[i]While “evidence†for the existence
of such opinions can be culled from various isolated
sources, it is as preposterous as it is presumptuous to
suggest that the entire church can be tarred by that brush.[/i]
In other words, so what if they can prove it, it doesn’t mean anything. A “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” statement if I ever heard one.
the south had the problem with the north over money and power which started the war not slavery as the primary issue. the use of money and power again is the problem.
Well, nevermind about sexuality, but I hope Harold Lewis (or at least some of his parishioners) will ask Giles Fraser his views about all those other erroneous teachings when Dr. Fraser is in the pulpit there on the 18th of this month. Mr. Lewis will find that one of the many “…various isolated sources” is actually preaching to his congregation that day.
Mr. Lewis appears to be a man who cannot see the woods for the trees.
In making the case for realignment prior to the Convention Bishop Duncan had used the analogy of the Confederate House of Bishops as a precident for such a realignment. At the time I read the bishop’s missive I had a hiccup. I immedately thought the good rector would use this analogy in a way to bring scorn against the bishop and the “conservative elements” in the diocese (let it be noted by using the words conservative elements, Dr. Lewis, deftly avoided using the words conservative majority).
It is shameful for Dr. Lewis to play (by association) the race card in this situation. If Dr. Lewis hadn’t been so engrossed with pondering Archbishop Tutu’s address, he might have actually heard Nancy Bolden, chair of the Racism Commission, praise Bishop Duncan and Bishop Scriven for their solid support in the work of eradicating racism in our community.
Well, he was happy when Archbishop Tutu was spouting his heresy at Calvary and mocking the Gospel message of the Apostles.
[blockquote] In his sermon, he poked fun at the belief that only those who accept Jesus as their savior can enter heaven.
“Can you imagine that there are those who think God is a Christian?” he said to laughter from a mostly appreciative audience. “Can you tell us what God was before he was a Christian?” [/blockquote]
In his Convention address, Bishop Duncan observed that since the vote on Resolution One was but the first of the two votes required to effect a constitutional change, nothing has changed. I beg to differ. For the foreseeable future, the people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh are living in a situation not unlike that of a couple who have decided to divorce, but who for whatever set of reasons, still share a residence.
Lewis almost got it: the diagnosis of the situation is correct, but the proximate cause wasn’t Resolution One or anything temporally close to it; it was the deliberate shredding of the bonds of affection by Gene Robinson’s consecration.
And, who won’t find it telling that Lewis can only snarl at accusations of ECUSA’s slide into heresy and omnitheism as “preposterous,†rather than engage the issue?
As the old saying goes “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” Thus I am compelled to agree that the bishop’s references to the Confederacy were at once impolitic and insensitive. Obviously there are huge differences between slavery and the present theological crisis in TEC. However one should not expect the revisionists to take note of that when given such a huge target for their demagogues to attack. I would hope traditionalists avoid such references in the future.
[blockquote]One religious body which is a member of the newly formed group called Common Cause is reportedly considering a petition to the Holy See.[/blockquote]
So… he is incorrect about the easily verifiable actions of the [url=http://www.themessenger.com.au/news.htm]Traditional Anglican Communion[/url] and its US component, the ACA (i.e., not A[b]P[/b]A), which is [b]not[/b] a memberof [url=http://www.acn-us.org/common-cause-partners/]Common Cause.[/url]
So, before anyone is tempted to give credence to his inside knowledge as to reasserters, consider the foregoing.
Re: 5
Bulldog,
The South’s issues with the North were almost entirely based on slavery. Power meant the power to protect or restrict slavery. Money was an issue because the wealth of the plantation aristocracy was based on slavery. Slavery was the great issue. I encourage you to read the various declarations from southerners on the causes and justifications for secession.
[i]… Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[/i]
-Alexander Stephens
Vice President of the Confederate States of America
March 21, 1861 Savannah Georgia
All of the various neo-Confederate revisionists simply can not erase the actual historical record. The South seceded in defense of slavery. The Union was broken over slavery.
13, there were multiple causes, although slavery was the indispensable cause. However if you want to refight the Civil War and defend Yankee agression fine.
The only way to make a reappraiser happy about anything is to cave in to their position. Short of doing it with enough gusto, too, I might add! Then you have to give their every whim its head. You know, the ECUSA/TEC motto: my way or the highway is inclusive.
