In a time of judgment the truth is revealed in moments like this, and it can be quite painful. So why does the New York Times get it, the Times-Picayune get it, Integrity get it, and people in the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church who should know better not get it? It is because they do not understand the depth of the breach that needed to be repaired in the first place. The Primates sought an unequivocal commitment because for a marriage in temporary separation if you do not invest yourself completely in what the marriage counselor asked for, it will not work and you get a divorce. The stakes are simply too high, and the damage is too great, for a negotiation, quid pro quo, well I might, sort of, for a short time do this, and while I say this (I will still do sometimes do that), oh and by the way, I insist on my spouse doing this and that which I want because I have terms here too.
people in the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church who should know better not get it? It is because they do not understand the depth of the breach that needed to be repaired in the first place.
That is certainly one way of looking at it. I think the more realistic approach is that they do understand and are just not troubled by the idea of the divorce. While it is not honest to claim that they want to stay together, I think TEC realizes that the marriage can’t be saved when the 2 “sides” are on such uneven ground.
Greetings and good morning –
This is so very sad! I grieve for all in the Anglican Communion and pray other churches can withstand the pressure to turn their backs on Biblical authority. Those of us in the pews on the conservative side have been getting it for the past five years. I think TEC gets it, but honestly believe they are right and the rest of the Anglican Communion will one day see it their way. TEC is trying to seem like their complying not to be difficult but to stand their ground, which they feel is the right place to be. Too bad it isn’t. May God have mercy and turns their hearts and heads back to His truth and His way.
Blessings –
BJ Spanos
TEC is still playing games, but they have no choice. It makes no difference. We all see through this, even the ABC. He of course will continue to do nothing, but the Primates will.
Yeap! “Divorce Episcopal Style.” Tragic and my heart breaks for you, Kendall, and for many others who loyally stayed on TEC’s ship to work for reform within. God bless you.
Kendall is quite right to point this out, as I was dismayed by some of the responses by reasserters. Among the most disappointing were those of Brad Drell and Bishop Salmon.
Very cogent analogy to bargaining (or playing games with) the marriage counselor.
Do you really think they don’t get the breadth of the issue? Do you think there’s anyone who hears more frequently about the concerns of Episcopalians in this whole issue than bishops? While perhaps the Bishops of some diocese might be unaware of the anger that apparently brews in South Carolina and Fort Worth, I think as a whole, the bishops are fully aware of the breadth of the issue. Most of them have been involved in the life of the Episcopal Church for some time — most, not all.
To be honest, I’m beginning to question if it might not be blog-hosts who are making more out of a situation that is there to begin with. Sure there’s a crisis, but are we on the edge of the apocalypse? I don’t know. What I do know is that spending 10 – 15 hours a day posting entries, or sending people masquerading as journalists to a HoB meeting, or belly-aching about what newspaper says what — none of that at the end of the day is going to do anything to spread the Gospel. It might be fun, it might let out some steam for those who for the first time in their lives find themselves to be a minority (not that much fun is it?), but it’s not going to tell anyone about Jesus. That’s the truth. They say that no bonds are as tight as those made from having a common enemy. All that being said, I realize I’m wasting too much of my God-given time on this site (and those of others). I’m outta here – I’ll spend my free time perhaps doing something that might make the world a better place, and possibly change someone’s life in the process. Peace.
Look, some of us just don’t think of the Anglican Communion as a “marriage,” with all that implies. To us, the claim that we’re in danger of divorce is mystifying, because without a marriage, the concept of “divorce” is meaningless.
The Current Disputes boil down to this: In the extended family we call the Anglican Communion, the GS-traditionalist cousins are upset with the TEC “General Convention” cousins, and are threatening to stay away from family reunions and similar events if the GC cousins show up. Or if the GC cousins do make an appearance, the GS cousins will refuse to eat at the same table with them. That’s not a divorce, it’s a family squabble.
(Now when the GS cousins show up at the GC cousins’ doorsteps and start claiming ownership of the property, that’s something else — but whatever it might be, divorce it ain’t, because there was no “marriage” to start with.)
I am a marriage counselor, Kendall, and I wholeheartedly agree.
It all strikes me as little more than an attempt to impress the “savages” and buy them off with a few trinkets.
