Q: Where does it leave the diocese of Chicago if Tracey Lind, an openly lesbian priest, is elected bishop?
A: We have a resolution of the General Convention that says we should exercise restraint, and we don’t really know where that will take us, and we won’t know until there is another bishop-elect who is gay or lesbian, and then we’ll see how that happens. I think we’re all exercising restraint in a sense that we know this is an important issue. We know it’s a controversial issue, and only time will tell how that will go either with bishops or with standing committees. And remember in our church it’s not just bishops who decide, but clergy and laity as well as the bishop.
Q: What did you learn at this meeting about the feelings of the rest of the world?
A: I think the international visitors underscored for me what we’ve known, but hearing it coming from their lips is even more powerful. Their contexts are so different from ours. It should not surprise us, but perhaps we’re naive when we forget that in many countries of the world if you’re known to be gay you can be imprisoned. There’s just rampant discrimination. In a context like that, to ever have a chance to sit in the room with a faithful, committed Christian person who also happens to be gay or lesbian — it’s just not something that happens. So to hear from their lips how their contexts are different from ours, I think it always helps to have that personal contact. It was just as important for them to experience how very different our context is. So I think there was learning on both sides. That’s really why we treasure the Anglican Communion so much is that if we hold together there is so much to be learned from one another.
Let me see if I get this straight. ECUSA bishops shoot bullets into my leg and refuse to give me first aid. A foreign bishop comes in and gives me first aid. ECUSA bishops are STUNNED at this ‘incursion’, characterize it as an ‘assault’ (how ironic!) and demand that it stop, as it infringes on ECUSA’s ‘franchise’.
Will someone please keep Robinson away from microphones?
Exercising restraint does not mean moratoria. The statement that B033 applies to homosexuals was seen as partial compliance by some (Bp Howe put it as substantial compliance but now also describes it as partial compliance as well.) Robinson’s statement shows that this should be viewed as outright non-compliance and more verbal contortions.
The TEC where yes means maybe and no means maybe.
“Then you look at the bishops who are in the room, all but one of whom, a very liberal bishop, voted for it. And it was the full range of liberal to conservative, all kinds of different faith and practice.”
Boy is this an understatement; “all kinds of different faith and practice.” Knew there was different practices, now fully convinced different faiths is a very true statement. Thankfully VGR has cleared this up for all of us…..
The first answer is the longest non-answer I’ve seen since the Clinton administration.
Imagine that – the “Paris Hilton” of the Episcopacy in ANOTHER interview!
Speaking about the conservative bishops:
“I think they are just arguing pastorally that it needs to be at a pace that their people can absorb. ”
Wrong…..he mistakes their statement of reality with their coming around….there are many of us who accept the fact of what is happening and going to happen, but will never come around….so we leave…..
Yawn.
Uncle Dino
We on the left hear your hyperbole and don’t know what to do with it. “Shot in the leg;” “Apostate pagans;” “Heretical liars;” “spiritual assaults;” etc.- all of this is so extreme and it is just ridiculous. Look realistically at your complaints: 1. Some in TEC do not interpret Scripture in the same way as reasserters; 2. Some in TEC do not recognize the authority of Scripture; and 3. Most in TEC are universalists. This is the shot in the leg, the spiritual murder that is complained about? So in response to this outrageous heresy, you renounce the demonic evil and invite incursion into a body that is recognized as the US branch of Anglicanism. It is not enough to go elsewhere – that would somehow be a betrayal of Jesus – but rather you must be rescued from the spiritual slaughter by holy men from foreign lands. And, heck, you might as well take the property. After all, you paid for its electricity for the past 15 years and your grandmother probably wouldn’t approve of gay bishops.
Are you beginning to see why it is so difficult for Anglicans in the First World (US, Canada, UK, the ABC, etc.) to see the massive spiritual genocide that you all decry? We get that your Jesus doesn’t have room for practicing homosexuals and non-Christians in His Heaven. What we don’t get is how you are being assaulted by our Jesus.
Brian: “What we don’t get is how you are being assaulted by our Jesus.”
It’s not that anyone is being “assaulted” by “your Jesus” (whatever THAT means), it’s that “your Jesus” is a lie, Brian.
Dear me. Pardon me while I toss my cookies. There is something oleaginous, something batrachian about this man that makes my skin crawl. I can feel myself breaking out in warts already. LM
Elves, if you are going to delete my comment, at least address my concerns. I am tired of the condescending response, “yawn.” The term a$s is a perfectly legitimate term for those lacking in good manners. Shakespeare used it as such. This is how I use it refering to Rolling eyes and Susan Russell.
Robroy, it was JOKE, a jab at people like Susan Russel. LIGHTEN UP!!!
And, until Kendall asks you to write his new usage policy, why don’t you let the them manage their blog as they see fit?
Rolling Eyes [#9], your remark that Brian’s Jesus is “a lie” is why a lot of us regard hard-core traditionalists as the Taliban wing of the church: They’re implacably certain about things that they have no warrant to be so certain about, and they refuse even to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.
