I think dialogue is a good thing. I don’t see how Rowan’s calling for it now will help much given how badly it has failed over the past thirty years. And if those most affected are not allowed to speak, then let’s call it a bloody sham right now and not waste our time.
The former bishop here was definitely on the conservative side of things and his view of human sexuality, from what I heard him say, was definitely right out of the Vatican magisterium. Nonetheless, he spent an evening listening to lesbians and gays speak out of their experience, their pain, their hopes, and their journeys in Christ and in the community of faith. He did not agree with our positions but he remained our chief pastor and he did not shun, denounce, or excommunicate. He practices love and forbearance and provided pastoral care. At the beginning of this month he was received into the Roman Catholic Church. He did not take any congregation with him. He resigned and left on his own. Those of us who disagreed with him on just about everything were, and are, fond of him. +Jeffrey Steenson was a “Windsor Bishop,” one who abided by the listening part of Windsor and Lambeth. Most of those denouncing TEC are choosing not to listen, which means they may call themselves Windsor bishops but are not; they may say they are upholding Lambeth, but they are not.
It is clear that I am quite pessimistic about the future of the AC as we know it. It is also clear that I really don’t give a damn any more so long as Gospel is proclaimed, lived, and Christ can draw the world into God’s boundless love and life. I found a home in the AC and wish to continue being a Christian in the Anglican tradition. I would prefer for us all to “get along” but I have to trust God for that to happen. I have no faith in the Primates, quite frankly (with a few personal exceptions) or, after 1998, in Lambeth, or, after the confirmation of this Advent letter, in the ABC. But then, my faith is not in them, nor should be. It is in God the Holy and Lifegiving Trinity.
[blockquote]I think that to some extent I do understand how some folks think progressive approaches to Bible and ethics are “new” and discontinuous. It is because their focus is on the Torah and the Epistles. These are the folks I grew up with (different denomination, same mindset). The folks I run with now focus on the Prophets and the Gospels. You get very different emphases and trajectories, very different visions of holiness. [/blockquote]
And both are erroneous. One needs the God of Torah and the Epistles and the Prophets and the Gospels to have the catholic (whole) church. Any sect which emphasises one or some over all is headed in the wrong direction.
Funny, too, how the author applauds +Steenson (a good and Godly man, indeed) for being “Windsor” by leaving, after all the pain he was put through in coming to the realization that his beloved church is no more. Apparently, “Windsor” to the reappraisers means “leave us alone to what we want to do and don’t cause us any trouble.” A bishop who feels called to leave (and please note, I do not criticize +Jeffrey in that, but do assume that he felt a real calling to do what he had to do) is okay, a bishop who feels called to lead a flock to greener pastures is vile. Windsor, to the liberals, is giving into the liberals. Interesting.
My comment at the blog:
There is a great deal to reflect on here, but for the moment let’s only consider
I question the presupposition here that “those most affected” are glbt Anglicans. At worst it would seem that they might be denied ordination; note that among the Romans, upwards of 75% of adult members could not be ordained, either because they are female or because they are married. This does not seem to bother them very much, since the Roman Church continues to grow apace (even in Britain).
On the other hand, the (conservatively) 97.5% of adult Anglicans world wide who are straight will find their faith rejected out of hand when they attempt to evangelize the unchurched, or in many cases violently attacked (as has occurred in parts of Africa). They will find their faith ridiculed by the two billion or so other Christians on the planet. They will find themselves without any theologically credible defense of what will have become the major distinctive of their faith. They will, in short, find themselves completely isolated in a once-respected Christian tradition that has overnight become a dying wacko sect.
So I’m afraid I have to take issue with the implicit assumption of your statement. “Those most affected” are not the constituency of the glbt activists; they are their victims.
I’ve never read anything by “Byzigenous Buddhapalian” before, but even though he and I appear to live in completely different religious worlds, I was struck by two things in the portion that Kendall has highlighted. The first is the positive impression that +Steenson made on this gay Episcopalian in New Mexico by the bishop’s willingness to listen respectfully to a group of gay activists (without conceding any ground to them). Even though it’s so often fruitless and frustrating, whenever we are able to listen genuinely to our gay foes, it does help us win a hearing in return. This “Buddhapalian” is right that the Windsor Report and Lambeth 1998 do call for that kind of listening, and we don’t do enough of it. (Of course, that’s a two-way street, but I’m not addressing that crowd here).
