TEC’s recent history reveals that it now has a standard way of doing business””one that exposes its pleas for dialogue as disingenuous. What is that way? One makes changes in disputed aspects of the life and order of the church by breaking the rules and then calling for conversation rather than “consequences.” This standard way of doing business carries with it its own very idiosyncratic notion of dialogue”“one that, by laying claim to the prophet’s mantle, will not allow the possibility that one could be wrong and one’s opponent right. When TEC acts, TEC acts (according to TEC) in the power of the Holy Spirit; and when TEC speaks, TEC speaks (according to TEC) in the power of the Holy Spirit. To be in opposition, therefore, is to oppose both the Holy Spirit and the justice it is God’s purpose to bring to the world. These are shocking conclusions but, given TEC’s recent history, they are unavoidable conclusions”“conclusions that if ignored by the Instruments of Communion and the member Provinces, will lead to the demise of the Anglican Communion.
TEC’s recent history makes the truth of these charges abundantly plain.
In March, Rev Dr Grant LeMarquand, Dean at Trinity Seminary, said this to TEC HoB in presenting the conservative side of the work of the theology committee:
Dr. LeMarquand is, I believe, [i]Academic[/i] Dean at Trinity School for Ministy, but an incisive, well-stated point and in obvious agreement with Dr. Turner.
Scripture instructs us regarding relationships.
Our personal relationship with God and our personal relationships with each other.
Our success in establishing and maintaining these relationships will be evaluated by Jesus, the Christ, and our Salvation will come from that evaluation.
I believe that God will evaluate our relationship with Him based upon what we do with our heart, mind, soul and strength as we live out our mortal lives.
And “what we do” are not amorphous and undefined things that affect our personal relationships with God.
God,The Father, has been specific about many aspects of human behavior that affect our relationships with Him. That specificity, in words, i.e. Scripture, has come to us from Him through the prophets, Jesus and the apostles. It is popularly and succinctly stated to be “…the Faith once given….”
When we depart from God’s paternal guidance, that is, we sin, then we damage and risk breaking our relationship with God.
At this time, ECUSA is, in my opinion, claiming unfounded/unproven discernment regarding God’s paternal guidance and encouraging members of ECUSA and the rest of the Anglican Communion to engage in what He has previously told us is “sin.” Those that follow the discernments of ECUSA’s leadership in this matter do so at the risk of their immortal souls.
The Body of Christ is composed of Christians who follow “…the Faith once given….” While each of us has our personal relationship with God though Jesus Christ, we each also share in a broad mortal relationship with each other in The Body of Christ.
This mortal relationship is based upon our common belief in “…the Faith once given…” and upon our Christian love for each other and upon our ‘trust’ in each other.
When the leadership of ECUSA and its General Convention claim “discernment” that fundementally changes “…the Faith once given…,” follows that “discernment” by approving, as a national church, mortal behavior that is sinful and then wilfully pursues the fruit of that discernment in a manner that threatens the unity of The Anglican Communion, then they are directly attacking the Communion and The Body of Christ.
That is, the bond of “trust” within the Anglican Communion is being/has been broken by ECUSA.
And ECUSA is distrusted because of what it has, through its own actions, done to its relationships throughout the majority of the Communion.
It is time for those of ECUSA’s leadership who actually are Christians and who actually do profess “…the Faith once given…,” to get down on their knees and to pray for true guidance and to turn off all of their ingrown mortal prejudices and truly ask for the the voice of The Holy Spirit and then to actually listen to what He is saying. If they hear nothing, then that is the way it is to be at that moment. But, don’t pray with the expectation/desire that He approve what you want Him to approve and then ‘make something up’ and pretend that you have heard prophecy.
An excellent summary of TEC’s m.o., reminding one of the way rebellious teens deal with authority figures.
All of which confirms my belief that the Episcopal Church is not the least bit interested in carrying on a dialogue with us reasserters except on their own terms……or with anyone else who disagrees with them, for that matter.