In the last 30 years ECUSA has lost over one-third of its members, in spite of keeping people on the rolls for years after they’re gone. In the same period the Church of Uganda has more than trebled its active membership. In 1975 the two churches had equal membership. Next slide, please.
Mark Johnson [#7]: While you’re enjoying your liberation from blog-thralldom, you may wish to consider how exactly bishops like Smith of Connecticut, Howard of Florida, and Bruno have “made the world a better place,” particularly from the standpoint of the gospel. In any event, the notion that people like Kendall Harmon and Greg Griffith live in some obsessive world orthodox blog rage is worthy of the most contorted mirror in any horror house.
Kendall said, “The Primates sought an unequivocal commitment because for a marriage in temporary separation if you do not invest yourself completely in what the marriage counselor asked for, it will not work and you get a divorce.”
If that is what “the Primates” sought, then the way is clear for them to act — the HoB statement was clear enough. If that is only what some of the Primates sought, then the way is clear for them to accept the HoB statement and continue the process.
What the Primates said at Dar es Salaam was, “If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.”
Do you believe that if “the Primates” who were in your mind when you wrote what I quoted above had had a free hand to write the DES statement as they wanted to it would have threatened only that TEC’s relationship with the AC would “remain damaged”? No, “the Primates” wrote a much more nuanced statement that said what it said; now the HoB has replied; we’ll see if the Primates as a body will find that acceptable. Many fear they will!
If the AC breaks apart now, it may well be because some of the Primates (probably the ones on the right) cannot live with what the Primates as a group decide.
When I was baptized and confirmed in TEC while in grad school, I understood I was joining a world wide portion of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Not another small American protestant sect. All of these years I have been delighted to further the cause of the catholic yet reformed Anglican Communion. No matter the personal cost I will never ever go backward. Oh how I identify with the Bishop of New Mexico! My hope now is that +Bob Duncan et all can now take major steps toward forming an authentic orthodox Anglican province in North America before the Pittsburg Common Cause meeting is over. Otherwise, I will soon be learning to make the sign of the cross backwards.
Irenaues [#11], Mark Johnson [#7] hit the nail on the head: When we spend time, talent, and treasure fighting amongst ourselves, we’re not working on bringing nonbelievers to God.
I find one thing terrible ironic (I had to find something to laugh about). The one item that the bishops were the most clear and forceful about was foreign primates and bishops providing pastoral care to US congregations. Ironically, their statement yesterday will exacerbate that trend — I’m sure that within the next 30 days we will see a whole new wave of departing individuals, congregations, and probably a couple of dioceses to foreign jurisdictions. The bishops statement is going to be a major backfire for them in this regard.
Well, the whole dispute has been what well-intentioned folks like Mark Johnson (#7) and D.C. (#14) are going to tell people about Jesus. That’s the key. “Who do you say that I am?” The answer governs how we respond to the scriptural revelation. If the Lord and the Church he established were culturally bound by first-century constraints, then we are free to change according to our best judgment. If the Lord was and is who the Creed says he is, then our approach to scriptural revelation and the Church are going to be very different.
I am very disappointed that some are interpreting this HOB statement as placing TEC in compliance with the wider Communion. It doesn’t.
D.C. – Many of us on the reasserter side of the issue are concerned precisely because the current leadership of TEC cannot bring non-believers to the true God. I don’t know where they are leading them, and tragically, I don’t think they know either. For me the 39 articles are the foundation of our branch of the Church, not some historical curiosity. Including all of the icky threatening sermons in the Books of Homilies based on all of God’s lovingkindness in warning us of the consequences of sin.
The articles reaffirm that Scripture is our foundation interpreted by right reasoning and lastly by tradition. I am concerned by the reinterpretations of the Gospel message because the incomplete teachings of the first-world Anglican Churches endanger the souls of their adherents by creating a picture of a false god.
Despite the complaints that many bishops have heard along the way, they are behaving like they don’t get it. The language of debate is eerily reminiscent of the excuses made by the executives of Enron, Nortel, Worldcom, or any other recent breaches of ethics. They are bishops and therefore entitled to their proper power and place; who are we to question them?
Apparently, the way our local small-town paper wrote up the story, the Episcopal church “will try not to” consecrate any more homosexual bishops. My teenager just walked into the room a moment ago, and asked me if that was accurate, and I just nodded. She said, “That’s one of the lamest things I’ve ever heard.” I just nodded again.
