Seven board members, of which I am one, made a request privately to the Chairman of the Board for a special meeting. That request was denied on both procedural and substantive grounds, with a response to the later questions coming from the Chairman alone even though questions were specifically put to the Dean. The seven then made a second request for a meeting, this time appealing to legal arguments to attempt to affect some discussion. That request was denied by the Secretary on legal grounds, with no mention of the merit of the concerns. One bishop then sent a personal request that we have a face-to-face meeting. The result was an invitation to discussion only, about which I shall say more.
Of the Dean’s video defense of the invitation, the obvious logical and theological issues are manifold and have been covered with far more alacrity and in far more depth than I am able. Suffice it to say that the idea that a seminary’s pulpit is somehow more resilient to heresy than a parish’s is indefensible. The idea that seminarians are more immune to heresy than are “ordinary” parishioners is both demeaning and unjustifiable. If the history of our tradition over the last half century has taught us nothing else, it has at least taught us that our seminaries are precisely where erroneous doctrines are incubated. The idea that professional and courteous attention to one known to present a false gospel will somehow be a witness and corrective thereto defies logic and is in violation of the clear injunctions of Holy Writ.
There was a vigorous discussion of this letter and its ominous implications over at SFiF. It would be good and healthy if there was a similar frank discussion here, on a blog where +Salmon is known and deeply respected by so many, in SC and elsewhere.
Personally, this letter only confirms my suspicions that this whole controversy is apt to inflict grave harm on a highly vulnerable seminary, the only one of its kind of North America. That is heartbreaking. If Nashotah House goes down the tubes, as could all too easily happen, where will Anglo-Catholic students go for training?
One of the underlying problems that hasn’t gotten enough attention is that there are people on the Board of Nashotah who shouldn’t be there. A “Pax Nashotah” that includes students from both within TEC and outside TEC is one thing. It’s fine for Nashotah to try, as futile as it’s likely to be, to train future clergy in such a way that they can serve anywhere in North America, under any bishop that’s willing to have them. OK.
But the bottom line is that there is only room for one side of the Culture War to be represented on the Board of Trustees. There can be no fudging or waffling on that score. Allowing liberals to continue to serve on the Board (like say, the Bishop of Milwaukee) is unconscionable. Let a theological litmus test be imposed on the Board in order to guarantee that all members of the Board are fit (theologically at least) to serve on it. And then let the chips fall where they may.
David Handy+
Before someone challenges me, let me clarify that I’m aware that the bishop of Milwaukee is not, in fact, one of the 26 current trustees of the House. I was only using him as a potential illustration, so as to avoid casting aspersions on anyone in particular who is on the current board. There is no doubt in my mind but that the majority of the Board are soundly orthodox. The problem is that they ALL need to be.
David Handy+
I’m not certain that it is a question of liberal versus conservative, NRA. It appears to be more of a question of 1) people who believe that it violates the clear commands of Holy Scripture and is intrinsically immoral to give acknowledgement and credibility, through the pulpit, to a clear, known, public, scandalous false teacher, and 2) people who do not think that.
I personally think that’s a divide that probably can’t and won’t ultimately be bridged — after KJS are dozens more false teachers and noted heretics in TEC. It might have been any one of them, and not Katherine Jefferts Schori. And if it’s not considered a big deal to offer the pulpit or the table [either one] to public, scandalous false teachers, by some, and it is considered a very big deal — a grave and troubling offense — by others, I don’t know how that gets accommodated. Rather obviously, Bishop Salmon is not a liberal or a revisionist. But he and others are on one side of the chasm and others are on the other.
The only thing left for people to offer is to tell the side that thinks it’s a grave and troubling offense and one for which there will be natural and predictable consequences to be quiet and to do nothing that might cause harm to Nashotah. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think that the people on the one side already believes that the significant harm has been done [i]by the existence of the invitation and leaders who don’t think it’s all that important a matter[/i].
Truthfully, I was quite disappointed at the tone of the discussion at SFiF. I would not call it honest nor frank but more gossip and slander especially directed towards Bishop Salmon. So I think the time for discussion is long gone and it is time to pray for the future of Nashotah. We have priests in this diocese who are sons of the House other than Marcus Kaiser+. I had a private conversation with one and he agreed that the discussion/gossip does no good for anyone and instead he said to pray for Nashotah House.I don’t think the problem lies with the faculty (including Bishop Salmon) or the students but the board. A dysfunctional board can be the first step towards decline and ruin. I do think we need to pray for Nashotah and in particular their Board of Trustees.
As one who used to count Seabury-Western as my alma mater, let me emphasize Sarah’s point: Whenever someone suggests that this or that decision is not “all that important a matter”, you know that you are in for heavy weather.
SWTS did not collapse overnight, but incrementally over forty years as the result of a number of decisions that, taken individually, just did not seem to most as “all that important a matter”.
Just as there is no such thing as “just dabbling” with the occult, so there is no such thing as incidents of knowingly cooperating with heresy that are not “all that important a matter.
No one is not saying that it is not important. It is extremely important. However, let us put the blame where the blame belongs- on Nashotah House’s Board of Trustee. Had the board come to an agreement about the potential harm to Nashotah from the invitation, there would not have been an invitation. They were unable to come to a decision. So it seems to me that board is dysfunctional just as Pewster mentioned in one of his first comments about it. Anyone familiar with structures of organizations can tell you that a dysfunctional Board of Trustees can take down a organization faster than you might want to believe. I have seen it happen in other organizations.