(And elves, while I appreciate all you do to maintain a civil tone here, the Taliban reference is by no means out of bounds in this context: it’s a succinct summary of a widely-held point of view. If you feel strongly otherwise, then by all means do what you gotta do.)
I would just close comments now. Why anyone does an interview with VGR is beyond me. The man is worse than useless, vain and completely self-centered. No constructive conversation will ever emerge from VGR or from what he says so why even bother reporting it. IF VGR is truly representative of Christianity from a “gay” perspective then TEC might as well close it’s doors now.
Rolling Eyes, thanks for the clarification. But I have seen a precedence with others following Susan Russell’s rude example.
#9, Brian T19,
“We get that your Jesus doesn’t have room for practicing homosexuals and non-Christians in His Heaven. What we don’t get is how you are being assaulted by our Jesus.â€
There aren’t, as you say, two Jesus’, but only one who is our Lord and Savior. My understanding of the personage of Jesus comes from Holy Scripture. I don’t have any idea where yours comes from. Maybe your understanding of Jesus is different than mine, but that isn’t what you said.
It’s important for me after our new PB said that there were many ways to heaven rather than as a Christian she should keep the faith that there is only one way and that is through the Jesus of Scripture who I love and worship with all my heart.
[i] This elf suggests we lighten up. [/i]
-Elf Lady
#17 Elves,
Thanks!!!! I’ll do my part. Am too old and don’t want to need an extra high blood pressure pill so early in the day.
#4 i think the longest non-answer winner is alberto gonzalez – this would be a close second though…
brian,
in reference to your comment-
“What we don’t get is how you are being assaulted by our Jesus.”
once you point out where in the Bible Jesus says that the homosexual act is condoned, and that no text should be taken literally, then you have won the argument; otherwise we will take the incursion of OUR church by unitarians for what it is, an egregious assault on Orthodox Christianity.
“to ever have a chance to sit in the room with…”
To say something like “their presence lit up the room” is one thing. But this line just sounded like an archeologist overwhelmed by looking at a never-before-thought-possible discovery. The comment enshrines an “it”, which I doubt was his intention. High drama. I agree with Uncle Dino’s final sentence in #1. On the other hand, Uncle, the more he talks the more his credibility, and that of the people he represents, suffers. I have noticed a distancing in that regard especially since the bar interview, and then the political endorsement flap. But he will still be used for gain. What do you think?
RGEaton
I read the interview in its entirety. Nothing new. Listen to me, me, me, me, VGR. It certainly appears from recent events that the ABC was listening to VGR. On other threads recently I’ve heard rhetoric that amounts to racist attacks from various TEC people – but we are still the “homophobes” and the un-enlightened.
As for Ms. Russell, has anyone else noticed how she posts once and then runs? Ms. Russell used to post some reasonable and logical statements, but I haven’t seen one from her in a long time.
In my humble opinion, the elves would be well within their rights – and SF and T19 would be better places – if the elves put a stop to Ms. Russell’s “attack and run” posts.
The thing that’s telling for me is the use of the word “context.” If a bishop who is engaged in a non-biblical practice can establish that christians exist in different “contexts,” then certain practices are normative in certain contexts. Where it all falls apart is in the fact that the overwhelming majority of christians in that same (western, american, irregardless of denominational ties) context fundamentally disagree with both VGR and his practices…not to mention his beliefs.
Thankfully for him, those who disagree can simply be written off as “christian taliban,” so that his context, presumably the one, true church, becomes a mighty small contingent. And yet so powerful.
The few…the proud…the unabashed.
A reader above wrote: “We get that your Jesus doesn’t have room for practicing homosexuals and non-Christians in His Heaven.”
Another bit of hyperbole (or worse) from the re-appraiser side.
It’s a far different thing to say “Salvation only comes through Christ,” than to say “Only Christians are saved.” God saves whom God saves. That said, one would hope that the PB of ECUSA would have enough sense to believe that there is a reason for her job (other than running a social service agency with cool theatrics). If Jesus is not the way, the truth and the life, I have better things to do on a Sunday morning.
(As Flannery O’Connor is reported to have said in a slightly different context, “If it’s only a symbol, I say the hell with it.”)
As to whether practicing homosexuals have a place in heaven. Some will, some won’t. Same as practicing hetero-sexuals. All of us have sins with which we struggle, and we all depend on grace and forgiveness. But we’re not doing ourselves any favors if we deny that our sins our sins. And we’re not doing our neighbors any favors by pretending that their sins are not sins either.
Rolling Eyes
It’s not that anyone is being “assaulted†by “your Jesus†(whatever THAT means), it’s that “your Jesus†is a lie, Brian.
That may be true. I think that +Gene is certainly willing to entertain the idea that he is wrong (as am I). But my point stands: it is a giant leap from exposing a lie to waging an all-out no-holds-barred battle against the liars.