So, it is demonstrably not that hard to “get it”. Of course, there are common obstacles: hardness of heart, and fingers in the ears.
D.C., the point you make in #14 is true, but it would ring more true if it were not so often used as a smokescreen to muzzle criticism.
As has been said ad nauseum, all of the distractive fighting could have been avoided if (a) the political action faction had not pressed its case in a political way, thereby forcing the issue, and (b) having then injured the Church, the power structure had not insisted on a scortched-earth policy againt dissidents.
We hear “dialogue, dialogue” but the TEC PAC was happy to end the dialogue the moment it had sufficient control of the levers of power.
We hear “mission, mission”, but the TEC PAC was happy to contort the “mission” into a political agenda.
Connecticutian says, “all of the distractive fighting could have been avoided if (a) the political action faction had not pressed its case in a political way, thereby forcing the issue”
This indirectly raises a question I’ve long wondered about. Has anyone ever suggested that the original election of Bp. Robinson in New Hampshire was improper or unduly influenced by “special interest groups”? Whenever I hear people talking about 2003, it’s always about GC giving consent, not about the original election itself. I’ve always thought the election was about the people of NH having a long and affectionate relationship with VGR, and that the diocesan delegates were just normal episcopal diocesan delegates (often people who refused the invitation to run for Vestry, not people with an agenda). Does anyone claim there was there an active campaign to hijack the election? As I say, I’ve never heard the claim.
[blockquote]It is because they do not understand the depth of the breach that needed to be repaired in the first place.[/blockquote]
As a distant Anglican (from across the Pacific), that’s not how I see their response. Now that may be because what I’ve read in the various blogs and news reports has only given me a very limited perspective of this crisis, or perhaps it’s because I can be a little more objective being far from the epicenter. Before I defend the HoB I should make clear that I’m not sympathetic to the liberal position of the TEC majority, nor do I condone the TEC’s actions in confirming Bishop Gene Robinson without a prior endorsing consensus from the wider Anglican Communion.
Anyhow, it seems unreasonable to suggest that the HoB haven’t understood the magnitude of the problem. Nor is it reasonable, as quite a number of conservatives have been suggesting, that they’ve been duplicitous. I suggest that for a moment we try and see things from their liberal perspective. Imagine their passion to see the dismantling of (what they see as) sexual apartheid within the Anglican Communion. (Perhaps they liken this to St Paul’s passionate defense of the faithful uncircumcised against Judaisers.) How does one preserve fellowship within the Communion, and at what cost, while wishing for change? Some no doubt were saying that the cost of fellowship was too high, while others no doubt were saying that a more patient approach for the sake of fellowship was the better way. I’m sure all along they understood the magnitude of the problem but, given the need for consensus, a compromise was almost inevitable. One question remains, is their response sufficient to preserve fellowship? Time will tell.
TEC will see the Lord’s judgment visited on them, not with dramatic destruction, just with a certain and quiet withering away. Remember that Jesus, knowing what Judas would do, nevertheless made no move to stop him, simply letting Judas act out fully what was in his heart. Even to the betraying kiss, Judas could have turned back, but did not. When Satan left him, Judas felt remorse but not repentance, and hanged himself in despair. TEC has spoken its true heart. God will now speak His.
Bill in Ottawa [#17], when you say that “the current leadership of TEC cannot bring non-believers to the true God,” it has an eerie ring of what various Muslim sects say, not just about “infidels” but also about each other. Ditto for ultra-orthodox Jews.
(We also have counterexamples to your claim, in the form of thriving liberal parishes such as those of commenters Ross and “John Wilkins.”)
The difficulty with your claim is that none of us really knows “the true God.” Certainly Scripture gives us one portrait of him/her/them/it (actually, several), as do the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, etc. Unfortunately, there are plenty of confidence-shaking problems with all these portraits, not excluding the Bible.
Bottom line: We should not place SO much confidence in the accuracy of the scriptural portrait(s), that we feel justified in excluding from full participation those people whose mental models of God don’t entirely conform to ours.
A Baha’i in sheeps clothing are we?
