of the Episcopal Church, and finally came to a compromise that gave us our vaunted polity.
# 18. Alta Californian wrote: “She still seems to be saying that the dying portions of liberal Christianity in the West have heard the Holy Spirit, while the growing and vital parts of Christendom around the world have not. ” Ouch!
And finally, #76, jamesw wrote: “….Perhaps this letter is a bold gambit….” Thank you for reminding me of the joke about why Episcopal leaders aren’t good at chess. I would share, but I don’t think the Elves would be amused.
“The past is by definition dead and gone, and for most Americans, this is the way it should be, because maintaining continuity with the past is to carry its shackles into the future”.
#66 Larry Morse, I disagree with this, although I believe your point is mixed. There are serious American reasons why expressions exist like “history repeats itself” or “the more things change, the more they remain the same”–all you need do is live in the Deep South or the West(or both) to understand that.
I would agree that there are those who seek to cast off history, those who won’t break free from it, and those who wish to rewrite it to suit themselves. I’d put KJS, at the moment, in the last category.
I would also agree with #75 that the letter(although I would say “offensive” as opposed to “rather offensive” 🙂 ) seems preemptive in some way, and it would be interesting to know preemptive of what…
jamesw as always is spot-on–and I have also said, like Pageantmaster in #77(in essence) that I find TEC’s calculated lack of awareness re: consequences of her actions for other Churches in the Communion of which she still remains a constituent part, appalling.
But, why care when you’re allegedly getting your way with THE AGENDA? Yet she should care, because that is the Christian thing to do, especially when it comes to empathy for other Communion Churches.
That preaches well, dwstroudmd, but I have a suspicion that we’d need to discuss what the gospel is. Is it a catch phrase (“the truth will set you free”), assenting to say the Nicene Creed without crossing one’s fingers with the filioque clause, or about complementarity. Is it one thing or many things? In the venn diagram of what constitutes the gospel, are there any things we share? Or are there a few we don’t and those are the most crucial? And must we learn Greek semantics in order to truly be saved?
Although I share your skepticism about “experience” I think this is one of those words that is thrown about all the time, but is little understood. Reading scripture is an experience; as is being taught at the foot of the Master; and people often experience Christ (this is the language of the evangelical) before reading scripture. Many of the words we use, and the sides we take, seem to make our discussions more like political disputes than real engagement with the gospel itself.
From [i] The Guardian [/i]:
The truth is that a Church with the nutter priests of Angola et al cannot in reality sit with the free love hangover hippies of the Californian liberal left. The invitation to join Rome still stands though.
I was chatting with my older son on Skype this morning. He made a point which struck home. He remarked that consumerism markets products not with an eye to veracity but with what appeals to the “market.†The almost adoring responses to the PB’s letter on progressive blogs today suggests that her market responds to a vision of an American led, Spirit authenticated New Deal for TEC and eventually the Communion. Now I do not doubt for a moment that those advocating this “product†are sincere and genuinely convinced and that their meta-narrative drawn from the past makes perfect sense.
How then do those who demur, to whom the “product†has no appeal, and who distrust the historical narrative presented enter into dialogue? Rather like translating a work from another language, it is not only word meaning involved, but nuance and cultural echoes to be considered. Some would merely retreat into themselves and regard the work of dialogue/reconciliation to be a waste of time or just plain wrong. Yet Paul himself engaged the philosophers in Athens or the pagans (country folk) at Lystra by seeking to build bridges between them and the Church and Lord he served.
It may be easy to dismiss the TEC leadership as heretics and consign them to the nether regions, but such a position makes nonsense of a determination to remain within TEC. Further the religion asserted by TEC is a pretty good summary of the culture in which we minister, one we must understand sympathetically if we are to apply the Gospel faithfully and with success not merely as a rebuttal, but as a way which leads to the truth in Christ Jesus.
wvparson,
I would engage in dialogue if I understood what the message was. I must confess that even though TEC messengers use the English language (and that is my first language), the words don’t seem to share the same meaning. They don’t seem to make sense. I was in the Army in 1967-68. When I returned, I came back to a country different than the one I left. Even the campus I returned to had changed. There seems to be a cultural barrier that cannot be breached. I have not been able to close the gap. I have moved on but seem to be living along side people from another culture. When I read the letter of the PB, I ask myself, “Why did she write this and what did she say”? None of the 90 some posts here has answered the questions for me.