There aren’t, as you say, two Jesus’, but only one who is our Lord and Savior. My understanding of the personage of Jesus comes from Holy Scripture. I don’t have any idea where yours comes from. Maybe your understanding of Jesus is different than mine, but that isn’t what you said.
Sorry. That is simply a short-hand reference to Sarah’s (and others) correct belief that we have two different gospels. Because the Good News is at the heart of Jesus, critical differences in our understanding of Jesus and his mission actually rise to the level of two separate views of Jesus.
It’s important for me after our new PB said that there were many ways to heaven rather than as a Christian she should keep the faith that there is only one way and that is through the Jesus of Scripture who I love and worship with all my heart.
As for universalism, I would suggest talking to your priest and other priests that you may know. The belief that all are “saved” is not uncommon among deacons, priests and bishops in our Church. They may not state it as boldly as the PB, but I think their answers will lean surprisingly in the direction of universalism.
Franz, thank you for your #24. It can’t be said too often.
Magnolia
once you point out where in the Bible Jesus says that the homosexual act is condoned, and that no text should be taken literally, then you have won the argument; otherwise we will take the incursion of OUR church by unitarians for what it is, an egregious assault on Orthodox Christianity.
First, you’re so right about Alberto Gonzalez!
Second, with the exception of +Spong and the woman who considers herself both Muslim and Episcopalian, I have never heard anyone espouse Unitarianism. Unitarians are not Christians and have no place in a Christian church such as TEC.
Third, and again my point, our ‘incursion’ that caused this ‘war’ is just an over-the-top reaction to the issues that you have with +Gene’s consecration. Your concern with Scriptural authority (where in the Bible Jesus says…) may be important and, again, we may be wrong, but it doesn’t rise to the level of an incursion. We don’t invade your churches. You are free to hold orthodox views.
“But my point stands: it is a giant leap from exposing a lie to waging an all-out no-holds-barred battle against the liars.”
And you’re still wrong. See, there isn’t an Offensive against you, but action taken as Defense against you, not against any specific action, but the overall lies you stand for and try to push off as truth. Big difference, but I don’t expect you to recognize it, since reappraisers generally, and Gene most of all, only see themselves as victims.
And, as often as you state that you might be wrong, wouldn’t you think it would be prudent to stop what you’re doing until that can be decided once and for all? Isn’t it…unwise, to say the least, to say “Well, this path just might take us off the cliff, but we’re not going to stop and consult the map. We’re going to keep on going. Nothing will make us turn back the clock!”? It just stands as more proof that you don’t care about anything except your own opinions.
[i]As for universalism, I would suggest talking to your priest and other priests that you may know. The belief that all are “saved†is not uncommon among deacons, priests and bishops in our Church. [/i]
An idea being ‘widespread’ does not make it right, or in line with the True Gospel message of Our Lord.
See, there isn’t an Offensive against you, but action taken as Defense against you, not against any specific action, but the overall lies you stand for and try to push off as truth. Big difference, but I don’t expect you to recognize it, since reappraisers generally, and Gene most of all, only see themselves as victims.
I have no problem with you exposing my lies. Kendall+ does it with his comments on stories whether they are lies, misinterpretations or factual errors. I don’t see how it benefits you to take actions against ideas. That’s why D.C. uses the Taliban as an analogy.
And, as often as you state that you might be wrong, wouldn’t you think it would be prudent to stop what you’re doing until that can be decided once and for all? Isn’t it…unwise, to say the least, to say “Well, this path just might take us off the cliff, but we’re not going to stop and consult the map. We’re going to keep on going. Nothing will make us turn back the clock!â€? It just stands as more proof that you don’t care about anything except your own opinions.
Well, I disagree with that characterization. But why we don’t want to wait is a valid question. I’ll answer you with a post I grabbed from a blog. All I have is that it was authored by Woodrum+, so sorry for not having the source. But it illustrates why we move the way we do.
1st Century:
“Certainly Gentiles have a place in the church as do all the baptized.
The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care
and the place Gentiles may hold in the offices of the church. The
question is how far the traditional theology of the church lets us
move in that direction.”
7th Century:
“Certainly followers of Augustine have a place in the church as do all
the baptized. The debate is currently about not only the date of
Easter, but the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place
followers of Rome may hold in the offices of the church. The question
is how far the Celtic tradition of the church lets us move in that
direction.”
12th Century:
“Certainly Anglo-Saxon people have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of
pastoral care and the place Anglo-Saxon people may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far Norman church tradition lets us move in that direction.”
16th Century:,/b>
“Certainly recusants and dissenters have a place in the church as do
all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits
of pastoral care and the place recusants and dissenters may hold in
the offices of the church. The question is how far the Established
Church and Crown lets us move in that direction.”
18th Century:
“Certainly colonials have a place in the church as do all the
baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of
pastoral care and the place colonials may hold in the offices of the
church. The question is how far Parliament lets us move in that
direction.”
