Instruments of Mischief: Over the last decade and a half, sex-and-gender liberals in TEC/CoE have shown themselves vulnerable to this sort of reasoning. They have conceded sex-and-gender conservatives’ construals of what liberal tolerance and inclusiveness entails, and they have responded by handing sex-and-gender conservatives two (what I shall call) instruments of mischief. The CoE led the way with the Act of Synod which complicated the polity of the CoE to allow for flying bishops: a plan which allowed sex-and-gender conservative parishes to refuse to welcome geographical diocesans who had ordained women, and to request the episcopal offices of another bishop with clean hands. Candidates for ordination are also allowed to request a ”˜clean hands’ flying bishop to ordain them. This model has been twice adapted and applied in TEC, with the institution of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) and now the presiding bishop’s scheme for Episcopal Visitors. Once the concept of individual congregations or dioceses not being bound to their duly elected geographical diocesan or PB is introduced and legitimized, it is an easy leap to appealing to bishops and primates of other Anglican provinces as well. The trajectory of +Duncan shows how slippery the slide from parallel ecclesial units within TEC (his diagnosis at the end of General Convention 2006) to schism (the move to form a separate North American Anglican church entirely, and/or to affiliate with some other ”˜orthodox’ Anglican province).
The second instrument of mischief is the The Windsor Report-proposed and Archbishop Drexel Gomez-interpreted Anglican covenant, which constructs a wider Anglican body politic in which a conservative majority would be guaranteed for the foreseeable future. Like the PB-sponsored House of Bishops’ ”˜pause’ (its resolve to withhold consents to non-celibate LGBT candidates for the episcopacy, and to refrain from authorising rites for the blessing of homosexual partnerships), consent to a Gomez-style Anglican covenant would represent a liberal concession not to implement their conscientious sex-and-gender beliefs at an institutional level. Talk about pastoral care defines the maximum scope within which conscientious liberal sex-and-gender convictions would be allowed to hold sway: to the private sphere, to what goes on individual to individuals, perhaps counter-culturally and covertly. And some Anglican communion primates are insisting on their right to invade privacy and put an end to the blessing of same-sex couples under the rubric of pastoral care.
Liberal concessions and sponsorship of these instruments of mischief represent not only a major political victory, but also a rhetorical triumph for conservatives. If tolerance and inclusiveness always trump, then liberals will never be in a position to press their conscientious content-beliefs about Kingdom-coming in the face of clever ([IPP]-invoking) conservative opposition. No wonder liberals are regularly caricatured as making idols of tolerance and inclusiveness, while betraying the Gospel!
Huh?
A [url=http://old-oligarch.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_archive.html#106865874724624627#106865874724624627 ]reader at Stand Firm[/url] found an article about her. Some interesting quotes:
[blockquote]Some charming statements to note: She compares the Trinity to “a gay men’s chorus†and adds “I used to think that the Trinity might be a model of kinky relations.â€[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Her going away present from the gay-friendly New Haven Christ Church Episcopal congregation? A suit of clerical attire made of black leather bondage-wear.[/blockquote]
Is this the appropriate accouterments for the next Pride parade?
I would commend to all t19 readers her entire essay. It gives an excellent and thorough introduction to the so-called liberal version of Anglicanism. In fact this essay is far too instructive and far too important for us to fall into potential ad hominen.
Marilyn is good writer and a very smart person. I also happen to like her very much although I haven’t seen her in awhile. I also could not possibly disagree more with Marilyn and I truly hope that more moderates, reasserters, orthodox, conservatives, and traditionalist… as well as those who hold any form of a credal/biblical worldview… would read her entire essay. It just may spur us into holy action.
One positive aspect of this essay is that she also shows, in a way, the either/or situation facing Anglicanism. I would argue that we chose either following Christ or not. She sees things differently.
Another positive part of this essay is that she shows just how high the stakes are in our current battle/troubles/split/____.
Some random thoughts-
Here essay has zero mention of Scripture or Tradition… but a bit of political history. I think this speaks volumes. Read the most recent papal encyclical and notice the difference. I am not making an argument for Catholicism, I am making an argument about to whom or what so-called liberal Anglicanism is devoted and what they consider to be authoritative. One could also read a prominent Southern Baptist- again you will see what he regards as authoratative based on whom he quotes. I am not advocating a proof-text mentality. I am merely asking- where do you get your authority?
While she does mention Jesus’ name twice in a descriptive fashion, she makes no appeal to Him and he plays a minor role… Tillich, on the other hand, gets much more air-time.
Her comments on why GLBT bishops (by the way, that acronym is a bit bizarre) speaks of routing evil- particularly institutional evil. Yet again her answer makes no mention of Jesus, about evangelism, about SIN, or about the true meaning of repentence (that is, confession to God through Jesus Christ and turning to Him).
