The U.S. Episcopal Church, described more than a century ago as the “Republican Party at prayer,” is anything but that today.
The church seems determined to rip itself asunder over the role of gays and lesbians in its clergy. A tipping point came a couple of years ago when Episcopalians ordained their first openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson.
Conservatives who said they had had more than enough began filing out the door, taking their congregations with them. But since they wanted to remain part of the worldwide Anglican communion, many decided to put themselves under the sponsorship of Anglican prelates in Africa.
It seemed to be the perfect solution. Last week, I visited the town in Maryland where my son-in-law is pastor of the Lutheran church. He showed me a conservative Episcopal church that created its own diocese – a diocese of one church – under alternate sponsorship.
This not only demonstrates just how deeply the passions are running among some Episcopalians. It also shows the law of unintended consequences has yet to be repealed.
This is simple minded stuff. He’s right, of course, about the number of Americans who have no idea where Ruanda is, but to ask how many speak one of the major languages there is more than a little silly. and his conclusion is so simplistic that one cannot reply adaquately. LM
He’s probably correct that some of those under foreign oversight have a limited understanding of what’s happening on the ground in the provinces with which they’re affiliating (although I’m sure that’s not true in those communities that have deep-seated missionary ties to the Two-Thirds World).
Is his implication, though, that the film was moved because the Wheaton congregation was affiliated with the Anglican Church of Rwanda? Does anyone know what attitude Archbishop Rucyahana has towards President Kagame’s regime? We do know, for example, that the primate of Nigeria has spoken out against government corruption.
Thanks for the excerpt, Kendall. You didn’t post the really good part, where the author talks about the flap that occurred when All Souls Anglican Church was “encouraged” by its new Rwandan overseers (episkopoi) to disinvite Paul Rusesabagina — hero of the movie Hotel Rwanda, who helped save 1,200 Tutsi refugees during the 1994 genocide — from giving a talk:
I like Ketchum’s conclusion: “Perhaps that is the lesson here. Instead of walking away in a huff, maybe coming together and reasoning is a better alternative.”
He is just giving the viewpoint when an outsider looks at us. Sometimes it’s hard to see the forest for the trees. You trade oversight from some one who does not see things your way for oversight from somebody else who doesn’t see things your way from another angle. Maybe we ought to ditch the oversight?
Larry Morse [#1], just because you don’t agree with Ketchum’s conclusion doesn’t make it “simplistic.” Ronald Reagan was often derided as simplistic, but his supporters likened him to Isaiah Berlin’s hedge hog who knew one great thing, as opposed to the fox who knew many small things. If you find that you “cannot reply [adequately]” to Ketchum’s conclusion, could it be that it’s your problem, not his?
That’s right – because there really has been no talking about all of this. If only the conservatives had said something….
DC, it is simplistic. We have come to together and reasoned and realized that there are two churches and two Gospels. This is a day late and a dollar short.
Br. Michael [#7], there may be two gospels, but that doesn’t mean there must be two churches. There’s no reason not to accept that we don’t yet know everything about putting God first, nor about seeking the best for others as we do for ourselves. If we do accept this, we can operate as one church with two gospels; the adherents of each can learn from one another as we work together to bring nonbelievers and doubters to God; and we can trust that eventually the Spirit will guide all of us into all truth, as Jesus is reported to have promised.
“Perhaps that is the lesson here. Instead of walking away in a huff, maybe coming together and reasoning is a better alternative.â€
Coming together and reasoning is so difficult when only one side, the reappraisers in charge of the TEC, want to have all the power, set the rules, give nothing to us reasserters, except copies of lawsuits, and new interpretations of scripture. We reasserters are plain and simply tired of the TEC’s one way “listening process.â€
I don’t know how others feel, but I know I feel like +KJS says to me by word and action, “Our way or your way is the highway out‗–but don’t think of taking anything, but the shirt on your back when you leave.