Re 15
Br. Michael,
It is not my intention to fight a war that ended more than half again a century ago. It was my intention to correct a statement that was factually incorrect. The war is over and the issues resolved. Reasonable people can debate the wisdom of decimating an entire generation of Americans to keep the country together and end slavery. Reasonable people can not argue that slavery was not the cause of the great catastrophe. Yes there were other issues. But most revolved at least to some degree around slavery. And none except slavery (as you fairly note) would have lead to disunion.
Great,
Now along with disagreements about Womens’ Ordination, Prayer Book and Worship Style, we in the Common Cause Partnership can argue about the War Between the States (a neutral term for the conflict). As if we did not have enough to deal with!
Recchip is correct. I was trying to say that the number one think in all conflicts is money and power, which takes our focus off the true source of all the Father.
I know nothing about this parish or its rector, but I assume they are in the Diocese of Pittsburgh? And the main complaint seems to be: it is wrong for the Bishop to dissent from the national church and attempt to take his diocese out of the church. The operating principle is: splitting from the larger organization is wrong. But if that is the case, then why is it okay for Fr. Lewis to dissent from his bishop? And why is it okay for TEC’s presiding bishop to dissent from the position of the larger communion? The revisionists are quite selective in their embrace of hierarchy. Come to think of it, if secession or schism (or whatever term you want to use for it) is wrong, why aren’t we all part of the Church of England? How dare we have an independent national church? Or to go back a bit further, wasn’t it wrong for any of us to leave Rome? Is Fr. Lewis ready to swim the Tiber for the sake of avoiding schism? Somehow, I doubt it.
Dr. Lewis writes, “One religious body which is a member of the newly formed group called Common Cause is reportedly considering a petition to the Holy See.” Can anyone identify this church?
I think Dr. Lewis is confusing the APA with the ACA.
The question ultimately comes down to this: “Can a diocese, once granted union with General Convention, leave General Convention?” TECUSA’s Constitution is silent on the subject of dioceses leaving the General Convention. Now if we take the politically liberal stance that what is not expressly forbidden by the law (e.g. constitution and canons) is implicitly allowed by the law (e.g. the ordination of practicing homosexuals is not expressly forbidden by the C&C;of TECUSA), then since the disollution of the relationship between the diocese and the General Convention is not part of “core doctrine” (c.f. The Righter Trial) and not covered by the Constitution or Canons, then it should be permitted.
Yes Plainsparsons, but +Duncun has assured Lewis+ that they can stay with TEC with their church and his blessing. Lewis+ might even get to be a Bishop (of a much smaller diocese) before it is all over.
Slavery caused the Civil War to the same extent that homosexuality caused the current crisis in TEC. Both are/were symptoms of a much deeper, fundamental difference in philosophy.
If I correctly understand the issues in the previous litigation between Lewis’s church and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, some years ago the diocese attempted to make a policy allowing individual parishes to leave the diocese, and the parish sued to prevent it. Now the parish is, perhaps, hoist with its own petard, since the diocese as a whole is in disagreement with the New Episcopal Religion and will depart in due course for a traditionally Christian province. One hopes Calvary Church will relent and take the diocese’s offer of a peaceable departure.
The Calvary lawsuit is an ad litum suit which asks the coiurt to appoint new trustees to oversee the diocese rather than the current bishops and certain elected leaders of the Standing Cmte, and Board of Trustees. In short, Calvary contends that the current leadership can not be trusted to maintain the assets of the diocese (property, $$$$) as they currently exist. As a member of the diocese Calvary has an interest that the assets not be deminished. This suit was based on a resolution passed at a Special Convention in September 2003 which would have given any parish that so desired ownership of their own property. In response to the suit the Board of Trustees withdrew the resolution. The suit was settled in October 2005. But Dr Lewis asked the judge to reopen it claiming Bishop Duncan had violated the settlement agreement in working for realignment with the Global South Primates and the Common Cause Partnership. It was reopened in December 2006 and hearings will continue. The legal costs to the Diocese of Pittsburgh to defend itself are $30,000 per month.
For those of us on dial-up, you might note that the link is to a 6 megabyte pdf document. spt+
It seems to me that, while sad, Harold Lewis was BORN unhappy.
[i]While “evidence†for the existence
of such opinions can be culled from various isolated
sources, it is as preposterous as it is presumptuous to
suggest that the entire church can be tarred by that brush.[/i]
In other words, so what if they can prove it, it doesn’t mean anything. A “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” statement if I ever heard one.