19th Century;
“Certainly slaves throughout the Empire have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate
limits of pastoral care and the place slaves may hold in the offices
of the church. The question is how far slave owners let us move in
that direction.”
1900 – 1960’s —
“Certainly African Americans have a place in the church as do all the
baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of
pastoral care and the place African Americans may hold in the offices
of the church. The question is how far white American tradition lets
us move in that direction.”
1970’s —
“Certainly women have a place in the church as do all the baptized.
The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care
and the place women may hold in offices of the church. The question is how far the traditional patriarchial theology of the church lets us
move in that direction.”
21st Century
“Certainly gay and lesbian people have a place in the church as do all
the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of
pastoral care and the place gay and lesbian people may hold in the
offices of the church. The question is how far the traditional
theology of the church lets us move in that direction.” (The Most Reverend and Right Honorable Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, 21 September AD 2007, New Orleans, LA, USA)
Nancy, there are plenty of “attack and run” comments from folks across the spectrum here, even though we try to discourage them. Singling out Susan Russell in this regard is uncalled for.
And there are plenty of over the top comments here that are very frustrating to read. Once again, please pull back from the gratuitous personal attacks and attack the arguments, not the person.
–elfgirl
Brian from T19, I have talked with my priest about your point in contra to what I said. I try to follow what my Lord says in John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.â€
D.C.”your remark that Brian’s Jesus is “a lie†is why a lot of us regard hard-core traditionalists as the Taliban wing of the church: They’re implacably certain about things that they have no warrant to be so certain about, and they refuse even to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.”
And your different in what way, exactly? The same certainty that comes form the reappraisers is exactly why you are dismissed as a bunch of arrogant, self-righteous, spoiled brats. Isn’t this fun?!?
Thing is, if we were wrong, you’d be able to show it. If you were right, you’d be able to show it. But, you can’t. The fact that there are solid proven arguments that prove you wrong, and NONE that prove you are, should be concerning to you.
hi brian,
i don’t agree that my reaction is over-the-top. for far too long i have been hearing about certain persons espousing theology that seems very foreign to me. i have heard KJS refer to God as mother Jesus and state that Jesus is not the only way to reach God-that sounds pretty close to unitarianism to me(all religions lead to the same place). i have seen pictures of parishioners of fellow churches holding up signs that say ‘take the Bible seriously not literally’. from everything i know about unitarianism, this seems to match that theology rather than the Christian values i grew up with. here is a website link from an Irish Bishop relating his experiences with ECUSA: http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=2084#more-2084
now, i never knew that any of this was happening until the consecration of Robinson. it appears to me that we have been taken over incrementally by extremist liberals (granted the conservatives must have been caught sleeping through all of it) and yes, i consider that to be a most insidious incursion-why should i have to leave the denomination of my ancestors? i didn’t change the theology, the liberals did.
now, yes, i am free to hold my orthodox views contrary to a liberal church, but what could i possibly have more in common with you than i would a baptist or a methodist?
Hi Magnolia
that sounds pretty close to unitarianism to me(all religions lead to the same place). i have seen pictures of parishioners of fellow churches holding up signs that say ‘take the Bible seriously not literally’. from everything i know about unitarianism, this seems to match that theology rather than the Christian values i grew up with.
Unitarianism is the belief that there is one God and no Trinity – hence the distinction between Unitarian and Trinitarian (Christianity). A Unitarian does not believe in the incarnation of God in Jesus or in the works of the Holy Spirit (at least as far as the Spirit is God). That teaching has been rejected by the Councils of the Church.
Universalism is the belief that all are saqved. Therefore, the PB saying ‘that Jesus is not the only way to reach God’ is an expression of her recognition that all are saved and our time on Earth should be focused on how we relate to God rather than whether we are saved.
The Unitarian churches make it confusing because they call themselves Unitarian-Universalist. But the fact is that ++Katharine is a Trinitarian-Universalist.
hello again brian,
honestly that sounds like splitting hairs to me.
‘That teaching has been rejected by the Councils of the Church.’
…given the observation that this denomination decides whatever it wants to believe at any given whim or current changing culture, that probably will change.
again i say, i didn’t change the theology, the liberals did pulled it out from under my feet.
‘i am free to hold my orthodox views contrary to a liberal church, but what could i possibly have more in common with you than i would a baptist or a methodist? ‘ i would be interested in your reply to this…thanks
Rolling Eyes [#34] writes: “The same certainty that comes form the reappraisers is exactly why you are dismissed as a bunch of arrogant, self-righteous, spoiled brats. “
You’re right, there are indeed some liberals who are as implacably certain as the hard-core traditionalists. In my experience, however, (1) most liberals are at least willing to listen to what “the other side” has to say, and they try to keep an open mind about such matters, whereas (2) most traditionalists aren’t and don’t — they’re really scripturalists, not traditionalists, and their attitude is approximately “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” That’s scarily like the general attitude of the Taliban, just with a different collection of so-called sacred writings than they use.