John Wilkins, what preaches well from Peter in Jerusalem onward is that God acted decisively in Jesus the Messiah to redeem all creation from the effects of disobedience to God (sin) and that was completely done in the Second Person of the Godhead so as to be applicable to all creation and that those who believe that in such a fashion as to mold their whole lives around that reality are in fact saved. They are set free to be what God intends them to be in the Son, not what they imagine to be the petty freedoms of superficial selfhood that alleges its fulfillment in self-actualization in opposition to what has been always and everywhere proclaimed. I suggest a close reading of Galatians, particularly chapter 5, in which the list of behaviors that lead to death and the contrasting fruit of the Spirit which leads to life are laid out quite clearly. The Gospel is not freedom to do what you or I think right, it is the freedom to do right as God has revealed it in mundane prose from Moses to now. The cavil “Hath God said…?” so beloved of the erring in EcUSA/TEc is patently NOT the Gospel. The Apostolic Faith has taught and continues to teach the same thing. EcUSA/TEc teaches another.
Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.
“It may be easy to dismiss the TEC leadership as heretics and consign them to the nether regions, but such a position makes nonsense of a determination to remain within TEC”.
But TEC has thrown down its gauntlet. You can stay, but you can do one of four things:
1. Continue to debate, even to the point of “heated”, but you won’t get anywhere;
2. Maybe win a couple of battles but still lose the local war;
3. Keep your head low as you minister, lay or ordained, in whatever niche you’re in;
4. Or, change your mind, acquiesce, and jump on the liberal bandwagon.
And, each of us will have to do what our conscience or circumstances dictate–in my case, my conscience would dictate a quick exodus, but my personal circumstances have me, for the moment, stuck. Thus, I don’t “dismiss the TEC leadership as heretics”, but I do completely disagree with their agenda. I would like to consign them to the nether regions, but that’s impossible. So, all that’s left for people like me to do is my Christian spiritual best, until such time as I can make a change. But, ever sign on to the TEC direction, I WILL NOT…
#92. dwstroudmd,
Perfect clarity. Thanks and Pax
RE: “regard the work of dialogue/reconciliation to be a waste of time or just plain wrong.”
Yes — a waste of time, and just plain wrong both, as St. Paul was very clear on what to do with false teachers in the church.
RE: “Yet Paul himself engaged the philosophers in Athens or the pagans (country folk) at Lystra by seeking to build bridges between them and the Church and Lord he served.”
Indeed yes — but as I noted, he distinguished sharply — quite sharply — in the actions towards pagans, and people within the church who were false teachers.
RE: “It may be easy to dismiss the TEC leadership as heretics and consign them to the nether regions, but such a position makes nonsense of a determination to remain within TEC.”
Yes, it is easy to dismiss the TEC leadership as heretics and false teachers, and no, such a position does not make nonsense of a determination to remain within TEC in the least. How would that be? How does acknowledging the reality of our current leadership “make nonsense” of remaining within TEC, any more than acknowledging the corruption and evil of the leaders of France during WWII make nonsense of remaining within France?
No, the correct stance for those who remained in France was to in every way resist the actions and agenda of the “leaders” of France.
RE: “Further the religion asserted by TEC is a pretty good summary of the culture in which we minister, one we must understand sympathetically if we are to apply the Gospel faithfully and with success not merely as a rebuttal, but as a way which leads to the truth in Christ Jesus.”
Yes, indeed — that is why it is important to distinguish between pagans and false teachers who infiltrate the church and purport to be Christians, lying to the world and the church.
I never thought I would come to the conclusion I have but as one who has left TEc (well at least my diocese has) I have to say I now believe it to have been a wrong decision ….I know …I know….but Sarah is right. The Apostles were building up by teaching and proclaiming the Good News and walking as examples of Jesus on this earth as they were instructed. They also were rebuking those same churches when they began to stray and false teachers came amongst them. They did not leave and kick the church to the curb. There were souls in those churches that belonged to God! Did they shake the dust off from their sandals when they were not received in some towns that would not hear or listen to the Good News? Yes…but this was not the case of the Churches. They rooted out the false teachers and rebuked them. They stood up to them,. In my opinion I see this now as a stranger who has come into my home and taken up residence that is not of my family and by leaving I have allowed that stranger to take hold of my home and occupy it. What kind of care taker am I by allowing this to happen? We all should have stayed and stood up to the false teachers….We all should have said NO….but we cut and ran….this is not a simple sandbox issue where the bullies came in a took my marbles. This is case where they came in and played then c hanged the rules and I did not like the new rules and got up and left my sandbox and my marbles. what kind of stewardship is that?