If you want to avoid the large pdf, the whole thing, “The New Confederacy,” is posted here
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002741.html
the south had the problem with the north over money and power which started the war not slavery as the primary issue. the use of money and power again is the problem.
Well, nevermind about sexuality, but I hope Harold Lewis (or at least some of his parishioners) will ask Giles Fraser his views about all those other erroneous teachings when Dr. Fraser is in the pulpit there on the 18th of this month. Mr. Lewis will find that one of the many “…various isolated sources” is actually preaching to his congregation that day.
Mr. Lewis appears to be a man who cannot see the woods for the trees.
In making the case for realignment prior to the Convention Bishop Duncan had used the analogy of the Confederate House of Bishops as a precident for such a realignment. At the time I read the bishop’s missive I had a hiccup. I immedately thought the good rector would use this analogy in a way to bring scorn against the bishop and the “conservative elements” in the diocese (let it be noted by using the words conservative elements, Dr. Lewis, deftly avoided using the words conservative majority).
It is shameful for Dr. Lewis to play (by association) the race card in this situation. If Dr. Lewis hadn’t been so engrossed with pondering Archbishop Tutu’s address, he might have actually heard Nancy Bolden, chair of the Racism Commission, praise Bishop Duncan and Bishop Scriven for their solid support in the work of eradicating racism in our community.
Well, he was happy when Archbishop Tutu was spouting his heresy at Calvary and mocking the Gospel message of the Apostles.
[blockquote] In his sermon, he poked fun at the belief that only those who accept Jesus as their savior can enter heaven.
“Can you imagine that there are those who think God is a Christian?” he said to laughter from a mostly appreciative audience. “Can you tell us what God was before he was a Christian?” [/blockquote]
Lewis almost got it: the diagnosis of the situation is correct, but the proximate cause wasn’t Resolution One or anything temporally close to it; it was the deliberate shredding of the bonds of affection by Gene Robinson’s consecration.
And, who won’t find it telling that Lewis can only snarl at accusations of ECUSA’s slide into heresy and omnitheism as “preposterous,†rather than engage the issue?
He can’t go there, of course: the Christian patina is essential for business, and it’s not something parishes like this (unlike their growing number of outré cousins) can renounce. Calvary is the typical, old-line, frozen chosen church as architectural tour, church as conservatory – church as museum piece, ultimately.
As the old saying goes “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” Thus I am compelled to agree that the bishop’s references to the Confederacy were at once impolitic and insensitive. Obviously there are huge differences between slavery and the present theological crisis in TEC. However one should not expect the revisionists to take note of that when given such a huge target for their demagogues to attack. I would hope traditionalists avoid such references in the future.
[blockquote]One religious body which is a member of the newly formed group called Common Cause is reportedly considering a petition to the Holy See.[/blockquote]
So… he is incorrect about the easily verifiable actions of the [url=http://www.themessenger.com.au/news.htm]Traditional Anglican Communion[/url] and its US component, the ACA (i.e., not A[b]P[/b]A), which is [b]not[/b] a memberof [url=http://www.acn-us.org/common-cause-partners/]Common Cause.[/url]
So, before anyone is tempted to give credence to his inside knowledge as to reasserters, consider the foregoing.
I must agree with AO. That was a politically tone-deaf set of lines by Bishop Duncan.
Re: 5
Bulldog,
The South’s issues with the North were almost entirely based on slavery. Power meant the power to protect or restrict slavery. Money was an issue because the wealth of the plantation aristocracy was based on slavery. Slavery was the great issue. I encourage you to read the various declarations from southerners on the causes and justifications for secession.
[i]… Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[/i]
-Alexander Stephens
Vice President of the Confederate States of America
March 21, 1861 Savannah Georgia
All of the various neo-Confederate revisionists simply can not erase the actual historical record. The South seceded in defense of slavery. The Union was broken over slavery.
Thanks John B. Chilton! I [i]hate[/i] pdf.
13, there were multiple causes, although slavery was the indispensable cause. However if you want to refight the Civil War and defend Yankee agression fine.
The only way to make a reappraiser happy about anything is to cave in to their position. Short of doing it with enough gusto, too, I might add! Then you have to give their every whim its head. You know, the ECUSA/TEC motto: my way or the highway is inclusive.
[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7558/]Still no clue why the whole church is tarred, Hal?[/url]
Re 15
Br. Michael,
It is not my intention to fight a war that ended more than half again a century ago. It was my intention to correct a statement that was factually incorrect. The war is over and the issues resolved. Reasonable people can debate the wisdom of decimating an entire generation of Americans to keep the country together and end slavery. Reasonable people can not argue that slavery was not the cause of the great catastrophe. Yes there were other issues. But most revolved at least to some degree around slavery. And none except slavery (as you fairly note) would have lead to disunion.