She also speaks about liberals wanting to bring social change. But so do atheist liberals. What is uniquely Christian about this??? Sure, she makes a good case for liberalism. But what makes a Christian liberal a Christian. In fact, I would argue that a true Christian cannot be characterized by the words liberal or conservative… the only descriptive phrase is Christian. I am still looking for something uniquely Christian in the so-called liberal view of homosexuality. I am not judging the hearts of the so-called liberals, I am merely pointing out that the same people who promote the GLBT agenda also seem to do a lot of waffling about Jesus and whether he really and truly is the Son of God… the path to salvation.
I don’t like the false liberal/conservative dichotomy. I actually think the stakes are much higher. I would simply say that the call to bring the kingdom of God AND be personally devoted to Jesus is the call of a Christian…a devoted disciple of Jesus Christ. However, the call to bring social change is nice, and virtuous, but it is NOT Christian (liberal, conservative, or otherwise). That is, a Christian may want to bring social change but this is a secondary issue. The first order issue is the divinity and salvific character of Jesus Christ. The first order is following Jesus and following what he has taught us. And how can one claim to follow him if one doesn’t believe the sources that teach us who He is ???
What Marilyn misses is that the issue facing Anglicanism is not whether we ought to (or must) ordain gay people. The issue is whether we chose to follow Jesus Christ and remain Christian or if we chose to create something new.
Pax.
Lots of errors in last post. I was typing too fast. Sorry, but there are too many to correct. (-:
It’s hard to read this and not burst out laughing. Actually, it’s hard to read this period. She certainly takes a lot of words to say what Susan Russell said in a paragraph.
But what then? We learn that those who disapprove of homosexual
sexual acts are homophobes and that this is a pathology. The word “pathology” gives the right fragrance to her argument: Pathology is a throughly bad smell. Who would wish to smell like this?
We learn that those portions of the Bible which declare homosexual acts a sin are not God’s words but words created by mere social convention, and because this is so, such sections may be discounted. We also learn that all those past attitudes regarding homosexual acts as abhorrent are also mere social conventions are must be discarded.
We learn that tolerance is limited. It is all right to be intolerant of some things, namely all attempts to institutionalize what she does not favor. Moreover, the argument of the tyranny of the majority doesn’t apply here so that that the majority has an obligation to enforce its institutional demands. This is not tyranny, not any more. It is doing what is right. We also learn that the cry “Protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority” is no longer applicable because doing what is right takes precedence.
And the upshot of this tendentious essay: We need MORE homosexual priests, MORE homosexual marriages, until the aberrant becomes normative. In this manner, individual beliefs will be allowed to change until they coincide with hers.
For some reason – what can it be? – it has not occurred to her that the sigma against homosexual acts is inherent, not learned , that there are social standards against such acts because mankind has an indwelling cause of disapproval, that evolution itself obviously militates against homosexuality. And for some strange reason, it never occurs to her that homosexual acts might be sinful.
The real difficulty with her argument is not that it is false. Falsity is easy enough to deal with. Rather it is full of academic inflation, and, what’s more important, a set of glittering half-truths. Acadamic inflation is almost indestructible except by laughter. Half-truths are much more dangerous, because a shiny halftruth is like a strawberry which has been irrigated with badly polluted water. How can anything that tastes so sweet make one sick? Look at it: Do you see anything wrong? But those who have become sick know better, and look not at the strawberry but the source from which it came, which, knowing, causes one to say, “I cannot see the poisons, but I know they are there, and I will not eat it.”
Well, she has all liberal America agreeing with her, and there is probably nothing we can do about it. She needs to be left outdoors, like a bad strawberry, until the spring rains wash her clean. At present, our best defense is laughter because we know this emperor has no clothes. Larry
I find this stark in its challenge to the left. They are to be about “weeding” the Church by weeding out those who refuse/cannot support their agenda. She says towards the end;
[blockquote]not only are LGBT bishops and blessed couples key to the institutional weeding process, they are essential to outward mission and institutional reconstruction.[/blockquote]
This is a total reconstruction of the Church as we have known it. Sadly -Will Jesus Jesus recognize it as a Church? It seems to me more and more clearly that this is a new religion and this speaker is one of its prophets.
Well – I will be weeded some time in the future, meanwhile I shall resist and pray my roots deeper in the good soil of God’s Word.
#3 “What Marilyn misses is that the issue facing Anglicanism is not whether we ought to (or must) ordain gay people. The issue is whether we chose to follow Jesus Christ and remain Christian or if we chose to create something new.”
Well said.
Given the title… perhaps it is best to hear from the Word of God….
“Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our “God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:28-29
In his latest book of collected essays, Rowan Williams includes a piercing critique of the theodicy of Marilyn McCord Adams.