——————-
Rolling Eyes writes: “Thing is, if we were wrong, you’d be able to show it. If you were right, you’d be able to show it. But, you can’t. The fact that there are solid proven arguments that prove you wrong, and NONE that prove you are, should be concerning to you.”
R.E., we evidently have quite different views about who has been able to show what.
There’s something I think is telling, though: I’ve been happy to examine the “solid proven arguments that prove [me] wrong” [sic]. Nothing pleases me more than learning something I didn’t know before, or being convinced that there’s a better way to look at things than I was previously using. The scripturalists haven’t persuaded me, but it isn’t for lack of respectful attention on my part, and a lot of my fellow liberals would say the same.
Disturbingly, we seldom see the same attitude on the extreme-scripturalist side of the house. These scrips’ arguments always seem to be circular, along the following lines: (1) Jesus regarded the Bible as the supreme moral authority; (2) Jesus was God Incarnate, therefore his views of the Bible are binding on us; (3) we know Jesus was God Incarnate because we are told so by scriptural authors, who were inspired by God and protected by him from material error in their writings; (4) therefore, all Christians worthy of the title must always order their individual- and communal lives to conform to the Bible’s requirements.
These scripturalist premises and arguments are not just debatable, they’re downright dubious, and even delusional. (Forgive my indulging a weakness for alliteration.) Too many scripturalists, when presented with that view, don’t respond on the merits, but seem instead to metaphorically squeeze their eyes tightly shut, put their fingers in their ears, and start chanting “It’s in the Bible! It’s in the Bible!”
One great thing about this forum is that thoughtful people on both sides of The Current Disputes can exchange ideas and try to learn from each other. Let’s do more of that.
Correction to penultimate paragraph in my #38: To many of us, these scripturalist premises and arguments are not just debatable, they’re downright dubious, and even delusional.
Look again at #13’s conclusion re the elves. Do you see now what I meant that Kendall is the Form of this blog. His posture has given this blog is unusual shape; it is not his words that make it what it is. The elves are the agents of the Form, the active voices from on high, if I may put it that way. They are ubiqitous and Kendall has made them so. We have questioned some of their judgments, and yet we all bow to their presence and their conclusions, and we do so because the Form is Right. Larry
it’s not that I do not value Kendall’s comments, but rather that I do not want his intervention to alter his most important function.
D.C. I came to know Christ when I was twenty and felt the incredible life giving presents of God. I try to follow what I understand to be his will and have found a presents of the mystery of God in my life. I have been told of and seen healing miracles (I work in the health care field so I can, to some extent judge the validity of the event). I have been blessed to be present when harden criminals have discovery God’s love and been changed. I read of the Amish (one of those nasty stupid fundamentalists groups) who foregave a man and prayed for him after he did such evil in there midst, there by witnessing to the power of Jesus’s forgiveness and love. I would probably be dead now if God hadn’t touched me and gave me the grace to get out of the sexual immorality I was involved in. I would rather throw my lot in with the bigoted fundamentalists with the intellectual ambiguity than the liberals with the intellectual arrogance and their spiritual and moral ambiguity. The bottom line is that the Kingdom of God is recieved by the faith of a child.
Dave B [#42], I completely understand and respect where you’re coming from. I hope you in turn will try to understand why many of us cannot accept that these good results are due to orthodox theology. One key reason is that adherents of many other religions have reported comparable or at least analogous experiences. (If you watch the TV show “House,” you’ve heard the term “differential diagnosis,” which seems quite relevant here.)
again i say, i didn’t change the theology, the liberals did pulled it out from under my feet.
The theology was voted out from under your feet. You may not like it, but there was ample opportunity to mount a defense prior to ‘the gay issue.’ Take for example the woman’s ordination issue in the 1970s. +Iker stayed a part of TEC even though the General Convention made it clear that discrimination, even based in sound theology, was impermissible. But now a gay man and a woman PB have ‘forced’ him to try and alter his Diocesan constitution in order to take as many churches with him like ‘a thief in the night.’ Contrast that with the Godly example set by +Steenson who admitted that he could not reconcile his theology with the theology of the leadership of TEC and he went elsewhere. He didn’t resort to tricks to keep his power, he simply made a moral decision of conscience.
‘i am free to hold my orthodox views contrary to a liberal church, but what could i possibly have more in common with you than i would a baptist or a methodist? ‘ i would be interested in your reply to this…thanks
Polity, tradition and apostolic succession. Every Sunday you and I say the same words. We recieve the same sacrament. We are fed by priests who have been ordained by hands that go back to Peter and Paul. This is what we share that the others don’t have.
Brian – Is Truth up for a vote? I submit that General Convention does not have the authority to change the teaching of the Church. It does have power to change how the Church is ordered and governed, but not what the Church believes. Could, for example, General Convention vote that Baptism was to be in the name of Jesus only? How about GC voting to say that Jesus is of like substance with the Father or that the Trinity is not a true statement of the nature of God, but that God is truly one person with three (or more!) masks or avatars or functions?