Great,
Now along with disagreements about Womens’ Ordination, Prayer Book and Worship Style, we in the Common Cause Partnership can argue about the War Between the States (a neutral term for the conflict). As if we did not have enough to deal with!
Re: 19
Recchip has made a good point. I did not intend to draw the discussion off topic and I apologize for doing so. Back to the issue at hand…
#4: Thank you for the non-pdf link. spt+
Recchip is correct. I was trying to say that the number one think in all conflicts is money and power, which takes our focus off the true source of all the Father.
I know nothing about this parish or its rector, but I assume they are in the Diocese of Pittsburgh? And the main complaint seems to be: it is wrong for the Bishop to dissent from the national church and attempt to take his diocese out of the church. The operating principle is: splitting from the larger organization is wrong. But if that is the case, then why is it okay for Fr. Lewis to dissent from his bishop? And why is it okay for TEC’s presiding bishop to dissent from the position of the larger communion? The revisionists are quite selective in their embrace of hierarchy. Come to think of it, if secession or schism (or whatever term you want to use for it) is wrong, why aren’t we all part of the Church of England? How dare we have an independent national church? Or to go back a bit further, wasn’t it wrong for any of us to leave Rome? Is Fr. Lewis ready to swim the Tiber for the sake of avoiding schism? Somehow, I doubt it.
Dr. Lewis writes, “One religious body which is a member of the newly formed group called Common Cause is reportedly considering a petition to the Holy See.” Can anyone identify this church?
I think Dr. Lewis is confusing the APA with the ACA.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
The question ultimately comes down to this: “Can a diocese, once granted union with General Convention, leave General Convention?” TECUSA’s Constitution is silent on the subject of dioceses leaving the General Convention. Now if we take the politically liberal stance that what is not expressly forbidden by the law (e.g. constitution and canons) is implicitly allowed by the law (e.g. the ordination of practicing homosexuals is not expressly forbidden by the C&C;of TECUSA), then since the disollution of the relationship between the diocese and the General Convention is not part of “core doctrine” (c.f. The Righter Trial) and not covered by the Constitution or Canons, then it should be permitted.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
19, echos my frustration. And I more and more appreciate CS Lewis who really didn’t care for churchmanship.
25, those people are not governed by logic.
In South Carolina, Kendall Harmon is still unhappy…..
Yes Plainsparsons, but +Duncun has assured Lewis+ that they can stay with TEC with their church and his blessing. Lewis+ might even get to be a Bishop (of a much smaller diocese) before it is all over.
How about, #29, +Duncan hold Father Lewis’ parish hostage with the threat of lawsuit? We could have a swap meet down the road: Calvary for Truro!
I LOVE it, Jeffersonian 🙂
Slavery caused the Civil War to the same extent that homosexuality caused the current crisis in TEC. Both are/were symptoms of a much deeper, fundamental difference in philosophy.
If I correctly understand the issues in the previous litigation between Lewis’s church and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, some years ago the diocese attempted to make a policy allowing individual parishes to leave the diocese, and the parish sued to prevent it. Now the parish is, perhaps, hoist with its own petard, since the diocese as a whole is in disagreement with the New Episcopal Religion and will depart in due course for a traditionally Christian province. One hopes Calvary Church will relent and take the diocese’s offer of a peaceable departure.
The Calvary lawsuit is an ad litum suit which asks the coiurt to appoint new trustees to oversee the diocese rather than the current bishops and certain elected leaders of the Standing Cmte, and Board of Trustees. In short, Calvary contends that the current leadership can not be trusted to maintain the assets of the diocese (property, $$$$) as they currently exist. As a member of the diocese Calvary has an interest that the assets not be deminished. This suit was based on a resolution passed at a Special Convention in September 2003 which would have given any parish that so desired ownership of their own property. In response to the suit the Board of Trustees withdrew the resolution. The suit was settled in October 2005. But Dr Lewis asked the judge to reopen it claiming Bishop Duncan had violated the settlement agreement in working for realignment with the Global South Primates and the Common Cause Partnership. It was reopened in December 2006 and hearings will continue. The legal costs to the Diocese of Pittsburgh to defend itself are $30,000 per month.
I rest my case about what makes a reappraiser happy.