Kendall, you fall into the usual trap when you say:
My mother is from the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. And there are hundreds and hundreds of French’s in her family in that part of the world. When I go to Thanksgiving dinner, I stop counting at 200, and I still haven’t figured out all the relationships, and I’m in the family, but one of the great things about the French’s in the Shenandoah Valley is that they are an extended family. You can actually, I can actually show you streets where the French family lives there, lives there, lives there. And they actually own, among many other interesting parts of that family, they actually own a business in common. There are individual families that have homes and they have their own ways of raising their kids and so and so forth, but there are things that they do in common as an extended family, and one of the things that they have is a family business. They meet once a year. They have a charter and so and so forth, and the equivalent of what the American church did in terms of the world-wide communion is the whole family of French’s gets together at their once yearly meeting, and one member family of the rest of them of the extended family completely changed the charter of the entire family and didn’t even ask the rest of the other families what they thought about it. Do you think that that would cause a problem?
Nope, because that’s not what happened. TEC didn’t “change the charter”; that would consist of telling the rest of the AC that everyone must ordain non-celibate homosexuals. What TEC did was the equivalent of one member family letting their 18-year-olds drink wine at family meals, whereas past practice had been to allow only 21-year-olds to do so. The rest of the extended family might disapprove, but it’s none of their business and they should butt out.
that would consist of telling the rest of the AC that everyone must ordain non-celibate homosexuals.
No; it can also consist of saying that everyone must accept the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. Given that full communion implies a recognition of the orders of other provinces, and the ability of clergy to move from one province to another; and the lay members to receive the sacraments of the clergy of another province. By consecrating Robinson TEC are either forcing other provinces to agree that people such as him are eligible for ordination or to break communion in some respect. And inaction is, of course, in effect agreement with the consecration. Your statement above is precisely what TEC did. Which is why Kendall’s analogy is perfectly apt.
Besides, the charter of the Anglican communion (in the form of Lambeth 1.10 coupled with the ordinal — in addition to everything else) says that the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals is not permitted. By acting as it did, TEC is violating that charter, and by its actions attempting to change it.
D.C. (#1) – TECUSA did make a decision for the entire communion. It decided that sexual morality is [i]adiaphora[/i] where the rest of the communion has always considered morality (and especially sexual morality) to be an essential matter to how the faith is lived. The Church has always taught that morality is essential to being a disciple of Jesus Christ. Lambeth 1.10 was not new teaching nor was it unprecedented in the history of the Church. It merely stated what had always been believed and practiced. TECUSA decided that sexual morality was not essential and forced the rest of to either accept that decision or to break communion. Even if other provinces did not allow for the ordination of sexually active homosexuals or for the blessing of same sex unions, they had to say that it was not a communion breaking matter (and, thus, a second order issue or not an essential) to stay in communion with TECUSA.
Boring Bloke [#2] writes: “… full communion implies a recognition of the orders of other provinces, and the ability of clergy to move from one province to another; and the lay members to receive the sacraments of the clergy of another province.”
BB, I don’t want to trigger another round of women’s ordination debate, but if the things you mention were a sine qua non of full communion, then the churches that don’t ordain (and won’t license) women priests and -bishops are not in full communion with those that do. So far as I know, none of the former group of churches refuses to license straight male TEC priests, or to recognize sacraments administered by the same, on grounds that some of TEC’s priests and bishops are women. So your definition of full communion appears to be off the mark.
The premise from which D.C. proceeds is, “You do not get to ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ what I do. There is only ‘accept.'” He doesn’t understand that communion is inextricably bound up with the notion of acceptance, and its corollary of rejection.
I had the pleasure of attending the talks in person. The discussion of the goings on at GC 03 were most illuminating. One of the lines of Kendall’s that struck me was that a theological choice was made at GC 2003 with basically no theological discussion to justify it. The “Ask me about Gene” ran a political, superficial spin campaign and not only did not present theological arguments but actively supressed theological discussion.
