There were some very tough things said about The Episcopal Church in his letter. And one wonders why we continue to be singled out on the issue of the blessing of same sex unions when it is going on all around the Anglican Communion, and in other Christian communions, ”˜under the radar screen.’ Nonetheless, there was also appreciation for the hard work done by The Episcopal Church, and its bishops, and a recognition that we have probably gone about as far as we can right now in seeking to clarify our position with respect to the Windsor Report and the Primates’ requests from Dar Es Salaam.
[i]My comment at EcuBishop:[/i]
With all due respect to Bishop Epting, one point that the ABC clearly emphasizes is that the TEC side of the matter has been exhaustively (and exhaustingly) presented and the time for a “listening process†is over, except possibly for yet another try at facilitated negotiation.
Two additional points about the “listening process†need to be made (once again) –-
First, the phrase originally referred to listening with a view towards developing a more effective and compassionate pastoral approach to the homosexually tempted; it most definitely did not envision any change in the Church catholic’s doctrines on sexual ethics.
Second, over the last dozen or more years it has become quite clear that any listening that occurs is purely unidirectional; the “progressive†side of the conflict has shown no inclination whatever to address or even make an effort to understand the concerns of those who hold to the teachings of the Church universal, preferring instead to continue shouting “homophobia! bigotry!†and performing rote recitations of the shellfish argument.
The major underlying theme of the ABC’s letter is that TEC’s progressives have lost the argument, and the question now remaining is how the Communion should deal with the situation.
* * *
It’s perhaps worth adding that +Epting’s phrase “under the radar screen” brings us close to the heart of the matter, though the bishop doesn’t seem to realize it. It is not our concern to prevent a gay couple here or there from celebrating their relationship, having a good time throwing a reception for friends, feeling good about themselves, or the like. The crucial point is [i]the teaching of the Church[/i], that is, its publicly professed positions on morality in Christian relationships. What happens “under the radar” may be regarded either as a charitable pastoral accommodation or as an offense requiring clerical discipline, but it does no violence to Christian doctrine.
[blockquote] the issue of the blessing of same sex unions when it is going on all around the Anglican Communion,[/blockquote]
I am not at all convinced that this is true. I think it’s only going on in a relative handful of the churches in the AC.
Craig,
I read the letter the same way. The problem is that there are two possible answers to this “question now remaining”: “decisively” and “not at all.”
#3, the trick ++Rowan is trying to do nothing at all while looking decisive. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that movie a number of times before.
Craig really nails it in his last paragraph. The Left cries that they need to be able to offer a “pastoral response,” but, if that were the real motive, then things might carry on as Craig has described. What they want, rather, is a re-writing of Christian sexual ethics, and, as I have argued elsewhere, their methods do not permit a firewall at a monogamous “marriage” of two gays. Once you’e collapsed the authority of Holy Scripture, ridiculed Holy Tradition, and established that the only authority that matters is 50+1% of the activists going to GCC every three years, well – I think TEC-affiliated websites are going to start getting blocked by a lot of workplace filters.
What is so “under the radar screen” about Gene Robinson? Why else does he think TEC is singled out?
TEC is singled out because at a national level of official policy, we endorsed the election of a Bishop living in contradicition to Scripture as it has been received and understood by the Church (even though our official teaching still is against this fact on the ground). This is true of no other province in the Communion.
Kendall, there is no mechanism in the Anglican Communion with which to put the genie back in the bottle. There just isn’t. If there is then please for God’s sake tell me what it is. Is the extent of the avenues of discipline available in the communion the withholding of invitations to meetings? If so, what a bloody joke. Really. Does the absurdity of all of this never just sweep over you like a wave?
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
Kendall, that has been true since the Windsor Report was published. Earlier, if you count the warnings TEC was given between the election and consecration of VGR. What, of substance, has happened since?
True, the genie is out to stay. I’d rather call it a “demon” since TEC’s worldview is contrary to the Biblical wordview. Christianity developed organically from the Afro-Asiatic worldview, of which Judaism is but one expression. The Afro-Asiatic worldview places high value on marriage and regards homosexuality as aberrant. That being said, why not allow TEC to bless what God has not blessed in any religious tradition? This group wants to establish a new religion that embraces aberrant behavior. TEC’s leadership insists that this is prophetic and loving, so let them walk the path they’ve chosen. Just don’t call it “Christianity”.