RE #20 – There have been a number of NH comments confirming that what you ask about was exactly what happened, but only after several attempts to have him elected elsewhere failed.
angusj, thanks for the nice post. I don’t think it reflects two things, however: (1) there is a huge contingency in the HOB that are just what we would call “company men.†They don’t have any real affinity for the sexual liberation movement, but they have homosexually active priests in their diocese and don’t want to offend them (also various organists, perhaps diocesan council members, etc.). These bishops also mainly want peace in their diocese and see the orthodox as being the ones that cause trouble by threatening to leave TEC and threatening property and financial contributions. They’ll go along with whatever 815 and co. issue and proclaim peace in their time. Point being, I don’t think this latest Statement from the HOB is a heartfelt desire to address apartheid so much as it is a political document drafted to win this group over, which it does.
(2) I do not think that you see the duplicity in the statement. To say that you are not authorizing any “public rite of SSB†when DES does not have the “public†caveat is to strain credulity to the breaking point. For example, can you play with words by saying that a SSB ceremony that is on Saturday and in church but not “open†to the public is not a public rite? When the church sponsors it in broad daylight? How about the bishop knowingly allowing and sanctioning a priest doing the SSB, as long as it’s not a diocese-approved “rite.†That is “authorizing†a blessing just as sure as the sun rises in the East, but the HOB would say that is a gray area. Horse feathers, the priest is acting within his diocesan authority with full knowledge and sanction of the bishop. In the law world, at least, that is “authority,†and it’s not a gray area.
This is the lack of honesty and maturity about the situation that Canon Harmon addresses here.
The saddest thing about it is that the HOB is taking advantage of Rowan Williams’s exceedingly charitable, shy demeanor. Williams wants to be everyone’s grandfather and would like people to honor their word and commitments. TEC is a member of the Communion but won’t abide by Lambeth I.10, Windsor, Dromantine, Dar es Salaam, or (honestly) even its own past General Convention statements on homosexuality. The HOB knows that Williams is probably too nice to call them out and discipline them, and that is royally shameful.
Also, about the public bit, they are trying to rewrite the rules with a prior document. Dar es Salaam does not give sanction to private blessings. Period. HOB is trying to play clever word games, but that is simply not an accurate understanding of the Communique.
“HOB is trying to play clever word games….”
No — they’re saying what they can say. Now let the Primates say if it’s enough.
Here’s something I find heartbreaking: Take a look at any major Protestant denominational split of, say, the last 50-75 years, and here’s what the result has been, albeit painted with maybe too broad a brush, but please consider.
The more right-leaning branch of each split has gone further to the right, and the left-leaning branch likewise. Less “good” diversity, more monolithic thinking. In essence, people choose which side they’re comfortable with and go there. This has happened with the Lutherans, where the ELCA now has in excess of 20 different Eucharist settings (how they missed the Laurel and Hardy version, I’ll never know), and the Missouri Synod folks are still a pretty strict bunch. I know, I know, it’s an over-generalization, but if you had to choose one or the other, you’d likely have to put up with a lot of thinking/being that felt a little extreme. Same with the First Christian/Disciples of Christ: the “independents” are so far to the right that they’re comical, but the D of C’s are, in their way, too. They barely stand for anything other than, “show up and we’re happy.” Same with branches of Presbyterianism. Same with the Baptists.
So, OK, my point: Split and neither side gets any more interesting to be a part of; on the contrary, each becomes less interesting, less a catalyst and challenge to spiritual growth. Like it or not, the tug of war that happens between left and right serves, at its best, to put the focus back on the center. No, not anyone’s idea of a political center. But the center that is Christ. Christ’s table, not one side’s or the other’s.
Kendall is right when he says (or said, forgive me for forgetting exactly where) that “we need each other.” We damn well do. Miss that and we miss the whole point. That’s what the bishops had the chance to say. But none of them, far as I can tell, had the courage to. Will any now?
awfully funny to see folks who bemoan the media
now argue the media gets it
Look on the bright side; The errors taught by Marcion, Arius, Nestorius and heresiarchs since , forced the Church to constantly examine theology and Christology. A result being the Nicene Creed (Constantinopolitan form), which would have been much shorter if not for the aforementioned heresiarchs.
Maybe the trials of ECUSA ,and the wider Anglican Communion, will be similarly instructive for christians yet to come.