Again, I will always say that people have to do what their conscience dictates, and it’s not my job to say who’s right or wrong on the leaving/staying issue. I will say that, based on the Scriptures, I will always believe the agenda of TEC to be wrong. But this
“No, the correct stance for those who remained in France was to in every way resist the actions and agenda of the “leaders†of France”.
is true, yet I don’t believe that any Allies are going to land and aid in ejecting the Germans, so that France can be turned back over to its natives. TEC is not going to change, and people simply need to decide to what degree they can or can’t live with it. Maybe TLDillon has a point in that so many should never have originally “cut and run”, but now they have, and traditionals in TEC no longer run the table. Any traditionals remaining in TEC will have to make their own decisions. I take mine day-by-day.
#92 “in such a fashion as to mold their whole lives around that reality are in fact saved. They are set free to be what God intends them to be in the Son, not what they imagine to be the petty freedoms of superficial selfhood that alleges its fulfillment in self-actualization in opposition to what has been always and everywhere proclaimed. I suggest a close reading of Galatians, particularly chapter 5, in which the list of behaviors that lead to death and the contrasting fruit of the Spirit which leads to life are laid out quite clearly.”
Nothing here I disagree with. But I think we probably disagree on the details. I think the “petty freedoms of superficial selfhood” is a correct analysis of our situation, but then you’ve gone and damned capitalism, which is all about enjoying petty freedoms and superficial self-hood. I hesitate to go in that direction, myself.
But again, it’s not the vague generalities I disagree with, it’s the particulars. And perhaps, that’s why I find the discussion generally frustrating. My experience has been that it is precisely encouraging gay people to live closeted lives, for example, that encourages the rivalry, dissension, self-hatred that leads to a spiritless life.
Those who the Son makes free are free indeed. In word. In thought. In deed. Saved capitalists and saved communists. Saved aggregators and saved individualists. The problem, as you well understand by your own admission, John Wilkins, is the details … particularly those details where one decides against the whole of revelation, Tradition and the Church Catholic to assert error as truth.
The proclamation of a blatant lie and error as “truthiness” and to assert the blessing of God on what He has forbidden is, as I understand it, passed beyond error into blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which, Dominically defined, is a very, very, very bad place to be.
To err is human, to forgive divine. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is wreak damnation upon one’s own head at one’s own hand and mouth, for the pursuit of selfish goals and ends. This is not fundamentalism, it is fact. The Light shines upon all men, to some it is joy unspeakable and Life Everlasting. To others the pangs of Hell which they have deliberately chosen and to which they willingly embrace, incapable of further choice or repentance.
Who has ears, listen!
#69–I am not of the view that this is a challenge to +Williams in a meaningful sense (‘my view of federated anglicanism will win; take that’; or, ‘I am going to show you can’t do what you appear to be doing’) as it is a statement of intention: ‘if TEC is formally excluded from Instrument life, we will carry on a different kind of life all the same.’ To which many in the Communion would say, Fine. Now let us return to being the Anglican Communion and determine what that means as a global evangelical-catholic Christian body. At issue here is what KJS has been told via the Pentecost letter and in other ways.
I’ve just been reading Gordon Fee’s commentary on I Cor. 4 [[i]NICNT[/i]/Eerdmans], a chapter which is so helpful for distinguishing yet again between human wisdom/[i]logos[/i] and God’s power/[i]dynamis[/i]: ‘For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power’. [1 Cor. 4.20] Took me right back to the PB’s letter. Fee writes that the Corinthians ‘were living in the Spirit as though the future had dawned in its fullness, hence they were above the weaknesses that characterized Paul’s life and ministry’. And earlier: The Corinthians ‘claim to have the Spirit; will they evidence what for Paul is the crucial matter, namely the powerful, dynamic presence of the Spirit among them to save and to sanctify?’ The Bible speaks today! As does Fee’s good commentary.
RE: “it is precisely encouraging gay people to live closeted lives, for example, that encourages the rivalry, dissension, self-hatred that leads to a spiritless life. . . . ”
And of course, there is no encouraging of gay people to live closeted lives, any more than there is an encouraging of those tempted to sin in any other way to “live closeted lives.” People who are tempted to perform sinful actions have no need to live closeted lives at all — not those tempted towards sinful anger, or stealing, or setting fires, or having sex with the opposite gender, or having sex with the same gender.
Yes, I agree with #102, fine–“be here and be queer” all you want, just don’t expect the Church’s blessing on your homosex. Nobody’s saying that anyone is supposed to keep their sin in the closet; frankly I have more respect for those who are open about it.