#5 I believe you are completely right. I am not a TEC priest but when I asked one about the current distress and the high value placed on dialogue in the Anglican/Episcopal tradition she said, “All of those ‘awful, hateful people’ in the church who want to keep things the way they used to be (regarding practicing homosexual clergy, primarily) just NEED TO LEAVE. The divorce has already happened; now we are just fighting about who keeps the house. But the bottom line is: They need to get out. There is nothing to talk about.”
I’ve been saying exactly this for fifteen years now.
Dr Turner has previously written quite cogently about what he describes as the ‘hard work of communion’. I cannot lay my cursor on the citation but someone may remember the article about six years previous. In this current article he points out the desperate truth that
[blockquote]“Dialogue, for TEC, is … Rather it an aggressive form of self-promotion built around “talking points†rather than disciplined argument—talking points that are meant to beat
down opposition to a disputed action already taken.â€[/blockquote]
In discussing the manner in which the Episcopal Church began the habit of ordaining women he notes the disdain for the rules the innovators evinced. I will suggest that this might be a symptom of a distrust of ecclesiastical establishment which is underlain by a soteriological disbelief. It may be since they have no confidence or patience in grace they adopt a sort of Pelagian social justice agenda. The frustration that many have experienced is summed up as
[blockquote]“Serious discussion with both groups has become a virtual impossibility.†[/blockquote]
And yet, dedicated thinkers like Dr Turner continue to roll the boulder up the hill against the grade.
6. “awful, hateful people?” Now whatever gave her that idea? We don’t hate the sinner, but we do hate the sin. I believe the question now is one of how much longer TEC will survive.
#9, they just don’t agree you can make distinction between sin and sinner. I mean, they don’t even think there are any problems in ECUSA save for some pesky conservatives. Only after ECUSA completely implodes will we we be able to say: “we warned you.”
I like this newly emboldened, truth to power speaking, ACI. More, more . . . Seems the ‘then the Covenant passes and all will be well in the AC’ phase is now in their rear view mirror.
-ms
#9, I am with you. It pains me to recount this, but I will never forget the clarity this brought to my mind. Perhaps the idea in this priest’s mind that (who I now call) reasserters are “hateful” people comes from their positive regard for the Apostle Paul and his writings. This TEC priest claims to follow Jesus and not Paul, because in her view Paul was an internally troubled man who struggled with his own sexuality and clearly “hated women and gays.” I indeed mentioned the concept of “loving the sinner but hating the sin” in the context of this conversation but the distinction was lost on her.
With such a stark difference between me and her not only on the matter of homosexuality and the practice thereof, but fundamentally about the nature and role of Scripture in the lives of Christians, I quickly sensed that any possibility for meaningful and fruitful “dialogue” was gone–at least until God, through some unforeseen intervention, opened a fresh door. Lord have mercy.
The brilliance of Dr. Turner’s insightfulness here is shown in explaining the roots of how TEC has developed its “business plan”, i.e., “Run Out the Clock”, beginning decades ago with illegal ordinations. Such a strategy gets a real momentum with an unclear state of affairs continiuing over a period of time that permits a unique scenario to morph into something no longer that unique. At the time of the illegal ordinations decades ago, my position was that ECUSA should formally declare such ordinations as conferring only a “de facto” and irregular status unless and until their ordination was able to be declared legal at some future time (and I am a current supported of the ordination of women). Interestingly, this position is somewhat akin, I believe, with the the RC Church’s technical objection to Anglican orders as irregular and thus not of a status equal to RC orders because of the particular rites involved and I believe we can learn a thing or two from the RC Church about how some particular issues can be dealt with successfully. The wrenching effect on the Communion of TEC’s morphing program re the current issues can be most successfully be dealt with by by the Primates simply insisting on a DIRECT position (in contrast to a PASSIVE drawn-out approach involving discussion and covenant-making. The direct approach simply and clearly means that provinces that ordain individuals and permit rites that aren’t in accordance with the Communion’s stated policies and provisions have placed themselves in the position of occupying a status in the Communion that is a de facto and unique one, and that such de facto and irregular status continues unless and until the Primates formally declare that any such province is observing the Communion’s stated policies and provisions.