Here is one:
Sir, ”” I am sure the Revd Dr Giles Fraser expressed the anxieties of many in his description of the diocese of Pittsburgh and in his remarks about its Bishop, the Rt Revd Bob Duncan. It does look like puritans breaking away again, as they have gained a reputation for doing.
Nevertheless, as a Church of England cleric currently teaching at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, I would like to make a number of points.
First, Trinity was founded as a theological college in 1976 because, by that time, the last remaining Evangelical one (Virginia) had become liberal in its commitments. One of the systematic-theology professors left his tenured position there to help start this risky enterprise with the aim of securing a continuing place for Evangelicalism in the Episcopal Church.
Second, conservatives in Pittsburgh are not planning a “hostile takeover”, as Dr Fraser suggests. About 80 per cent of the clergy in the Episcopal Church are liberal-leaning (much more liberal than those in the Church of England, in my experience); so any such ideas would be totally unrealistic, even if they were being considered. All conservatives are looking for is a continuing place at the table which they and their parishioners can hold with integrity.
Third, I very much hope and pray that there will be developments in the coming year that will mean that the diocese of Pittsburgh does not in the end vote to leave the Episcopal Church. If it does come to that, however, the clergy and lay leaders know it will risk lawsuits, and might lead to the loss of some church buildings and clergy pensions. No bishop or priest would undertake such a move lightly, and I would invite people not to assume the worst about their motives.
It would be a great help in the current tense situation if Dr Fraser would use his influence to encourage the clergy and people of Calvary Church to drop their lawsuit against Bishop Duncan. He might also want to visit Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry next time he is in the States, and assess it for himself. While here, he could arrange to meet Bishop Duncan, who is in many ways a traditional Anglo-Catholic, whose high view of the Church and devotion to Jesus Christ are what makes him willing to live with all the criticism.
JUSTYN TERRY
Associate Professor of Systematic Thology
Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
Ambridge, PA, 15003,
USA
Amen.
It would be wonderful if all parties could stop posturing and approach each other with charity and humility. Given what I read in the various Epistles from 815 and the ongoing temper tantrum on the HoBD mailing list, that does not appear likely.
“…Trinity was founded as a theological college in 1976 because, by that time, the last remaining Evangelical one (Virginia) had become liberal in its commitments.“
Professor Terry used the term “liberal†in “had become liberal†in too liberal a manner.
The word “liberal†has become far too ‘fluid’ a word. That is, when a person reads or hears the word, it can mean a wide range of things depending upon the context of its use and the perceived meaning within the mind of the person ‘inputting’ the word.
.Succinctly, the word “liberal†in today’s world lacks ‘specificity.’
For example, both the Republican and Democrat parties are “liberal†political parties if the ‘broad’ meaning of “liberal†is intended in a description of those parties.
I think Professor Terry should have used the term, “socially progressive liberals.â€
The “socially progressive liberals†are people who believe that society is continually ‘morphing’ and that our social guidelines, including religious beliefs, should also be continually modified in order to adjust to the most social current ‘morphing’ being exhibited in socially prevalent behavior.
Anglicanfirst:
Used by a conservative/evangelical in context of a seminary, “liberal” means theologically liberal, which in turn accommodates all sorts of social-view baggage and “commitments.”
Most of us know immediately what it means.
The mainline seminaries are where the battle for the soul of the Episcopal Church was lost long, long before 2003ff.
w.w.
w.w (#3), I understand that most of “us” understand what “liberal” means within the venue of T19 and some other blogs.
However, I think that the issues that we have been discussing on the blogs are soon going to be much more widely discussed among the laity of ECUSA. Event evolving at this very moment are going to force that discussion within the near future.
In that wider venue, I think that the careless use of the term “liberal” among the ‘pew-sitters’ and among the here-to-date ‘oblivious’ members of ECUSA’s laity will probably lead to a great deal of confusion.
Particularly among those of the laity who are at their hearts orthodox Anglicans but who have a ‘knee-jerk’ loyalty to anything labeled “liberal.”
I sure don’t have any trouble knowing what “Liberal” means in the context of a religious discussion.
Well #3 and #5, maybe it all seems very clear to each of you what “liberal” means in a a religious discussion, but I maintain that the revisionists of ECUSA should be called “social progressive liberals” and not just “liberals.”
Sorry about that, but I think the broad brush use of just the term “liberal” to label the revisionists is simplistic, misleading and well-serves the cause of ECUSA’s revisionist leadership. Enough said.
#6
The typical pew sitter in TEC and other mainline denominations wouldn’t know what “social progressive liberal” means. “Progressive” is a positive-sounding code word that beneath the covers really represents something negative more often than not.
To most in the spreading controversy, “theologically liberal” and “theologically conservative” are understandable descriptives.
w.w.
Anglican First,
There is nothing progressive in the agenda of the liberals in TEC. If anything they are regressive in their reappraisment of the Faith.