Greg Griffith writes: “The premise from which D.C. proceeds is, “You do not get to ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ what I do. There is only ‘accept.’—
Oh, please, Greg. Once again we see a false dichotomy.
Suppose you and I were biological brothers. Suppose you were against vaccinating teen-aged girls against human papillomavirus (HPV), on grounds that it encouraged premarital sex. And suppose my wife and I were for it, on grounds that if our daughter made a mistake, we wouldn’t want it to have potentially-fatal consequences (cervical cancer).
If my wife and I decided to have our daughter vaccinated [we haven’t], you’d be perfectly free to “reject” that decision. Caring for your family is your responsibility, and my wife and I would be obliged to respect your authority in that role. While we would let you know of our opinion, we certainly wouldn’t try to pressure you to have your own daughter vaccinated.
But by the same token, you (and our other siblings and cousins) would need to respect our authority in the role we’ve been given to play in our family. You’d be out of line if you were to start demanding that my wife and I submit to everyone else’s views about HPV vaccinations. If some of you were to refuse to come to reunions if my family came too, we’d miss you, but it’d be your choice, and loss.
That’s where Kendall goes off the track. He, and other scripturalists, seem to think that TEC is forcing everyone else in the AC to change their standards. Nonsense.
D.C.
This is more akin to an extended family sharing one home. One of the members determines that the laws concerning cocain or heroin don’t really apply to him, so he buys some, stores it in the house, and even begins to sell it to other members as a “harmless high,” castigating those who protest as “kill joys” who don’t understand what his life is like. When confronted by the family, the person says that he paid for most of the house and that he is an adult, free to make his own decisions. To be safe and maintian the family dwelling, the family should, at least, kick the offending person(s) out and, preferably, report them to the police so that they can see just how wrong their actions are and how they harm the family.
You seem to think that changing the definition of marriage and ignoring the authority of scripture are indifferent matters, such as the decision to have a vaccine or changing the drinking age within the family from 21 to 18 (or even 16). I submit that these are decisions that should be made by the entire church, not by a political process in one province or diocese.
Theology does indeed matter! TEC has little interest in serious theology, only in banner waving. And nobody can argue with banners that say “Diversity!” or “Tolerance!” Instead of heeding facile slogans, observe the lives of those who wave the banners.
I think you are missing a key point in Kendall’s analogy: the analogy is not just of an extended family (which, in a sadly American way, can probably get away with ignoring whole branches for generations at a time), but of an extended family that has a business identified by the family name. What one branch does to besmirch the family name is, literally, everybody’s business.
To take the point (probably) farther than I should: Imagine if a prominent, but relatively small in number, branch of the French’s family decided unilaterally that monkeys made good waiters for the family restaurants. After they dress them in lovely little uniforms and train them extensively, they find they make fine waiters (apart from a slight propensity for flinging poo at the customers). They run an entire ad campaign based on their new furry waiters, and the media just eats it up (those monkeys are just SO darn cute). Now, I am Joe Customer walking down the street, and I pass a French’s. Being me, I think, “Hmm, there’s the monkey-waiter restaurant. I’m kind of allergic to monkeys, and I don’t really want to spend my dinner ducking excrement being thrown at my head, no matter how cute and cuddly the flinger, so I think I’ll take my business elsewhere.” As unfair and lazy as it seems, I will think this regardless of whether that particular French’s is of the monkey-server variety or not, and thus one “branch” damages the mission of the whole tree.
Perhaps monkey waiters are the right thing to do for this family business. Perhaps the furry-loving new customers will outnumber the furrophobes who are driven away. But, it is not up to one part of the family business to decide that for the whole family, and the family has a whole has a duty to protect the integrity of the family name and reputation.