Sorry D.C. but that’s the way it seems to this oldman who has seen a lot of this sort of thing in other situations for over 78 years. I feel no happiness and joy in the Lord when I go to my church, so my faithfulness is staying home—I live in the country—praying to my Lord for guidance. I do still pay my pledge, but shudder when I write the check and put 42 cents on the envelop. How much good is my small amount doing for the Lord when my Diocese and TEC takes its share? Not much in my opinion.
Oldman [#9], so far as I’ve ever heard, the people in charge of TEC attained their positions, not through any illicit means, but through prayerfully conducted democratic processes that were freely agreed to by our predecessors. I sympathize with your being in a minority in TEC — that’s exactly how I feel in my evangelical parish and even in my diocese (Texas) — but sometimes that’s just the way the ball bounces. The stances my parish takes really irk me, but they’re my extended family, and I choose to live my life as though in the very, very long run, everything will work out just fine.
DC, I didn’t mean to imply anything about how the reappraiser clergy were brought into authority. I guess we should feel kinship for each other over our respective places in our churches. God Bless You! Hang in there!
After posting I put on a recording of Mozart’s Laudate Dominum which you might find helpful:
Fortunate is the man who fears the Lord, whose anger will build Â
And roar through his teeth, then subside. Man’s desire for sin will perish. Fortunate is the man who fears the Lord. Â
Â
Glory to the Father, and glory to the Son. Glory also to the Holy Spirit, just As there was in the beginning, glory, both now and always.
Slightly edited with the repeats removed.Â
I’m not sure what “two Gospels” ever means. It’s a fairly trite catchphrase. If there is more than one gospel, then there might as well be an infinite amount of Gospels, as each person wants to hear something particular to their own journey. However, there might be two sides, divided by sin, as Cain and Abel, competing for God’s attention, one wanting his sacrifice to be better than the others. But that’s the human community. It’s not what God wants. Jesus returned to his disciples and said, “peace be with you.” If he is truly resurrected, that seems to be his desire.
The alternative: Cain and Abel, didn’t work out well, in my view.
RE: “I’m not sure what “two Gospels†ever means.”
It’s actually pretty simple. The “two sides” hold two competing and contradictory foundational worldviews and ideas of what the good news of Jesus Christ is.
Ultimately — and I expect those on this thread know it — those two sides holding the two mutually opposing gospels will not be in the same organization.
And life will go on.
Thanks, Oldman and Sarah. There are indeed two diametrically-opposed gospels these days in TEC. And there are two churches. One is Christian, the other is Unitarian-Universalist playing dress-up to ‘bless’ the values and mores of the dominant culture.
Guess which one has the political power at GC and with the ABC? (Follow the money…).
Just remember, Sarah [#13]: You’re the one that doesn’t want to be in the same organization with us, not vice versa.
(Topic drift alert:) Maybe someday I’ll understand what scripturalists are so afraid of, that causes them to shy away with such horror from us heretics. My suspicion is that they’re utterly terrified that a wrathful God will damn them to eternal torment if they fail to hold the “correct” beliefs.
It’d be sad if that were indeed their fear, because there’s not a shred of actual evidence (as opposed to imaginative stories) that anyone has ever been so damned.
I assume we’d all agree God is effective at doing what he wants. If he truly wanted us to fear the consequences of holding “incorrect” beliefs, you’d think he’d have reinforced the fear-mongers’ tales with concrete evidence that we could discover, the way he has about the rest of the universe.
DC. No one knows who is damned or who isn’t since that damnation or freedom from it comes when one is judged by our Lord after death.
I know what we say we hope for, but are we sure? I’m not and the scriptures are my only path to take. They are the guide book for me!
1. We’ve been talking for at least 40 years, so obviously the writer doesn’t know much about what he’s commenting on.
2. It’s hard to have an intelligent theological conversation when the best that one side can produce is work like To Set Our Hope on Christ, and this after acting despite the pleadings and warnings of the rest of the Communion. Act first, explain later doesn’t make for a good conversation, especially when the explanation is as lame as TSOHOC.