D.C. I have asked for this before and no one has ever been able to sufficiently answer me. Can you show me, from within the Apostles’ teaching, where homosexual sex is blessed? In our baptism, the first promise that we make is to continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship. Where is the blessing of same sex unions within that teaching? If it is not there, then why are you doing it? If you think it should be there, why do you risk the apostles’ fellowship to impliment it before the rest of the church agrees?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
DC I think you miss the point. I came to the Good Shepherd, I, in my brokeness, accepted Him on His terms. If people followed His terms as simply stated and understood where would the aids epidemic be? Poverty would be greatly reduced if young girls stayed in school and didn’t have children till they married ete, etc. Differential diagnosis carries a cavate, “if you hear hoof beats don’t look for zebras”. It seems to me that reappraisers are looking for zebras in reading and applying scripture. I think about hand washing and illness. Over 3,000 years ago God gave us wisdom in how to traverse from patient to patient to prevent the spread of illness, and we still have trouble getting people to wash hands. When I look at scripture I see so much wisdom. It seems that alot of that wisdom is wasted and considered irrelevant by reappraisers.
Philip Snyder (Dallas) [#46] writes:
Funny you should mention those two examples in the first above-quoted paragraph, Philip. Taking your second example first, I thought it was generally accepted that church doctrine about the precise nature of the Trinity evolved over time, and was indeed eventually settled by being voted on in council. (At times back then the voting franchise seems to have been restricted to imperially-approved bishops — and the emperor himself — but that doesn’t mean we have to abide by the same restriction.)
The first example you give is more interesting. As I’ve said before, if we’re to believe the reports in the Book of Acts, we must conclude that baptizing in the name of Jesus only is precisely what Peter et al. did, that is when they baptized in the name of anyone at all. This suggests unmistakably that one or both of the following is true:
(A) Acts simply got it wrong in reporting that Peter et al. baptized in the name of Jesus only — in which case we naturally wonder what else Luke got wrong (no matter how carefully he investigated, his sources might have misremembered or even “spun” their accounts), not to mention where the other evangelists might have erred (and there are plenty of candidates), and what all this means for the scripturalist worldview.
(B) Baptism in the name of the Trinity must have been a later innovation in the church’s practice, reflecting an evolution in theological thinking subsequent to the earliest post-Pentecost days. Cf. the Markan version of the Great Commission, which does not contain the same trinitarian baptismal formula as the Matthean version. It’s not evident that this evolution and innovation either (i) originated with, or (ii) was approved by, the surviving apostles; if that had been the case, we would expect to read an account of the approval process itself somewhere, comparable to what we read of the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.
Possibility B It strongly implies that in the early church, the apostles’ theological thinking and practices were not treated as immutable, but as the foundation for a continuing process of theological evolution. (This possibility is also coherent with the early church’s resolution of the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.)
If this is correct, and I think it is, then by engaging in The Current Dispute, we are indeed continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship; that is, we are working together to study and resolve claims of new insight as they arise.
And, just as it did in the early church, our resolution of claims of new insight might well involve departing from the specifics of what the earliest apostles thought and did.
Cf. 1 Thess. 5.19-21: “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies [that is, claims of new insight] with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.”
(Another implication of Possibility B is that the early church felt free to put words in Jesus’ mouth, viz., in the Matthean version of the Great Commission, to match the evolution of thinking and practice. That of course raises the question: What else in the NT might have been “adjusted” by later editors to fit the then-current thinking and practice?)
—————
Rolling Eyes [#38], the analysis above is exactly what I’m talking about in my #34. I’ve yet to encounter a scripturalist who was willing even to consider Possibilities A and B above; they flat-out don’t want to hear it.
D.C. – Yes, the Apostles’ view “evolved” (I would say rather they they were clarified by relfecting on the new life that Jesus gives (present tense intended) them) over time, but at some point they were fixed. However, the views of the Church on the Trinity did not evolve. Everyone in the argument was trying to remain true to the teaching that he received. (BTW, bishops were not appointed by the emperor until after Nicea.) It is just that Arius et. al. got it wrong when they tried to explain the Trinity. Be that as it may, I assume, then, that you believe that General Convention has the authority to change doctrine. Is this really so? What are the limits of General Convention’s authority (if any)? From where does General Convention derive its authority? If General Convention can change doctrine, how about a Diocesan Convention – of not, why not? How about a parish vestry changing doctrine (In this parish, we will no longer speak of God as a Trinity of persons nor will we speak of Jesus as Divine and Human. Jesus is a wonderful teacher who leads us to the divine in all of us, but is only more divine by degree rather than in kind.) Why can’t an individual change doctrine and still call themselves Christian (Jesus is just another prophet, but the greatest prophet is Mohammed – there is an Episcopal Priest who is trying to live that statement and maintain her priesthood.) ?