[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8449/#160029 ]Bob K just wrote this on a thread at SF[/url] but it is exactly answers D.C.,
[blockquote]Katherine wrote: “Bishop Anis was very clear when he spoke at the HOB meeting in September about the damage done to the reputations of non-Western Anglican churches.†Thank you for pointing that out, Katherine. Part of the evil that the revisionists re-making the TEC into its own image is the disrepute that worldwide Anglicanism has been brought under by their selfish actions. The Apostle Peter prophesied of this when he wrote: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. [b]Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned.â€[/b] (2 Peter 2:1-2). So it has come to pass, almost 2,000 years later. Looks like the “new thing†isn’t so new after all.[/blockquote]
Might I repeat… “Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned.”
Kudos to Kendall for this talk. I wished I had been there. The metaphor of Jeremiah is instructive and timely. For example Jeremiah was accused of collaborating with the Babylonians (Jer. 37:13-16). Also recall (Jer. 38:17,18) how Jeremiah warned Zedekiah that he had to submit to the pagan Babylonians and to give up his defiance since the African power would not protect him from the godless. The book’s narrative part ends pitifully with those who refused exile running away to Africa dragging Jeremiah with them (Jer. 42-43). I believe that Kendall is right that we (ECUSAns and former ECUSAns) are under judgment and cannot run away from it.
RoboDoc [#11], your business brand-name analogy is the best argument I’ve seen for the scripturalist position. Three potential difficulties with the analogy come to mind.
• First, it’s not just one isolated branch of the family that likes monkey-waiters. There are sizable contingents in other parts of the family who think monkey-waiters would be a great idea. And still more family members are perfectly willing to let others enjoy monkey-waiters, even though personally it’s not for them.
• Second, no one, in- or outside the family, really knows exactly what it is that the monkey-waiters are throwing. Sure, many and even most people have long thought it was excrement, when they thought about it at all. But a non-trivial minority has long thought the ‘excrement’ is actually Baby Ruth candy bars (paceCaddyshack). In many countries, especially in the so-called First World, much of ‘the culture,’ and particularly of the media, has gradually been coming around to the latter view.
• Third, there’s a great deal of apparently-sincere testimony from people who eat at monkey-waiter restaurants. To them, monkey-waiters are not merely a choice, they’re practically a necessity, because they cannot in honesty go to other restaurants, nor even eat a conventional home-cooked meal. For them to abjure monkey-waiter restaurants would be to spend their lives eating naught but cold porridge, alone in their homes.
So it’s not quite so open and shut that the monkey-throwing restaurants (plural; don’t forget Canada, and the gay-friendly parishes in England) are ruining the brand-name.
Still, you do make a good point, even if many won’t find it persuasive.
At this point in the game, these kinds of “talks and discussions” are not helpful. Virtually no new ideas are being presented, the theological arguments have been made ad nauseum, and the ground has been plowed to pulverization.
What we need are another coupla’ dioceses to peel away and start the snowball rolling downhill.
I was encouraged by a friend to attend this CLC to answer some of my questions about leaving and staying, and I’m glad I was able to hear Canon Harmon speak. I too remain in TEC, despite its apostasy, because I believe this is where I am called to stand and I am troubled by the same issues in the orthodox realm that trouble Canon Harmon. It was affirming to hear a person of his standing voice my concerns as his own. The afternoon was even richer, and I trust it will be transcribed soon. Thank you.
Your being “troubled” may appear as acquiecence to TEC’s mission. You’ll have to shout louder or move to another position to make your resistance clear.
Kendall, it was worth the struggle to surmount my technology challenges to listen to this. Your analysis of the “two narratives” is one I already concur with. I pray for the gift to ask the “presuppositional” questions when they come up.
You accurately describe the way “process” seduces us when we (evangelicals, self-identified orthodox) are invited to participate in it. I recently served on a committee where it was obvious, early on, that the result I might really have hoped for was not a possibility. But I continued to particpate, and my rationalization was, “…I can do this as long as we’re adhering to the ground rules that were laid down for us.” [i] Within those ground rules[/i], was the result as good as it could be? Far be it from me to question the ground rules and risk disunity! I can’t complain of having been excluded or silenced by anyone else, not overtly; I [b]neutralized myself[/b].