Oldman – I am glad you’ve found your path. I would never say it was wrong. But the view that there are two different “foundations” is very elusive, but easy to say. If there are two different gospels, well, why not as many gospels as there are Anglican Splinter Groups? All I can say is good luck with that. From my vantage point there seem to be a lot of bishops in those organizations.
Sarah asserts that we compete, and in some sense they do. For me, I think that our own world view – or cosmology – is a tiny bit different than it was 300 years ago and this matters. And yes, this is fundamentally different than biblical culture. And as most young people are leaving Christianity because they think it is anti-gay, I suspect it will be Christianity that is less anti-Gay that survives. But I’m not an oracle. It’s a guess.
When was the last time you heard Bill Hybels, Rick Warren or Joel Osteen talk about gay people? Given Ted Haggarty and the senator from Idaho, it is wise not to do so. it seems that the ones who speak loudest have the most to hide.
John Wilkins, “But the view that there are two different “foundations†is very elusive, but easy to say.” Look at my posts. I never said that. What I said was, “—-the scriptures are my only path to take. They are the guide book for me!” If you want to say that my gospel is not right, please feel free to do so. I’m looking after my soul and pray to my Lord that you are looking after yours. I know I will be judged for eternity. I expect yours will be, too.
John Wilkins where on earth did you find this: “And as most young people are leaving Christianity because they think it is anti-gay.” Here in the deep South my experience is that the gay issue has nothing to do with their religious experience in a given church. What the Church offers in nurture and direction is more important than who is sitting next to them in the pew. The church to them is fulfilling something that they miss in broken or disfunctional homes.
The religious arguments come as they become more mature.
DC, you believe that Jesus is not divine, I do. How do we compromise that? Part of the problem is that you believe so little of what Creedal Christianity teaches that it is easy fror you to set that aside. It’s not important to you in the first place.
“Perhaps that is the lesson here. Instead of walking away in a huff, maybe coming together and reasoning is a better alternative.â€
I agree with this statement, but I would add to it such that coming together and reasoning before we act is a better alternative.
This is similar to a husband and wife who are discussing purchasing a car. The wife is against it and the husband is for it. One evening, the husband signs a three year lease for the car and drives it home. The wife is furious! Can you imagine her reaction if the husband says: “Sweetheart, I didn’t buy the car and we agreed that we wouldn’t buy the car. I leased it for three years – after three years, we can discuss buying it!”
If I tried that with my wife, I would be in serious trouble!
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Clearly Ketchum has never attempted to read an American response to the Anglican Communion. Perhaps we should send him the March 2007 HOB statement so he can see how “conversation” about this matter is handled. Ignorance is such bliss.
DC, you are well aware of two religions existing in OT times in Israel and Judah both. What is your opinion of God’s opinion of that – as revealed in the Prophets?
My suspicion is that they’re utterly terrified that a wrathful God will damn them to eternal torment if they fail to hold the “correct†beliefs
From a purely temporal perspective, consider these:
1. There are Bishops in TEC that do not believe Christ ever existed or that the resurrection happened, all of which are foundational beliefs for a Christian church. Unfortunately, Bishops are also the ones who are supposed to uphold and defend these foundational Christian beliefs. When even the Bishops of TEC do not believe in the faith they have sworn to uphold, why would the unchurched join TEC? There is a glaring inconsistency, bordering on dishonesty, between the public ordination vows of the Bishop and their subsequent actions in office.
2. There is nothing in the “prayerful democratic process” of TEC to ensure that a corrupt person will not be selected. Democracy is a game of numbers – it does not mean that the correct solution will always be discerned. And I am sorry, but I don’t see a difference between the results of the “democratic process” of TEC and the results of the (secular) “democratic process” in a corrupt third-world country.
