I realize I may be expressing latent colonialist tendencies and committing spiritual violence by imposing a singular understanding of basic logic on Bishop [Jefferts] Schori, but it appears that she is forcing us to choose between two alternatives:
#1. The Holy Spirit is telling some people that gays and lesbians can be ordained ministers while telling other people that such a move is contrary to God’s will. Ergo, the Spirit is a relativist who imposes moral requirements based on cultural norms rather than on a fixed, knowable standard.
#2. The Holy Spirit is consistent and has expressed his will on this issue to one group; the other group is mistaken in believing that the Spirit has spoken to them. The group that he has spoken to are therefore justified in attempting to apply this standard consistently throughout the communion.
It’s a standard tenet of discernment of spirits. When what seems to be the Holy Spirit speaks words to all of Christianity consistent with God’s self-revelation in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, then it’s likely that it is the Holy Spirit speaking.
When what seems to be the Holy Spirit speaks to a few of things that aren’t consistent with God’s self-revelation in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, then it’s likely that it is not the Holy Spirit that is speaking.
In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. (Vincent, 5th century)
After all, the Holy Spirit is God.
Alternative #1 dissociates the Holy Spirit from the Holy Trinity.
One needn’t have certification as a spiritual director to know which spirit has been speaking to the TEC leadership.
We have all been saying similar things for years but the PB has decided her path and the path for the Episcopal Church and it is fracturing to the point of ultimate irrelevancy. Even worse, is the damage she is doing to dioceses and their Churches. This is spiritually destructive, but for some reason her jaw is set and there will be no consideration given to those who oppose her Spiritual Agenda…even if it results in the destruction of the EC and the fracturing of the Anglican Communion.
If past patterns of behavior on a micro scale are consistent for the macro scale, then I would suggest that the reappraising approach would be to argue #1 (diversity, pluriform truth) until sufficient reappraising control over the organization is achieved, after which the argument will shift to #2 (justice, enlightenment).
🙄
Logic? Proper use of actual reason in EcUSA/TEc? What a silly, premodern, unenlightened, retrograde imposition of standards. Never work in EcUSA/TEc, never. Not because it’s not true, you understand, but because it is so … unzeitgeistian, so …box-like, so …not what is ardently wished for and desired and pursued to the exclusion of all else.
Just a reminder, Ralph. When Vincent of Lerins promulgated his famous Rule against those who felt free to innovate against “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est,” he was attacking St. Augustine of Hippo. At least in the Western Church, Augustine’s innovations were ultimately recognized as orthodox, while Vincent’s traditional Semi-Pelagianism has been regarded for well over a millennium as suspect at best. Times of change are awkward for all concerned. While most innovations are ultimately rejected, there are exceptions and it is unwise to be too dogmatic about which are which. Obviously, the PB’s dogmatism is both illogical and ecclesiologically unwise, but that doesn’t automatically make other dogmatisms any better.
The author presents a gunuine “inconvenient truth.” Would really chafe if TEC actually regarded logic as having a valid and necessary place in debating its worldview.
[blockquote]If past patterns of behavior on a micro scale are consistent for the macro scale, then I would suggest that the reappraising approach would be to argue #1 (diversity, pluriform truth) until sufficient reappraising control over the organization is achieved, after which the argument will shift to #2 (justice, enlightenment). [/blockquote]
#3, you are correct. However, I would prefer to put it in Machiavellian terms: TEC is “like a mighty army” on the move. When approaching hostile forces, it sends out its scouts, its skirmishers and negotiators. In the territory it has conquered, suppression is the name of the game.
I’ve often wondered about the expression, “times of change”. What other times could there be?
[7] No doubt your vivid metaphor better explains the refugee, the disaffected, the wounded, the burned homestead, etc.
“So which claim do liberal Episcopalians believe to be true: Is God a relativist or is he a colonialist?”
He’s whatever He needs to be at the time so that they can get their way.
And His Scriptures were just scribblings written by humans within their sole cultural context, which was pretty primitive, at that.
:-/