(1) It would seem that the R5 Group is not so much interested in discerning whether there is an emerging concensus as helping to build it. The Diocesan leadership continues to think that if those of us do not agree just listen a bit more, enter into another dialogue, go to more town meeintgs, and beocme better educated we will of course agree with the prevailing ideas. They remind me of Richard Dawkins who claims, “Anyone who does not believe the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane.” The same, I suppose, will be said for those of us who get up at the Council this weekend and suggest that there is indeed another theological point of view … and ask whether educational materials representing a more orthodox point of view will also be included in the Town Hall packets.
(2) What does this report do with the resolution (R-23) from the 209th Diocesan Council meeting (four years ago) that was passed? It read:
“Resolved: that the 209th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia reaffirms the Diocesan model for sexual intimacy as adopted by the 199th Council in the words of Bishop Lee: that ‘the normative context for sexual intimacy is lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage …’ ”
Of course, it is pleasant of the R5 Group to state that even though we all hold contradictory theological truth claims, we should still all be able to get along in communion with one another. So warm, so freindly.
Very interesting, but entirely predictable.
+Lee appoints a three member Group that soon asks to be expanded three-fold. Since those strongly opposed to same-sex blessings have mostly left the DioVA, the conclusion was foregone.
Re #2: How could the conclusion have been foregone when there was no conclusion? The Group was asked, “Is there a consensus on this matter?” and answered “No, but the lack of consensus should not prevent us from looking for some creative way of continuing to live together anyway.”
For reasserters, the good news is that the Group clearly did not recommend any change at this time in the existing diocesan policy (which opposes formal blessings). The report allows freedom of belief and expression on this issue, but it does not suggest any current change in practice. In fact, it points out that any such change would require a theological justification sufficiently compelling to create a consensus.
The bad news for reasserters is that the majority of the Group clearly foresees a time when the current lack of a consensus in favor of blessings will no longer be the case. As #2 observes, the departure of the megachurches in Northern Virginia has substantially tilted the composition of the Diocese, and both the Group and the Annual Council are naturally going to reflect that. Bishop Lee is going to retire soon, and his opposition to ordination and formal blessings may not be shared by his successor. That possibility probably accelerated the departure of the CANA parishes, which made it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
(1) It would seem that the R5 Group is not so much interested in discerning whether there is an emerging concensus as helping to build it. The Diocesan leadership continues to think that if those of us do not agree just listen a bit more, enter into another dialogue, go to more town meeintgs, and beocme better educated we will of course agree with the prevailing ideas. They remind me of Richard Dawkins who claims, “Anyone who does not believe the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane.” The same, I suppose, will be said for those of us who get up at the Council this weekend and suggest that there is indeed another theological point of view … and ask whether educational materials representing a more orthodox point of view will also be included in the Town Hall packets.
(2) What does this report do with the resolution (R-23) from the 209th Diocesan Council meeting (four years ago) that was passed? It read:
“Resolved: that the 209th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia reaffirms the Diocesan model for sexual intimacy as adopted by the 199th Council in the words of Bishop Lee: that ‘the normative context for sexual intimacy is lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage …’ ”
Of course, it is pleasant of the R5 Group to state that even though we all hold contradictory theological truth claims, we should still all be able to get along in communion with one another. So warm, so freindly.
So wrong.
Very interesting, but entirely predictable.
+Lee appoints a three member Group that soon asks to be expanded three-fold. Since those strongly opposed to same-sex blessings have mostly left the DioVA, the conclusion was foregone.
Re #2: How could the conclusion have been foregone when there was no conclusion? The Group was asked, “Is there a consensus on this matter?” and answered “No, but the lack of consensus should not prevent us from looking for some creative way of continuing to live together anyway.”
For reasserters, the good news is that the Group clearly did not recommend any change at this time in the existing diocesan policy (which opposes formal blessings). The report allows freedom of belief and expression on this issue, but it does not suggest any current change in practice. In fact, it points out that any such change would require a theological justification sufficiently compelling to create a consensus.
The bad news for reasserters is that the majority of the Group clearly foresees a time when the current lack of a consensus in favor of blessings will no longer be the case. As #2 observes, the departure of the megachurches in Northern Virginia has substantially tilted the composition of the Diocese, and both the Group and the Annual Council are naturally going to reflect that. Bishop Lee is going to retire soon, and his opposition to ordination and formal blessings may not be shared by his successor. That possibility probably accelerated the departure of the CANA parishes, which made it a self-fulfilling prophecy.