[i]comment deleted. All sorts of attacks on Bp. Epting and assigning of motives, etc. Please try again and adddress what Bp. Epting actually said. — elfgirl[/i]
Very well, elfgirl. I shall merely point out on the bishop’s blog his concerns as expressed in Louisiana:
http://ecubishop.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/house-of-bishops-day-four-sunday/#comments
”
House of Bishops – Day Four – Sunday
I presided at the Eucharist and preached at a small mission congregation in the Diocese of Louisiana this morning. Before the liturgy, I led an adult forum with about 15 folks around a table in the parish hall. After an overview of the House of Bishops meeting and a little bit on our ecumenical relations, I opened the floor for their questions.
Lots of concern about the “September 30 deadline†(which, of course, is not a deadline but as the Archbishop of Canterbury has reminded us “perception is reality†in real life). I spoke of my hopes that we will find a way forward, and then said something like:
“Two things I hope you’ll hold in tension: I want you to be concerned about these larger issues, about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, and all the rest of it. But, bottom line, no matter what happens at this House of Bishops meeting, it doesn’t have to derail your local efforts. The cutting edge of our mission and ministry is the local congregation and you need to build a healthy and vital congregation!â€
A 40-something big guy, with a red face and tears in his eyes said, “I disagree with you. What happens does affect our local congregation! I invite people but nobody in this part of the world wants to come to a church where, when you open the paper, is all about gay bishops and being thrown out of the world wide communion!â€
I conceded that there are local consequences, but reminded him that I was only arguing for some balance in all this…that we shouldn’t be consumed by “the issues†but dedicate ourselves to mission. Then we went on to the predictable argument about “do we believe the Bible or not…why won’t the bishops defend the plain Scriptural truth…why is the Episcopal Church going against worldwide Christian opinion on these matters, etc., etc., etc.â€
So, I did what bishops do every Sunday in the 50 minutes we are given in adult forums like this…trying to summarize decades of biblical scholarship, cultural differences, Anglican polity — things which parish clergy should have been doing for years in little places like this! In the end, I think I did OK. They trusted me enough to come to the liturgy, listen carefully to the sermon, receive the sacrament. All in all, it was a good day.
But, over a glass of wine at lunch with the rector and his wife, I had to confess that I do not know if we can hold this fractious Church together. Where I live, in New York, we bishops will be pilloried if we make any concessions in a conservative direction. An 815 staff person walked out on Katharine Jefferts Schori after she reported on General Convention Resolution B033. It was too conservative.
Finally what we will have to do, over these next two days, is say our prayers…listen deeply to each other…come to a consensus decision which is faithful to what this church is and what this church desires to become…and offer it to the larger Church.
As we said in an earlier communication from this House: all we can offer you is who we are. Not who you might wish we were.”
This entry was posted on September 24, 2007 at 12:41 am and is filed under Blogroll, Church Life, Ecumenical, Emergent Church, Religion, Scripture, The Episcopal Church. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Forgot to bold the money quotation:
“Where I live, in New York, we bishops will be pilloried if we make any concessions in a conservative direction.”
I suspect the ABC’s comments have led to one or two public stocks being erected in Times Square if not firectly in front of 815.
dwstroud #12 & #13 — Thanks for the excellent posts. My vote for the money quote in this amazingly frank and revealing entry by +Epting (who would be on my short list of exemplars to illustrate the term “nebbishop”) is this bit, which explains vividly why 815 is utterly terrified by the prospect of mass exodus if they let up at all on their policy of ruthless suppression:[blockquote]A 40-something big guy, with a red face and tears in his eyes said, “I disagree with you. What happens does affect our local congregation! I invite people but nobody in this part of the world wants to come to a church where, when you open the paper, is all about gay bishops and being thrown out of the world wide communion!â€[/blockquote]
Now, big 40-something Louisiana red-faced guys do not publicly get tears in their eyes unless they are really, seriously, deeply concerned and moved by the situation, and note +Epting’s utterly fatuous, vapid rote response:[blockquote]… reminded him that I was only arguing for some balance in all this…that we shouldn’t be consumed by “the issues†… trying to summarize decades of biblical scholarship, cultural differences, Anglican polity … [/blockquote]
Anyone interested in predicting the trajectory of American Anglicanism over the next decade should study this passage carefully, realizing that it differs only in its Southern frankness from scenes that will take place all over the country between sincere pewsitters and trapped clergy.