More importantly, however, I was really struck by this confused guy’s point in the final paragraph quoted above. He has no faith in the Primates, in the Lambeth Conference, nor even in the ABC since this Advent Letter came out. But he rightly says that his faith should not be in them anyway, but rather in the holy Trinity.
Well, what do you know? He and I can actually agree on something! And the point is really quite an important one. In the words of the appointed psalm for today’s main services (for later readers, the Third Sunday of Advent, year A), i.e., Psalm 146: “PUT NOT YOUR TRUST IN RULERS, nor in any child of earth for there is no help in them…Happy are those who put their trust in the LORD their God…who keeps his promise forever.” Too often we have experienced inevitable let downs and disappointments when orthodox bishops and other leaders have shown themselves to be fallible and to have feet of clay, like the rest of us, or they just make decisions we don’t like or that seem to hurt our cause. For instance, the so-called Windsor bishops crumbled in New Orleans. The godly +Jeffrey Steenson, like my godly mentor +Dan Herzog before him, goes over to Rome (big losses for us, a great gain for them). +John Howe chooses to stay in TEC instead of leading CFL out etc. and the ACN splits over whether or not to support the CCP.
Thus, Paul, the “odd” (by his own admission) Buddhapalian, is right about this point, at any rate. We dare not pin our hopes on any human leader or movement. Our hope does indeed have to be in the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Some T19 readers may be tempted to point out: “Well, you know the old saying, even a broken clock is right twice a day.” Perhaps, but the fact remains that there is almost always something that we can gain from listening to our adversaries, if we listen carefully enough and we’re open to whatever the Lord may be trying to teach us.
David Handy
The call to listen in Windsor morphed into the “listening process” which in turn, morphed into simply the “process” of where the revisionists again thumb their noses at the rest of the communion and consequences are deferred ad infinitum by “listening” where nothing new is ever said with calls for further dialog. “Listening” has thus become a spin word with meaning altogether different.
#4, Robroy,
Yes, I’m well aware of that. I’m thoroughly sick of that worn out deceitful tactic too. So please don’t resign from the NRA Fan Club just yet. Hear me out.
I might be wrong, but I think I detected something more than games in Buddhapalian’s praise for +Jeffrey Steenson, i.e., some genuine appreciation when we who stand for biblical, orthodox Christianity also model some Christlike grace, as the bishop apparently did in this case.
Of course, real discussion is a two-way street. My experience is that pro-gay activists are just as deaf and unwilling to listen to us as we are sick of listening to their endless parade of testimonies of being misunderstood, harassed etc. In fact, they are usually even less willing to engage in real listening, e.g., to the testimony of an ex-gay who has been healed. I’m not encouraging going along with the political game of the notorious “listening process” that is, as you rightly say, just a manipulative strategem of trying to wear down opposition. Instead, I was simply suggesting that there are times when patient listening is appropriate AS AN (INITIAL) FORM OF PASTORAL CARE, as Lambeth 1998 and Windsor have said all along. And as such, it’s definitely not something to which everyone is called, especially those who might be taken in by all the pro-gay ideological nonsense. Rather, it’s a difficult and easily misunderstood form of pastoral care that those who are called to such a specialized form of pastoral ministry (those trained by Exodus International, Desert Stream Ministries etc.) carry out on behalf of the rest of us. And respectful listening does NOT rule out then confronting those afflicted with same-sex attractions with the truth and challenging them to repent and offering encouragement to those brave enough to seek deliverance.
That’s all I meant. Don’t worry, robroy, I’m not suddenly going soft.
The real marginalized ones today are ex-gays. They are the ones who most deserve and need a hearing.
David Handy
Don’t worry, Father Handy. I have no intention of resigning! I just don’t “do processes” anymore. Why I advocate separation is that when cleaved to this Byzigenous Buddhapalian, Susan Russell and Gene Robinson, etc., in an ecclesiastical sense, it is simply not possible to be a loving witness to them allowing them to wallow in their sinful state and try to delude themselves that sin is not sin.
Robroy,
I’m relieved. Once again, we are in agreement then.
And his name means what? I suppose if we can have Islapalian, we can have a Buddhapalian. Still what can a buddhapalian be? A boddhisatva in track shoes? How does one put Samsara and communion together?
LM
Anyone remember the Buddhislamists of Frank Herbert’s Dune series? I wrote them a Shahada once: “There is no God, and Muhammad is His Prophet.”