Christianity is a religion of revelation – we are bound by the Revelation, so I ask again – from within the Revelation, where is the blessing of same sex unions to be found?
YBIC,
Phil
DV: Let us suppose that your doctirne of mutability is correct. The consequent is that there is nothing in scripture that cannot be redefined or rewritten. IN short, (a)scripture cannot be used as a guideline for anyone’s behavior because it is not reliable, or (b) it can be used by everyone as a standard for all behavior since it can be redefined at will. In both cases, its use falls into the hands of those who use it and is therefore one more example of the American liberal assertion that the only standard is no standard. This conclusion cannot be avoided if what you say is so. Are you willing to say this explicitly? Larry
Philip Snyder [#47], I’m not aware of any evidence that the Twelve believed God to be a Trinity. So when you say “the views of the Church on the Trinity did not evolve,” you have some work to do to establish your claim.
————–
You commented: “What are the limits of General Convention’s authority [to change doctrine] (if any)? From where does the General Convention derive its authority? If General Convention can change doctrine, how about a Diocesan Convention [or parish]?”
I’m puzzled by the strong desire for authority in the scripturalist view. The concept of authority makes sense when we’re talking about deciding what action(s) we will take or not take as a group. But authority can’t decide questions of truth. God is what he is and desires what he desires. When Muslims say God is X and desires Y, that doesn’t make it so, nor when Christians say God is A and desires B.
On the question of authority in the early church, it’s intriguing that, at least according to Acts 5, the circumcision controversy was decided, not by Peter or any of the other reconstituted Twelve, but by James, an apparent latecomer to the church whose authority did not obviously come from a dominical commission. Again, cf. 1 Thess. 5.19-21: “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies [that is, claims of new insight] with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.â€
Philip Snyder [#47], a follow-up to my #49: I conjecture that the desire for authority arises in part from fear that even an inadvertent mistake will bring down God’s wrath. Recall the OT story of the poor schmoes who accidentally touched the Ark of the Covenant (?) and were promptly incinerated.
If we’re to believe Jesus, all God is looking for us to do is to follow the Summary of the Law (“do this and you will live [eternally]”). Part of “loving” God with your whole mind includes remaining mindful that, because we’re not God, we could be wrong, and therefore we need to adjust our behavior accordingly when it appears likely that we are. Over the years I’ve painfully worked my way to the conjecture that, if we make the best judgments we can — which, essentially always, will include at least considering what other people have to say — and try to learn from our mistakes, we can trust God to take care of the rest.
This is NOT the same as “individual judgment,” or as saying “the only standard is no standard” per Larry Morse [#48]. It says only that God expects each of us to do the best we can with the gifts he has entrusted to our stewardship, not least the gifts of memory, reason, and judgment. In a given situation, reliance on authority might be the best use we can make of those gifts. But to decree categorically that Authority X must be supreme in all conceivable circumstances is to cast those gifts into the mud.
————-
Larry Morse [#48], I’m not sure I understand your alternative (b), that scripture “can be used by everyone as a standard for all behavior since it can be redefined at will. . . . [thus it’s] one more example of the American liberal assertion that the only standard is no standard. This conclusion cannot be avoided if what you say is so.”
I can’t agree that “this conclusion cannot be avoided.” Please see my comments just above to Philip Snyder.
D.C. – So, do we have a Revelation that we can accept. Is there even a “Faith once delivered” or any authority in the Church. ISTM that you are advocating that everyone do what is right in his/her own eyes. That is not Christianity. It is anarchy. The idea that God entrusts us individual with the ability to determine doctrine “God expectseach of us to do the best we can….” is not Anglican. It is a Baptist doctrine (“soul competency”).
The problem with your position is that is true, but not true enough. Yes, we are to do the best we can, but part of that is to allow our faith to be formed by the whole Church and to back away from innovations where the rest of the Church is not prepared to follow (like Paul urged the Corinthians regarding meat sold in the butcher shops and probably sacrificed to idols). We are to be one body in Christ and our decisions are to be taken communally as well as individually. If you don’t agree with the position of the Church you are to either act to change it (and refrain from teaching/acting on your new understanding until the community changes) or you should leave. TECUSA has stated that it will do neither. It will not leave and it will not refrain from teaching its “new” understanding. Don’t you see that as a bit petulant or arrogant?
As for the Trinity, you do see that in the Didache (written during the Apostles’ life time or immediatly there after) where baptism is to be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. You also see that, oddly enough, in the Gospel of Matthew – you know that pesky “Great Commission.” The full implications of what that meant took a while to be formalized, but the belief in the Trinity does appear rather early. You see Paul’s “Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowhsip of the Holy Spirit, be with us all evermore” (2 Cor 13:14). While Paul may not have articulated the Holy Trinity in the same way as Athanasius or the Cappadocians, he seems to have a rudimentary understanding that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct from God, but somehow participate with God in His divinity.