D.C. (#8) – there is lies the problem. You see the Anglican Communion as an extended family. Reasserters see it as one body. For you, having some distant cousins not show up at a family reunion is sad, but not tragic. For us, causing schism in the body because you don’t care what the rest of the body thinks is tragic. For you, the mantr seems to be “live and let live.” For us, it is “We are one in the Spirit, one in the Lord.” TECUSA has effectively told the rest of the communion that they either go along with that TECUSA says is OK or they can lump it. Such an attitude is hardly the attitude of a Christian.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
We know, D.C. #8, some of you think of the Anglican Communion as a brothel, with all that implies. Maybe if you had thought of it as a marriage, the Anglican Communion wouldn’t be broken beyond repair.
bob #30, even the NYT gets the weather right. Who’s really wrong about everything all the time?
Phil – (my doppleganger) – the image of a brothel is a bit over the top, don’t you think? I don’t believe that DC or any reappraiser thinks of the Communion as a place for paid sex. From what I understand, they think of the Communion as a place for experimentation in theology or praxis where there is not connectedness between the extended family. What we do in our family doesn’t impact the part of the family around the world. What DC fails to realize is that we are one body, not an extended family
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil S. – I accept your reproof. The language could have been different.
At the same time, I’m sorry to say that I don’t think the intention behind the comment is over the top.
When I think of the Communion as a marriage, then I’m compelled to act sacrificially. If my wife is troubled by me being out all night with the guys a couple of times a week, then it’s incumbent on me to put her feelings first and seek unity within our marriage, not belittle her concerns, assert my rights and bargain her down to one night of carousing.
What ECUSA wants is the gratification of the Communion – Lambeth, “worldwide,” the history, the Catholic facade – with none of the work of a relationship. To get even more uncomfortably close to the original analogy, ECUSA doesn’t mind not-so-subtly swinging its money around, either, just to let everybody else know how dependent they are upon our province.
Phil blank (#36)
While I think that TECUSA is behaving a lot like Gomer (from the Prophet Hosea), but they don’t see itself that way. TECUSA sees itself as forging a new path and being true to the call to fulfill the baptismal covenant.
What TECUSA fails to realize is that moral teaching is a large part of the Apostles’ teaching. Jesus talked about money and sexual morality. Paul mentions sexual morality quite a bit, actually. The Church has always put restrictions on our sexual expression. For the last several millenium, homosexual sex has been outside of acceptable behavior. To us, the change in moral teaching and the undergirding worldview and theology look a lot like “whoring after other gods” but the Anglican Communion is not “the other gods.” Secular society is.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Oh Phil, you stumbled upon one of my fav figures of Hebrew Scripture – Gomer. I adore and take great hope from both Gomer stories.
How interesting that the Welsh people trace their lineage back to the Gomer, the elder son of Japheth – I wonder if the ABC holds some of Gomer’s voice when he calls us to live with Scripture in the context of our historic faith, creation now and the generations who will come after us. I am challenged by Williams reminder that “…knowing is ineradicably a matter of contingent, conversational, perspectival and narrative development.”
I suspect that you are referring to Hosea’s wife, who runs away from Hosea and sleeps with another man. I would remind you that Hosea loves Gomer anyway and forgives her. Some scholars see a model for the relationship between God & Israel – the people of Israel worshipped other gods, God loved them anyway and took them back.
I would remind you, Phil, that the word Gomer means complete, with some Judaic scholars seeing it as “standing for the whole family”. The issue here is not moral teaching or the Church’s restrictions – it is also how people honestly live their God-shaped lives as people who have a sexual orientation different from x% of the population. When the ABC said in New Orleans that : “I do not assume that homosexual inclination is a disease”, he frames a reality that has been a closeted truth in the Dioceses of Dallas, ECUSA and the Communion world-wide. He added: “Gay and lesbian people have a place in the Church as do all the baptised”, I no more see this as “whoring after gods” as I do the rise of “family va;ues” or the prevalence of affluence & consumerism in our “successful” churches.
When we say we are Gomers, it means we are forgiven and loved, completed and perfected in the love of our Creator. Redeemed by the blood of Jesus. It does not mean that we are harlots – we are not remembering the old sins, but the perfect love of God and His grace. I would be proud to be called Gomer.
Phil [#36] and Phil Snyder [#35], our differing views of the nature of the Anglican Communion — and for that matter, the nature of the church itself — may be a very large part of the problem.