3. It is the stated objective of the Presiding Bishop and certain members of the Executive council of TEC that TEC missions with the GS, preach the “gospel of inclusivity”, especially to all of the mission partners in the Global South thus “persuading” them to withdraw their objections (which is the real MDG). To some people, only the “independence” of TEC matters.
In the end, money talks and it is highly likely that TEC will get away with their actions because of their deep pockets. Some, of course, will call this a “prayerful democratic process”.
RE: “And as most young people are leaving Christianity because they think it is anti-gay . . . ”
lol.
RE: “My suspicion is that they’re utterly terrified that a wrathful God will damn them to eternal torment if they fail to hold the “correct†beliefs.”
Says a lot about this guy that the only reason he can come up with for Christians to hold to a position of integrity is because they’re just afraid of punishment.
Are there two gospels? There are indeed. The liberal gospel argues that the past is a set of manacles from which one must free oneself. All are shackled so all are included. The breaking of these shackles is what Christianity teaches. All must undergo emancipation; emancipation is redemption.
The standards of the past are therefore to be disregarded; for the future, no standards are necessary because emancipation cannot tolerate them.
The other gospel we know. It tells us we are bound by a thousand things, that these shackles cannot be broken for they are in human nature, and some of these shackles are golden: Dylan Thomas put the matter brilliantly, “I sang in my chains like the sea.” For this gospel, such bondage is freedom, and this is why our wills are free.
So the Apollonian and Dionysian portions of human nature war with each other. One thing is clear, however, that there are two gospels and that “listening” and “conversation” will alter neither.
Larry
Larry, that is not the liberal Gospel. To be precise, the liberal tradition takes a loving, but critical, attitude toward the past. It is, in fact, the position of most Protestant reformers. More closely, the liberal gospel humanizes standards. Human beings need standards, apart from what God teaches. To say “bondage is freedom” is, well, Orwellian.
The liberal Gospel is thin. If anything, a true liberal recognizes when it is best to be an agnostic, as it is about the past, and the future. Sometimes the past is good, sometimes its trouble. As is our future. A liberal might distinguish between tradition and human nature [are they the same?]. In fact, they might interrogate what you mean by “human nature.” What is true, is that we are creatures who live bound by gravity and desires. I don’t know of any liberal who denies such things. Nor do I know of any liberal who denies human nature. But as liberal, I don’t think you know any more or less than I do. Nor do I think Tradition was always right. Right some of the time. perhaps right most of the time. But it was not right all of the time.
Br. Michael [#21] writes: “DC, you believe that Jesus is not divine, I do. How do we compromise that?”
Br. Michael, I don’t think we can compromise our differences on that point, nor should we try.
Face it: For nearly 2,000 years, the majority of the world has been unpersuaded that Jesus was divine. So it’s not as though adherents of that proposition have made an overwhelmingly persuasive case.
On the other hand, people who do believe Jesus was divine tend to believe it with great passion; there’s no way unbelievers can persuade them they’re wrong. (Passion and implacable certainty doesn’t equate to truth, any more than it does with Muslim jihadists, ultra-orthodox Jews, radical Hindus, etc.)
We could, I suppose, continue to spend our energies on these “Less filling! Tastes great!” debates. But it’d be far better if we all agreed to live with the uncertainty, trusting that in the very long run it will all work out just fine, and then got back to work, together, trying to bring God into the lives of nonbelievers and doubters (not to mention feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.).
————
Br. Michael continues: “Part of the problem is that you believe so little of what Creedal Christianity teaches that it is easy for you to set that aside. It’s not important to you in the first place.”
A big part of the difficulty is that many of the “orthodox” treat Creedal Christianity as being far more important than they should, almost as though they were making an idol out of fourth-century thinking, which (like all human thinking), must be always treated as provisional.