Also helpful was the way you put the basic presuppostional question: Is ECUSA today an effective instrument for evangelization? No, not without a working theology that upholds the uniqueness of Jesus Christ; not without caring whether there are any new Christians; not without a belief that the Bible is “God’s word written,” in a way that other literature cannot isn’t.
Kendall, you fall into the usual trap when you say:
Nope, because that’s not what happened. TEC didn’t “change the charter”; that would consist of telling the rest of the AC that everyone must ordain non-celibate homosexuals. What TEC did was the equivalent of one member family letting their 18-year-olds drink wine at family meals, whereas past practice had been to allow only 21-year-olds to do so. The rest of the extended family might disapprove, but it’s none of their business and they should butt out.
No; it can also consist of saying that everyone must accept the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. Given that full communion implies a recognition of the orders of other provinces, and the ability of clergy to move from one province to another; and the lay members to receive the sacraments of the clergy of another province. By consecrating Robinson TEC are either forcing other provinces to agree that people such as him are eligible for ordination or to break communion in some respect. And inaction is, of course, in effect agreement with the consecration. Your statement above is precisely what TEC did. Which is why Kendall’s analogy is perfectly apt.
Besides, the charter of the Anglican communion (in the form of Lambeth 1.10 coupled with the ordinal — in addition to everything else) says that the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals is not permitted. By acting as it did, TEC is violating that charter, and by its actions attempting to change it.
D.C. (#1) – TECUSA did make a decision for the entire communion. It decided that sexual morality is [i]adiaphora[/i] where the rest of the communion has always considered morality (and especially sexual morality) to be an essential matter to how the faith is lived. The Church has always taught that morality is essential to being a disciple of Jesus Christ. Lambeth 1.10 was not new teaching nor was it unprecedented in the history of the Church. It merely stated what had always been believed and practiced. TECUSA decided that sexual morality was not essential and forced the rest of to either accept that decision or to break communion. Even if other provinces did not allow for the ordination of sexually active homosexuals or for the blessing of same sex unions, they had to say that it was not a communion breaking matter (and, thus, a second order issue or not an essential) to stay in communion with TECUSA.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Boring Bloke [#2] writes: “… full communion implies a recognition of the orders of other provinces, and the ability of clergy to move from one province to another; and the lay members to receive the sacraments of the clergy of another province.”
BB, I don’t want to trigger another round of women’s ordination debate, but if the things you mention were a sine qua non of full communion, then the churches that don’t ordain (and won’t license) women priests and -bishops are not in full communion with those that do. So far as I know, none of the former group of churches refuses to license straight male TEC priests, or to recognize sacraments administered by the same, on grounds that some of TEC’s priests and bishops are women. So your definition of full communion appears to be off the mark.
Boring Bloke,
You hit the nail on the head.
The premise from which D.C. proceeds is, “You do not get to ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ what I do. There is only ‘accept.'” He doesn’t understand that communion is inextricably bound up with the notion of acceptance, and its corollary of rejection.
Thanks to Kendall for this and those who transcribed it. It is a lot to take in as Kendall warned at the beginning.
I had the pleasure of attending the talks in person. The discussion of the goings on at GC 03 were most illuminating. One of the lines of Kendall’s that struck me was that a theological choice was made at GC 2003 with basically no theological discussion to justify it. The “Ask me about Gene” ran a political, superficial spin campaign and not only did not present theological arguments but actively supressed theological discussion.
Greg Griffith writes: “The premise from which D.C. proceeds is, “You do not get to ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ what I do. There is only ‘accept.’—
Oh, please, Greg. Once again we see a false dichotomy.
Suppose you and I were biological brothers. Suppose you were against vaccinating teen-aged girls against human papillomavirus (HPV), on grounds that it encouraged premarital sex. And suppose my wife and I were for it, on grounds that if our daughter made a mistake, we wouldn’t want it to have potentially-fatal consequences (cervical cancer).