To start with, we seem to have different views of the nature of an extended family. Family are the people that, when you show up at their door, not only do they have to let you in, they want you to come in. In my clan, to be even a distant cousin, by blood or by marriage, is to be family (being a very small part Italian, here’s where I would make an appropriate two-handed gesture for emphasis), which for us is one of the strongest bonds known to man.
But that doesn’t mean one branch of the family will let even close cousins, let alone distant ones, dictate to them how they must live their lives. If one branch of the family were to try doing so, the object of their imperatives would respond, in no uncertain terms: We love you, but butt out.
The Anglican Communion isn’t a marriage just because some traditionalists decree it to be so. I’m happy to treat fellow followers of Jesus as cousins — as family. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to defer to them the way I do to my wife. Nor would I expect them to defer to me in that way.
In any case, actions speak louder than words. I’ve been observing Christians for a bit more than half a century of living. I’ve seen almost no Christians who treat the church as anything more than an extended-family relationship. And that’s just fine.
————–
Incidentally, be careful when you argue from Paul’s body-of-Christ metaphor. Recall that Paul was chastising a particular group of so-called believers. The targets of his wrath were those who treated the “out” group with far less regard than they did the “in” group. There are a lot of traditionalists (and not a few of the more radical liberals) who should squirm uncomfortably at that thought.
Reason and Revelation (#26), thank you for your clarifying comments. You present a persuasive case.
Bob Carlton – I’m glad you accept the title “Gomer.” We love you and desperately want you to stop sleeping around. But before we can welcome you back into the house, you have to say: “I will arise and leave this place and go to my father and say ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.'” (To combine the story of Hosea and the parable of the Prodigal Son.) But you want to still be considered part of the family even when you are travelling in a strange land.
D.C. If you want to use the family metaphore, fine. However, I don’t think you grasp the depth of what God wants for us. Jesus prayed that we would all be one. Paul said that we were all one and TECUSA has told the rest of the communion that their opinion doesn’t matter. Families have rules – at least mine does. I can’t call my sister a homophobic bigot and then expect her to welcome me into her home. One of the rules in Church is that which affects all is to be decided by all. TECUSA doesn’t obey those rules. It only obeys the rules it wants to. The people who obey only the rules that they want are generally adolescents who dont’ get to sit at the adult’s table because they are incapable of behaving like adults.
So, the TECUSA live as it wants to live and not listen to the rest of the family. Soon, it won’t be invited to the family reunions. But, because they are family, when they repent and want to rejoin the family, they will be welcomed with open arms. “For this my son was dead and is alive. He was lost and is found.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
just when I was looking for a little humor, this had to be said..
Bob Carlton (38),
“some scholars”?
What a (sorry to say) humanistic mangling of a story of a prophet’s dedication to follow the will of God Almighty! Even if you don’t believe in divine revelation, here specifically in prophecy and divine direction, at the least you could acknowledge that you don’t need “scholars” to read that “in the story” GOD directed Hosea what to do, because GOD love’s His bride despite her blatant disregard for His Ways, and that the People of God would only respond – in GOD’s estimation – to such an out-of-the-box radical life illustration.
Don’t blow off the bible, or God in the bible, Bob, and I’ll listen to your comments – you know, the ones you layered on about love, mercy, grace, proud to be Gomer – with more credence.
“they do not understand the depth..” – ksh
RGEaton
Rob, I can not for a moment even comprehend “blowing off” the Bible – I actually look to it for wisdom & a light to guide our steps. I suspect you disagree with how the story speaks to me & others – how is it that you can know the only way to capture it’s meaning ?
Phil, I have always admired your humility. In these battle, all “sides” have tended to see Scripture as annointing their “position” and damning the “opposition”. The truth, Phil, is that we are all Gomer – all Israel – all fallen short of the glory of God, saved by grace, transformed by the resurrected one. The hubris shown in your comments is beneath you – we are called to humility.
Phil Snyder [#41] writes: “… I don’t think you grasp the depth of what God wants for us.”
Wow — and you do? That sounds like something an Islamist mullah would say to an “infidel.”
———–
Phil Snyder writes: “One of the rules in Church is that which affects all is to be decided by all.”
Let’s assume arguendo that this is the case. I see two problems.
First, by “decided by all,” are you saying that unanimous consent of all Anglicans would have been required to consecrate +VGR, or Lind+ in Chicago? If you are, then we shouldn’t stop there; we should require unanimous consent of all Christians for all decisions by any church anywhere. Obviously that would be a reductio ad absurdum, but it illustrates one of the problems with your argument.