The question is not whether there is an authority, but where your locus of authority lies. It will either be external (Scripture, Tradition, the Doctrines of the Church) or it will be yourself. Where is your locus of authority?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#48 Larry Morse says:
Larry, how do you find out what’s going on in the world? I’m going to guess that you read newspapers, watch TV news, go to news web sites, read blogs, or something similar, right? Are any of these sources perfectly reliable? Of course they’re not — everyone who is not an infant knows that all the news media are imperfect and unreliable to some degree. But we still go to them, because we believe that by careful reading we can obtain partially reliable, “good enough” information to work with.
I’m puzzled by the dichotomy that you seem to be drawing — and that other reasserters have drawn in similar discussions — between Scripture that is absolutely 100% reliable and without error, or Scripture that is a worthless tissue of lies. You are surrounded by partially reliable information in every single aspect of your life, and if you’re like most people you cope with that just fine… but for some reason, reasserters insist that this one book is either absolutely perfect, or absolutely worthless.
We cannot know anything with perfect confidence. Fortunately for us, it appears that based on imperfect information tested with fallible human reason and subject to biased group discernment we can know all sorts of things with enough confidence to get along with. And this is one of the hermeneutical principles that I use, and that I believe D.C. is using as well: Scripture is just such a partially reliable source. The people who wrote it were limited, fallible human beings who were immersed in specific historical and cultural contexts — just as we are — and they operated from limited and imperfect information — again, just as we do. We can hardly expect the books they wrote to be without error, any more than what you or I write. That doesn’t mean we can’t rely on Scripture, or that Scripture is worthless — it just means we have to read it at least as carefully as we would read the morning newspaper.
Phil Snyder writes: “If you don’t agree with the position of the Church you are to either act to change it (and refrain from teaching/acting on your new understanding until the community changes) or you should leave. TECUSA has stated that it will do neither. It will not leave and it will not refrain from teaching its “new†understanding. Don’t you see that as a bit petulant or arrogant?”
What you’re proposing, Phil, has a serious chicken-and-egg problem. If everyone were to follow your formula, no new insight (prophecy) would ever catch on in the church, whether it was right or wrong. Those who felt strongly that the insight was correct would leave rather than refrain from teaching or acting on it until the church changed its mind. Those who didn’t feel strongly about the insight wouldn’t act to change the church’s view. Without the insight being taught, and with no one acting to change the church’s view, that view would never change. Result: stagnation. Unless you think that we know everything we will ever need to know about faith and morals for all conceivable circumstances — a dubious proposition at best — such stagnation would be a Bad Thing.
———–
Phil Snyder writes: “The question is not whether there is an authority, but where your locus of authority lies. It will either be external (Scripture, Tradition, the Doctrines of the Church) or it will be yourself. Where is your locus of authority?” (Emphasis added.)
It’s not an either-or thing, Phil; moreover, I don’t think your classification of Scripture, etc., as “external” is defensible.
Each of us goes through life having to answer the question, second by second: What Should I Do Now? I can make what I think is a plausible case (that I hope even most atheists would grudgingly admit was not irrational) that the locus of authority for answering that question must ultimately be external —that is, what we call God.
But an inconvenient fact remains: In deciding What Should I Do Now?, each of us is necessarily exercising internal judgment (I don’t know about you, but I don’t have any external forces controlling my thoughts and actions, or at least none that I’m aware of <g>.) That internal judgment may well be an essential part of our humanity; it’s certainly one of the gifts that God has created and, by implication, entrusted to our stewardship.
To be sure, when we exercise internal judgment, it’s indisputably prudent to take account of the opinions of others, including the opinions summarized in Scripture, tradition, the doctrines of the church, etc. In many, many situations, my individual judgment may be that, all in all, following Scripture, etc., is the best way to go. I might even make it a provisional rule of decision that, absent a compelling reason to do otherwise, I’m going to abide by the mind of the church.
But we still have to acknowledge that, every time one of us answers the question What Should I Do Now?, it’s his or her judgment at work, not that of someone else. And we have, I claim, an obligation to God to use that judgment as best we can.
In fact, it seems to me, to declare that we must slavishly follow Scripture, in all conceivable circumstances, no matter what, is tantamount to announcing that either (1) God didn’t entrust anyone except the scriptural authors with the power of judgment, or (2) he did entrust the rest of us with the power of judgment, but in our judgment (!) he made a mistake in doing so. To paraphrase Irish bishop Miller, I don’t know about you, but I’m certainly not going there.
hello brian,
well you are correct in that the conservatives are acting now like they should have 30 years ago. i just remember that political correctness phase was just beginning to rear its ugly head and that may have been a factor. nonetheless they are at least starting to do something now but i disagree that it is a power grab. it just may be too little too late.
yes, at some point i may have to leave the denomination of my ancestors and it breaks my heart. who knows what will remain in the end. perhaps it may have traces of Christianity, perhaps not. really though, i don’t feel i have anything in common with the liberal leaders of my church-words uttered may be the same but their voices ring hollow. anyway live long and prosper brian.