To answer your implied challenge: What’s important to me is to face the facts as God wrought them, as best we can grasp them. That’s not the same as “facts” that are no more than products of our wishful thinking. Concerning the factual assertions of the Nicene Creed, “it is what it is” — if those assertions were demonstrably true, you’d fully expect that the whole world would have become persuaded by now, but that hasn’t happened; ergo, while those assertions might conceivably be true, they’re certainly not demonstrably so.
dwstroudmd [#23] writes: “DC, you are well aware of two religions existing in OT times in Israel and Judah both. What is your opinion of God’s opinion of that – as revealed in the Prophets?”
That’s a compound question, but I’ll try to answer it. Remember that I’m not an OT scholar, just a simple (former) technology litigator who has had to reconstruct a lot of histories from fragmentary written- and oral accounts, not all of which could be relied on or even trusted.
In reading the Bible cover to cover a couple of years ago, I was shocked to come across 2 Chron. 34.14-17. That passage tells how Hilkiah the high priest supposedly “found” a copy of the book of the law of the LORD — which no one in the land seems even to have heard of. Here’s the NIV passage (all emphasis is mine):
According to the story, the king said, in effect: “Oy, THIS is why we’ve been having such trouble! We’ve been disobeying the commands in this book the priest has found, which incidentally we’ve never heard of before! Let’s all get with the program!”
When I read this account of Hilkiah the priest’s “finding” the book in the temple, I was immediately reminded of CBS News’s “finding” derogatory Texas Air National Guard papers about George W. Bush from the late 1960s, which later analysis showed to be suspiciously like what would have been generated by Microsoft Word, which of course didn’t exist back then. (For a ROFLOL spoof about that episode, see here.)
The cynic in me wonders whether Hilkiah the high priest even waited for the ink to dry on the book before delivering it to the king’s secretary.
All the previous tales of Israel “straying” from God and sliding into Ba’al worship took on a new meaning: I had the powerful impression that:
• For much if not most of its history, Israel was home to both Ba’al worshippers and Yahwists, possibly with conflicts flaring up from time to time, just as Muslims and Christians come into conflict in our day.
• Somewhere along the line, an aggressive group of Yahwists (we might call them Yahwist jihadists) ended up running the show. They bloodily suppressed their rival religion(s), claiming that to be God’s will. They wrote their accounts to fit their preferred narrative; it was those accounts, not those of the defeated religion, that were recopied, and thus that were able to survive the ravages of time.
Call me a cynic, but that’s the only way much of the OT even begins to make sense to me.
——————-
dwstroudmd, you seem to be implicitly asking another question: What’s my opinion about “Israel’s” extermination of their enemies? If the OT accounts are accurate, the “Israelites” were not exactly nice people; in fact, the phrase “genocidal aggressors” comes to mind. The OT writers seem to have tried to paper over their nation’s atrocities, and coincidentally to enhance their own status, by labeling the nation’s aggressions as the will of the storm-god the writers claimed to be serving. (They also “spun” the nation’s defeats as allegedly the result of insufficient servitude to the same god.)
——————–
Incidentally, there’s no reason to assume that the Creator’s final and definitive opinion, or even something less than that, is necessarily revealed in the Prophets. What the Prophets wrote is, in the end, their opinion, sanctified by the opinions of others who later canonized their writings.
DC, Thanks for your time to respond. You ended where I thought you would regarding the YHWH-ists. Evidence for your conclusion is not evident, is it? Why would the rival Baal-ists not have survived the deportations and relocations under the conquerors as well as the YHWH-ists? Just curious.
The question you take to be implicit I never thought of or considered. I hardly think that saying YHWH ordered the ban be applied is “papering over” what was done. But in any case you know that current scholarship holds that these events didn’t take place but were added in later. Why were the temptations to Baalism so everywhere present if the YHWH-ists had really put them to the ban? Then the creeping overtaking hypothesis, infiltration by stealth and over time, really comes into its one salient piece of evidence pervasive Baal-ism. IF the YHWH-ists had put everyone to the ban, there should have been little problem.