Rowan Williams, ‘Redeeming Sorrow: Marilyn McCord Adams and the defeat of Evil’, Chapter 13 in ‘Wrestling with Angels: Conversations in Modern Theology’ (London: SCM Press, 2007), pp. 255-274.
Originally this was a paper presented at the 15th annual conference on philosophy of religion, Claremont, February 1991 as a reply to Marilyn McCord Adams’ paper at the same conference, ‘Evil and the God-who-does-nothing-in-particular’.
Both were first published in D.Z. Phillips (ed.) ‘Religion and Morality’ Claremont Studies in the Philosphy of Religion (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1996). McCord Adams’ paper on pp. 107-31 and Williams’ reply on pp. 132-48.
It is worth reading in full and is devastating in its demolition of McCord Adams’ concept of God.
Rowan Williams states in his opening paragraph:
[blockquote] I find her paper unsatisfactory in terms both of philosophical analysis and of moral adequacy to the question of suffering (p. 255) [/blockquote]
Later he writes:
[blockquote] What is disturbing in her account of providence is that it suggests that providential divine action has something of the nature of crisis management – that is, it is essentially reactive. It becomes more necessary the worse things get. The implication is that, as human history evolves, it is quite likely that we shall need increasing supplements of direct divine intervention to save us from even worse disasters than we currently experience. (p. 266) [/blockquote]
The doctrine of God, and of his action in his world, is central to theological ethics.
KGL+ – You say that bringing about social change is not Christian? I beg to differ with you. Jesus did nothing but bring about social change. And that is our charge as Christians who follow Jesus, to do the same. What do you think the MDGs are all about? The kind of Christianity that you espouse….individual and salvic…..is why we still have genocide in Darfur. You (the collective you) are so worried about whether or not you’ll get to heaven that you have no time to bring heaven to earth. We must go out into the world to love and serve the Lord. Sometimes that is all about instituting social change. How else will we end poverty, suffering, genocide? Christianity is not about maintaining the status quo…..at least, not my kind of Christianity and that of many Christians with a postmodern worldview.
Fred,
Of course, you’re right. But who made this mess you’re cleaning up in the first place but we very miserable sinners who desperately need the Savior.
Then there’s the distraction of one’s self-righteousness which is usually right under the surface. It is always easier to get high on one’s compassion than face one’s lack of it. That’s the progressive “postmodern worldview” problem.
The article is full of something. But its more koprotic than kairotic.
#10…. you sound like my systematics professor who said my theology “was responsible for all the bloodshed of the 20th century”. To which I replied (in an unfortunate and very unChristian manner to my shame) “And your theology is responsible for the apostasy of this generation.”
Friend, if human beings could have “gone out there and served the Lord” and brought the kingdom of God on earth, don’t you think we would have done it by now? What could the matter be? Perhaps it is because even though we know what is right we do what is wrong anyway? Perhaps it is because even though we know what is right we do what we hate? Who can save us from such a dilemma? Only Jesus Christ the righteous. If social change is to be made it will come from hearts that are broken for God. If the kingdom comes on earth it will be because our wills have surrendered to God’s will. You opine “How else will we end poverty, suffering and genocide?” It won’t come from the MDG’s, I can tell you that. It will only come when human beings receive the power to end such things. That kind of power does not come from us…. it comes from the Holy Spirit. A Gospel of “go out there and do more and be better” is hardly what Jesus was about. He confronted the powers of this world with the only power that is power…. the Living God.
Jesus made social change by changing souls.
Rev. Patti Hale [#13] writes: “Perhaps it is because even though we know what is right we do what we hate? Who can save us from such a dilemma? Only Jesus Christ the righteous.”
Your first sentence hits the nail on the head, Patti: We don’t understand why people do what they do, or want what they want, or think what they think. Our grasp of psychology, brain function, and behavior doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface; to quote a Star Trek episode from the ’60s, we’re in the age of stone knives and bearskins.
As to Jesus saving us from that dilemma: Judging by the facts of Anno Domini history, he hasn’t been doing an especially good job of it (if indeed that’s what he’s been doing at all).
An analogy: A group of physicians insists that their preferred treatment for a disease is the only valid one. Skeptics point out that the treatment is highly unpredictable in its results, and that other treatments sometimes seem to work too. The physicians offer the excuse that their treatment only works for patients who truly commit their hearts to it; they claim that other treatments don’t really cure the disease (appearances to the contrary notwithstanding).
We’d rightly conclude that the physicians didn’t really understand what was going on with the disease or with their treatment. Jesus-centered church people are like that group of physicians. They bring to mind Deut. 18.21-22:
If we’re to take that particular piece of Scripture seriously, a rethinking of traditional soteriology would seem to be long overdue.
Friend, if human beings could have “gone out there and served the Lord†and brought the kingdom of God on earth, don’t you think we would have done it by now?
And don’t we see what has happened every time it’s been tried. Every “advance” we make brings its own problems and the old, old problems of our human nature have not changed one whit.