If you’re not saying that unanimous consent would be required (and I sure hope you’re not), then presumably you’d agree that the previously-agreed governance processes have to be followed. To do otherwise, to try to make up the governance rules on an ad hoc basis as we go along, would be to invite chaos.
Second: Traditionalists have not made a persuasive case that NH’s election of +VGR, and the consent to his consecration by a majority of the HoB and HoD, “affects” them in a cognizable way, i.e., other than through their self-induced choler. Talk all you want about endangering souls, but the truth is that you guys don’t know whose soul is supposedly in danger any more than I do. So New Hampshire is entirely justified in saying to traditionalists, and TEC to the traditionalist primates: We love you, but butt out.
***** One of the rules in Church is that which affects all is to be decided by all. *****
who decides the boundaries of all ?
if someone keeps their orientation private, are they included ?
Phil, I can not imagine you mean this statement as colonial & patriarchal as it comes off.
D.C.
First, “all” is generally considered to be consensus (probably >75% agreement) by those in communion. Perhaps you didn’t listen to +Anis and his discussion of how the blessing of same sex unions or ordination of those who are sexually active outside of marriage affects his efforts at evangelism. If you didn’t listen to +Anis, how about Kenya, Nigeria, Central Africa, Uganda, Southern Cone, Hong Kong, or any of a number of Global South primates. Let’s leave that one for now. It is not the traditionalists who have to prove anything. The reappraisers are the ones seeking a change to the moral teaching of the Church. Since you are the ones seeking change, the burden of proof rests with you. We have an accepted teaching that homosexual sex is sinful. That has always been the teaching of the church. While this pedigree is not, in itself, proof of the validity of that teaching, those who wish to change it must show that their new teaching better reflects the self revelation of God’s will and mind. So, from within the received revelation can you show that God blesses same sex unions? Can you provide scriptural and/or traditional support for your position?
Bob, let me ask another question in return. At what level can we change the teaching of the Church? Does it require a whole province? How about a diocese or congregation. Heck, why not just let everyone do what is right in his/her own mind and do away with teaching all together? After all, I might find your doctrine oppresive and stifflling to my lifestyle.
This is not and has never been about orientation. It is about action and what actions those who wish to remain faithful to the teachings of Holy Scripture are at liberty to bless. Someone named Rowan Williams said that, I believe. So, can you show me where Holy Scripture gives us leave to bless homosexual sex? Can you show me where blessing same sex unions is more true to the Apostles’ teaching than refraining from doing so?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Bob, yes we are all called to humility. So, where is the humility of the HoB? Where is the statement that their new thing might be wrong? I know I am a sinner, saved by Grace and given new life by the Holy Spirit. I know I sin daily (hourly!) and am in constant need of God’s grace and forgiveness. However, I don’t ask anyone to bless my sin. I seek counsel on my sin. I seek forgiveness on my sin. I seek a new life and I work to return to my Father to confess my sin. Yes, we are all Gomer – we are all the Prodigal Son. But as the Prodigal Son, we need to “come to ourselves” and realize that we have squandered our inhieritance and travelled to a far country. We need to “leave this place” and return to our Father. God loves us wastefully, lavishly and prodigally. He is waiting for our return. God loves us more than we can possibly fathom and I believe that we hurt Him when we refuse to return. How long will TECUSA make Our Father sit by the gate, waiting for its return?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, you capture so much in your statement. At what point – I do not honestly know. As Rowan said – Homosexual orientation is not a disease. It is not something to be lied about, so that people can stay in ministry. When people stop hiding how they are created, they become part of the whole that makes decision, guided by the Scripture.
How has the teaching of the Church changed over time ? Almost always (with the exception one emperor), this change is led initially by voices at the margin, those that are outcast, those who are powerless. Christ came as one without formal power, stayed on the margins of the establishment.
One last thing – of course it is about orientation, Phil. It may also be about Scripture & authority & honesty & polity – but to ignore that it is about orientation is to take this to an abstraction that is laughable at best, tragic at worst.
When bishops & priests in the Diocese of Dallas, ECUSA & the AC kept their orientation as a lie, hidden – that was surely not what God has intended. As Rowan Williams said 4 days ago, “Gay and lesbian people have a place in the Church as do all the baptised”. That place is not in a closet.