If my wife and I decided to have our daughter vaccinated [we haven’t], you’d be perfectly free to “reject” that decision. Caring for your family is your responsibility, and my wife and I would be obliged to respect your authority in that role. While we would let you know of our opinion, we certainly wouldn’t try to pressure you to have your own daughter vaccinated.
But by the same token, you (and our other siblings and cousins) would need to respect our authority in the role we’ve been given to play in our family. You’d be out of line if you were to start demanding that my wife and I submit to everyone else’s views about HPV vaccinations. If some of you were to refuse to come to reunions if my family came too, we’d miss you, but it’d be your choice, and loss.
That’s where Kendall goes off the track. He, and other scripturalists, seem to think that TEC is forcing everyone else in the AC to change their standards. Nonsense.
D.C.
This is more akin to an extended family sharing one home. One of the members determines that the laws concerning cocain or heroin don’t really apply to him, so he buys some, stores it in the house, and even begins to sell it to other members as a “harmless high,” castigating those who protest as “kill joys” who don’t understand what his life is like. When confronted by the family, the person says that he paid for most of the house and that he is an adult, free to make his own decisions. To be safe and maintian the family dwelling, the family should, at least, kick the offending person(s) out and, preferably, report them to the police so that they can see just how wrong their actions are and how they harm the family.
You seem to think that changing the definition of marriage and ignoring the authority of scripture are indifferent matters, such as the decision to have a vaccine or changing the drinking age within the family from 21 to 18 (or even 16). I submit that these are decisions that should be made by the entire church, not by a political process in one province or diocese.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Theology does indeed matter! TEC has little interest in serious theology, only in banner waving. And nobody can argue with banners that say “Diversity!” or “Tolerance!” Instead of heeding facile slogans, observe the lives of those who wave the banners.
D.C.,
I think you are missing a key point in Kendall’s analogy: the analogy is not just of an extended family (which, in a sadly American way, can probably get away with ignoring whole branches for generations at a time), but of an extended family that has a business identified by the family name. What one branch does to besmirch the family name is, literally, everybody’s business.
To take the point (probably) farther than I should: Imagine if a prominent, but relatively small in number, branch of the French’s family decided unilaterally that monkeys made good waiters for the family restaurants. After they dress them in lovely little uniforms and train them extensively, they find they make fine waiters (apart from a slight propensity for flinging poo at the customers). They run an entire ad campaign based on their new furry waiters, and the media just eats it up (those monkeys are just SO darn cute). Now, I am Joe Customer walking down the street, and I pass a French’s. Being me, I think, “Hmm, there’s the monkey-waiter restaurant. I’m kind of allergic to monkeys, and I don’t really want to spend my dinner ducking excrement being thrown at my head, no matter how cute and cuddly the flinger, so I think I’ll take my business elsewhere.” As unfair and lazy as it seems, I will think this regardless of whether that particular French’s is of the monkey-server variety or not, and thus one “branch” damages the mission of the whole tree.
Perhaps monkey waiters are the right thing to do for this family business. Perhaps the furry-loving new customers will outnumber the furrophobes who are driven away. But, it is not up to one part of the family business to decide that for the whole family, and the family has a whole has a duty to protect the integrity of the family name and reputation.
[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8449/#160029 ]Bob K just wrote this on a thread at SF[/url] but it is exactly answers D.C.,
[blockquote]Katherine wrote: “Bishop Anis was very clear when he spoke at the HOB meeting in September about the damage done to the reputations of non-Western Anglican churches.†Thank you for pointing that out, Katherine. Part of the evil that the revisionists re-making the TEC into its own image is the disrepute that worldwide Anglicanism has been brought under by their selfish actions. The Apostle Peter prophesied of this when he wrote: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. [b]Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned.â€[/b] (2 Peter 2:1-2). So it has come to pass, almost 2,000 years later. Looks like the “new thing†isn’t so new after all.[/blockquote]
Might I repeat… “Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned.”