I would have sworn I posted a comment earlier…Elves, was it deleted and for what reason?
[i] The ONLY deletes have been on another thread. [/i]
[blockquote]You say that bringing about social change is not Christian? I beg to differ with you. Jesus did nothing but bring about social change. And that is our charge as Christians who follow Jesus, to do the same.[/blockquote]
This is bizarre and nihilistic in the extreme. Because Jesus’s actions brought about social change (and it’s instructive you say they did “nothing” other than that. Really?), we must also strive to bring about social change to be more Christ-like. The presumption here is that there is no set of social conditions that Christ would have deemed ideal. The ideal is in the change since, pace Fred, Christ wanted nothing more than an Obama-esque pursuit of change purely for its own sake.
[blockquote]What do you think the MDGs are all about?[/blockquote]
Empowerment of a corrupt, ineffective transnational bureaucracy through the statement of lofty objectives that are unattainable through any of said bureaucracy’s mechanisms.
[blockquote]The kind of Christianity that you espouse….individual and salvic…..is why we still have genocide in Darfur. [/blockquote]
Three years ago, when I first advocated intervention in Darfur, I was roundly pilloried as a warmongering stooge of Chimpy
McHitlerburton by port-siders such as yourself. I was just a tool, a dupe sent forth to pave the way for the Bush/Blair/Howard Oil Conspiracy to snatch resources from the Brown Other.
I’m delighted that it’s suddenly become fashionable for southpaws to support the arrest of genocide in Darfur now. Welcome aboard, Fred.
10/Fred.
It’s funny because as a strong catholic Christian I am often unjustly accused of tossing my self with a lot that does not preach enough personal conversion. Of course, as one who has led altar calls, anglo-catholics often get a bit frustrated with me, too. But I digress.
Read my post and you will see that I say that social change and the social gospel based on our response to the love of Jesus Christ is Christian.
Advocating social change is just an idea- a fairly lame one, that I posit will not work without Jesus.
To say the same thing in different words- a Christian is not one who advocates social change, a Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ. Following Jesus Christ is the first order. Then, as a response to God’s love and beause Jesus commands it, we minister to the poor and seek to bring the kingdom of God by our service to God’s people.
Allow me to over simplify… Step 1- Accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Step 2- Do what Jesus says. All of it. Step 3- What Jesus says often involves great social change and certainly involves service to the community and the world. So we serve the world and work against injustice, etc.
If we start at step 3, we are not Christian and I don’t think we’ll make much of a change. If we go through steps 1 through 3 then we are honored with the title, Christian, and as promised we shall see miracles occur. We may even watch as God changes the world. I hate to be somewhat controversial but I must say that I am convinced that social justice is at best a good that distracts us from the best and at worst is a false god. I say this because so many have confused the end with the means. The end is following Jesus Christ. The means is doing what he says (which includes both evangelism and service/outreach). When we think social justice is an end, then we forget about God and we don’t accomplish anything. When we focus on God, all things are possible.
And, as an aside, I’ve worked in human rights, ministered, and preached (including an evangelistic preaching tour that drew a number of Muslims and other non-Christians) throughout Sudan. If you’d like to hear about the changes that Jesus has brought to many in Sudan I’d be happy to tell on another thread. I can’t help myself but I must say that the problems in Darfur are not caused by Christian evangelicals or catholic Christians. And I am CERTAIN that if all of Sudan were evangelized such that they became Christian then Darfur would not be happening.
Chris Johnson has a posted quote from Kierkegaard that made me think of Ms. Adams:
[i]The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. [b]Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close.[/b] Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.[/i]
[blockquote] The ONLY deletes have been on another thread. [/blockquote]
I must be losin’ it. Thanks.
#2, for the record, the congregation that planned to give her black leather vestments was St. Thomas’s New Haven. In the end, she turned down the gift because she thought it too extravagant. She asked if the parish could take a big group picture instead. She is much loved by the congregation there.
Like others, I like her. But this paper, again, is more lawyering than theology. She has blinders on as do most children of the sixties to whom she speaks.
She is a breed of theologians for whom the Bible is the problem, not the solution. She “wins” on the popular sentiment level by narrowing the topic to what it is not, and by avoiding the Text as much as possible.
What is instructive is to ponder our own lapse from theology to advocacy politics, both known and unknown.
[blockquote] We must go out into the world to love and serve the Lord. Sometimes that is all about instituting social change. How else will we end poverty, suffering, genocide?[/blockquote]
We won’t. Until men change their souls there will always be poverty, suffering and massacre. Look at black America to see how your tactics bear fruit. That’s why we are called to save souls, not institute “social change.”
My comment at the Cafe:
Well, this is certainly true, at any rate. Who would have believed that the pathological self-absorption of a very small group of individuals would have put the entire Communion at risk of disintegration?