Bob – orientation does not demand conduct. Yes, people who experience homosexaul orientation are a part of the church and should be. We should not kick them outside nor should we demand that they stay in the closet. However, if they are going to continue in sin and not admit that it is sin, then they should not be raised up to leadership. You seem to want to change the definition of an act that is currently (and has always been) defined as “sinful” to not be “sinful.” To do so, you need to provide evidence from within the tradition that it is not sinful. More than any orientation, this is about faithfulness – faithfulness to what the Church has received. When the Church has changed its teaching (with the possible exception of the ordination of women and we see how well that turned out for the growth of the Church), it did so from within the tradition. You rightly say that when the Church changed its teaching those at the margin started changing first. First, it was the Gentiles who wanted to become Christians without first becoming Jews (and given the surgical techniques at the time, who can blame them 🙂 ). In Acts 15, we see that the Noahide laws were used for them, not the Jewish law. James quotes the prophets (Amos, Jeremiah, and Isaiah) in support of his argument. What prophets do you quote? In the slavery issue, people quoted Paul in Galatations and in Philemon. Where is your Pauline support? In the empowerment for women, again, scripture was used in support of making women full partners with men in the life of the Church.
So, can you show me, within the received revelation of Scripture and Tradition where your support for renaming what was “sin” to be “not sin” or even “blessed?” Show me where God or Jesus or Paul or James or Peter or Hebrews or Jude or John blesses same sex unions. Show me where Ignatius or Augustine or Athanasius relaxes the moral teaching apart from Scripture and without any scritpure on their part.
The problem is not orientation. There do exist people who can control their sexual urges – both homosexual and heterosexual. There do exist people who have been delivered from a homosexual lifestyle. God never promised that it would be easy. Only that He would enable us to live as He desires the more we surrender to Him.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil- First of all I agree with your concerns and points of view. I haven’t ever commented on this website, but, at this critical historical juncture within TECUSA, I feel it necessary to post my experience with the infection of modern day liberalism and relativism.
I realized, while serving as a Episcopal Peer Minister as far back as 1999, just how complicated this discussion really is. In 2002, I was a party to a “Diocesan-wide College Leadership Training Meeting” with a representative from our diocese, a representative from the national church, and other campus leadership teams. It was intended to give us ministry tools, but instead sparked deep theological discussions and eventually debates. We got into the homosexual discussion and that led to the discussion about the validity of The Bible. The representative from national said that the only thing we Episcopalians have in common is The Book of Common Prayer. We asked him many questions about his point of view. He would not stipulate to validity of The Bible, not even the fact that Jesus died for our sins, only the fact that we come together in a common order of service. I was raised Episcopalian and understand the history, so you can imagine everyone’s faces and the face of our diocesan representative. He went on say that, by us stipulating to some basic Christian facts, we sounded more like southern Baptists than Episcopalians. He said that point blank.
Another example is illustrated by my conversations with a liberal priest that still oversees the campus ministry I was involved in from 1999-2001. After many conversations, I dug down through the current debates over homosexuality to the heart of the matter. What I found was she believes that Jesus died for our sins, but could not say that he was the (only) way to heaven. She was so afraid of “casting judgment,” because that “was the Lord’s job, not hers,” that that impacted her view of Christianity as a whole. This relativistic view includes the Bible and just about everything that Christians hold dear. As you mentioned, she often equated the homosexual issue to the way women have gained rights within the church.
Notice any trends. There is so much to say, but my observations have yielded clear evidence that they do not feel guilty for being open to what they believe to will of the Holy Spirit. So many within the HOB would actually be lying if they came out and asked for forgiveness for the things that they had done. I am deeply troubled by the lack of humility and frankly shaky version of Christianity that some priests are infecting into their communities and churches. I think a lot of all of this comes down to the basic idea of loving the sinner not the sin. The same way I would not accept as good or okay an alcoholic is the same way I would treat the homosexual. Loving, but not bending what I believe to cater to every fault or sin we humans display.
Spencer Stocker
RE: “awfully funny to see folks who bemoan the media
now argue the media gets it”
Yeh . . . the bishops that are yammering about the horror of blogland actually taking down their thoughts and voices and actions . . . it’s amusing.
; > )