Kudos to Kendall for this talk. I wished I had been there. The metaphor of Jeremiah is instructive and timely. For example Jeremiah was accused of collaborating with the Babylonians (Jer. 37:13-16). Also recall (Jer. 38:17,18) how Jeremiah warned Zedekiah that he had to submit to the pagan Babylonians and to give up his defiance since the African power would not protect him from the godless. The book’s narrative part ends pitifully with those who refused exile running away to Africa dragging Jeremiah with them (Jer. 42-43). I believe that Kendall is right that we (ECUSAns and former ECUSAns) are under judgment and cannot run away from it.
Kendall, Do you accept Ephraim Radner’s view that ECUSA/TEC is under judgment, as is the entire western church, until the Great Schism is healed?
RoboDoc [#11], your business brand-name analogy is the best argument I’ve seen for the scripturalist position. Three potential difficulties with the analogy come to mind.
• First, it’s not just one isolated branch of the family that likes monkey-waiters. There are sizable contingents in other parts of the family who think monkey-waiters would be a great idea. And still more family members are perfectly willing to let others enjoy monkey-waiters, even though personally it’s not for them.
• Second, no one, in- or outside the family, really knows exactly what it is that the monkey-waiters are throwing. Sure, many and even most people have long thought it was excrement, when they thought about it at all. But a non-trivial minority has long thought the ‘excrement’ is actually Baby Ruth candy bars (pace Caddyshack). In many countries, especially in the so-called First World, much of ‘the culture,’ and particularly of the media, has gradually been coming around to the latter view.
• Third, there’s a great deal of apparently-sincere testimony from people who eat at monkey-waiter restaurants. To them, monkey-waiters are not merely a choice, they’re practically a necessity, because they cannot in honesty go to other restaurants, nor even eat a conventional home-cooked meal. For them to abjure monkey-waiter restaurants would be to spend their lives eating naught but cold porridge, alone in their homes.
So it’s not quite so open and shut that the monkey-throwing restaurants (plural; don’t forget Canada, and the gay-friendly parishes in England) are ruining the brand-name.
Still, you do make a good point, even if many won’t find it persuasive.
At this point in the game, these kinds of “talks and discussions” are not helpful. Virtually no new ideas are being presented, the theological arguments have been made ad nauseum, and the ground has been plowed to pulverization.
What we need are another coupla’ dioceses to peel away and start the snowball rolling downhill.
Worthy of all persons to be received.
Thank you Canon Harmon.
Peace,
I was encouraged by a friend to attend this CLC to answer some of my questions about leaving and staying, and I’m glad I was able to hear Canon Harmon speak. I too remain in TEC, despite its apostasy, because I believe this is where I am called to stand and I am troubled by the same issues in the orthodox realm that trouble Canon Harmon. It was affirming to hear a person of his standing voice my concerns as his own. The afternoon was even richer, and I trust it will be transcribed soon. Thank you.
Your being “troubled” may appear as acquiecence to TEC’s mission. You’ll have to shout louder or move to another position to make your resistance clear.
Kendall, it was worth the struggle to surmount my technology challenges to listen to this. Your analysis of the “two narratives” is one I already concur with. I pray for the gift to ask the “presuppositional” questions when they come up.
You accurately describe the way “process” seduces us when we (evangelicals, self-identified orthodox) are invited to participate in it. I recently served on a committee where it was obvious, early on, that the result I might really have hoped for was not a possibility. But I continued to particpate, and my rationalization was, “…I can do this as long as we’re adhering to the ground rules that were laid down for us.” [i] Within those ground rules[/i], was the result as good as it could be? Far be it from me to question the ground rules and risk disunity! I can’t complain of having been excluded or silenced by anyone else, not overtly; I [b]neutralized myself[/b].
Also helpful was the way you put the basic presuppostional question: Is ECUSA today an effective instrument for evangelization? No, not without a working theology that upholds the uniqueness of Jesus Christ; not without caring whether there are any new Christians; not without a belief that the Bible is “God’s word written,” in a way that other literature cannot isn’t.