DC, I am shocked that the Prophets have not received the final word on God’s opinion about justice, morality, and the dispossessed. Isn’t that the bedrock of liberal eisegesis masquerading as exegesis? Didn’t Jesus have such a definitive understanding of God’s opinion (noting that you don’t require God to be his Father or Jesus in any way divine) based on the prophets? Or has my brain been left at the door when I constantly hear the mantra to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God”?
Seriously.
D.C., this argument is asinine:
Face it: For nearly 2,000 years, the majority of the world has been unpersuaded that Jesus was divine. So it’s not as though adherents of that proposition have made an overwhelmingly persuasive case.
Did the majority of the world believe Jesus was the Son of God while He lived? No.
Did the majority of those who heard the preaching of the apostles believe that Jesus was resurrected? No.
So what. Read Paul’s epistles about the gospel, response to the gospel, etc. Your argument really makes no sense in terms of what the NT itself says about the gospel and the response expected from its proclamation.
TonyinCNY [#32], certainly some of the NT authors warned that their claims would be greeted with skepticism; that’s a well-known defensive technique to try to keep up morale, but it doesn’t validate the NT authors’ underlying claims. If it did, intellectual integrity would require us to say that radical Muslims likewise validate their own claims when they warn their supporters about the opposition of unbelievers; I doubt you’d be prepared to agree to that.
dwstroudmd [#31], I’m not sure what you mean when you say “But in any case you know that current scholarship holds that these events didn’t take place but were added in later.” I’m no OT scholar; any pointers to further reading would be appreciated.
In any case, I wonder if we’re talking apples and oranges. I’m conjecturing that eventually the Yahwists won and suppressed the Ba’alists, then (re?)wrote the narratives after the fact, spinning the history to make it look as though the people of Israel had been pious Yahwists all along except for aberrational episodes of Ba’alism that YHWH had duly punished.
Or it might be (and perhaps you’re suggesting) that one or more groups of Yahwists managed to stay together during the Exile and then to return home, whereas for some reason or reasons the Ba’alists didn’t. Thus, those Yahwists were the ones who were left to write the histories, in ways that suited their purposes.
DC, or the classic Christian construction that God (YHWH) was at work in history?
I’ll get you some references from home in regard to the OT material.
IF God is active in history as Judaism and the Christian Faith affirm, we have the current text under the Providence of God and must deal with it. Not what we conjecture on the basis of historical speculation.
Jesus’ claims to “I AM” are pretty hard to get around. One accepts or rejects that claim. Your “history” seems to be conjecture too. Have you read JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES by Richard Bauckham?
D.C., the reason I called your argument asinine is because it doesn’t invalidate the apostolic witness or later witness either.
DC, you can locate these texts at bn.com (barnes and noble).
A THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT by Birch, Brueggemann, Fretheim, and Peterson (2005). This from my Diocese of Missouri Episcopal School for Ministry OT class in 2005-2006 under the Rev. Dr. Barbara Willock and the Rev. Mr. Rod Wiltse (see
http://www.diocesemo.org/whoweare/episcopalschoolforministry/faculty.htm).
I refer you to THE JEWISH STUDY BIBLE (2004, Oxford University Press) and its copious notes as well.
UNDERSTANDING THE OLD TESTAMENT by Bernard W. Anderson (2006). But my reference is my old college edition from the 2nd edition 1966 which I used in the 70’s at Clemson University under the venerable Leonard J. Greenspoon (before he was venerable and I was a brash young backwoods Baptist majoring in Microbiology taking an elective). His CV is here: http://puffin.creighton.edu/clc/Faculty_page/Greenspoon/LJG%20cv%20Jan%202003.htm
I refer you to THE JEWISH STUDY BIBLE (2004, Oxford University Press) and its copious notes as well. Dr. Greenspoon authored “Jewish Translations of the Bible” found on pages 2005 to 2020.
There are yet three major theories regarding the conquest of Canaan. 1) A decisive military invasion. 2) A gradual infiltration. 3) A peasant revolt (the newest conceptualization, I think). But I leave the details to you to explore.