That is true, SC blu cat lady, but the invitation came from Bishop Salmon, not the Board. He is the one who seemed to think that it would be fine to invite the Presiding Bishop to preach in the chapel. Everyone makes mistakes, and I think he made a mistake in doing that. Many seem to agree that it was a mistake and are asking for clarification as to *how* and *why* he came to that decision. I think that it is reasonable to ask those questions publicly.
RE: “So I think the time for discussion is long gone . . . ”
From the very beginning, those who don’t think that it is unBiblical and intrinsically wrong to invite a noted heretic and false teacher to preach have said that there is no need for public discussion and for everybody to please be quiet, especially publicly.
Please note that I’m not saying that SC blu cat lady is one of that group.
But I think the notion that there’s not going to be continued and long-standing public discussion about this is just . . . well . . . for some it’s another version of “those for whom this is a hugely significant, grave, and troubling offense need to be quiet and do nothing that might be negative for the House because . . . this is not a hugely significant issue.”
Like it or not — the group that thinks this is a grave and troubling offense are going to talk loudly and long and often and even *after* May 1. For them, [i]the existence of the invitation and leaders who don’t think it’s all that important a matter *is* the harm to Nashotah House and it already now exists.[/i]
As I’ve said before . . . I don’t see a “win win” from this.
I should add . . . just for the record . . . there has been no “slander” of Bishop Salmon at StandFirm. Period. Full stop. People over there — including me — have tremendous respect for him and will continue to do so, while recognizing that he has done something wrong, by our theological worldview. Pointing out that this is a bad thing is not “slander.” Pointing out that there will be bad consequences is not “slander.” Responding to and analyzing and assessing and criticizing [i]public[/i] statements, [i]public[/i] videos, [i]public[/i] and clearly stated and articulated web posts is not “slander.” Pointing out where one ardently disagrees with clearly stated and articulated assertions by a board chair or a dean or a board member is not “slander.”
There has been excellent analysis of the implications and I’ve appreciated the discussion over at StandFirm a lot, while recognizing that there are those who cannot bear, emotionally, the thought that a highly valued, wonderful leader might have made a mistake and might also not share a significant value that many other conservatives [i]do[/i] share — or even bear the thought that [i]others[/i] passionately disagree with a highly valued, wonderful leader’s particular action.
While recognizing that others do not value the discussion at StandFirm, I certainly have, very much. That difference — valuing open discussion, analysis, and critical assessment of actions and rhetoric by others, or not — is just another example of the significant chasm in values and philosophy that exists amongst conservatives both in TEC and outside of it — and I include ACNA folks as well. I am comfortable with that profound difference in values and philosophy in regards to blogging and discussion and rather obviously, StandFirm falls squarely on one side of the chasm. We will be analyzing, assessing, decrying, encouraging, and discussing the actions and rhetoric of pretty much all and sundry, and have now for ten years. It is as highly unlikely that SF will cease doing that, as it is that Rand Paul will stop denouncing the NSA or that Obama will announce a change of heart on the ACA or that Putin will withdraw from the Crimea or that Ted Cruz will stop forcing establishment Republicans to go on the record about their votes.
That difference in values and philosophy exists. It won’t be “fixed” or papered over or shouted down or anybody’s mind changed, since these are *foundational* *principled* differences *on both sides*.
Canon King — thanks for your interesting perspective on Seabury-Western.
Moving on from “should there be passionate heated discussion about this topic and critical assessment of public statements or actions of beloved leaders” . . . I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of Nashotah House — easily my favorite US-based Anglican seminary. I don’t usually cross-post from other blogs but here’s a portion of a comment I made in thinking through the longer-term issues the invitation reveals:
[blockquote]As nearly as I can see—from *way* outside the situation—Bishop Salmon, whom I greatly respect, simply does not believe that inviting a known heretic and false teacher to preach in a pulpit is intrinsically immoral.
If that is the case . . . then this section of the letter does not make any sense:
[blockquote]First, to date the Dean has made no statement of remorse, repentance, or even acknowledgement of the harm done. A statement recognizing that the initial invitation was a failure on the Dean’s part to recognize the offense caused to so many would go a long way in healing this situation. I do not wish to impugn or even assign motives. Yet it is ironic that the Dean, one whom I so admire, one who’s gift to the Church has been in the importance of relationships, would not now publicly seek to repair the relationships that his own actions have torn asunder.
Second, there has been no public statement for the reasons for the change. Instead, it appears that the administration is attempting to have it both ways – to give those offended by the original invitation a “win†by changing the venue while allowing those favorable toward the invitation the freedom to think that the recent passing of Deacon Star was the impetus. The idea that the tragic death of a student would be manipulated for gain is unthinkable, so why has the administration said nothing to the contrary?[/blockquote]
If we grant that Bishop Salmon does not believe that inviting a false teacher and heretic to preach is intrinsically immoral and counter to clear Biblical teaching, then of course he would not issue a statement of “repentanceâ€â€”it would be wrong for him to lie and claim to “repent†of something he doesn’t think is wrong. That would be hypocritical.
And it would look mighty odd for him to issue a statement saying “I’m so sorry there were so many who were hurt.†We’ve decried that kind of faux apology for years over here at StandFirm.
And naturally there wouldn’t be a statement about the reasons for the change. After all, this was supposed to be a joyous unified occasion! The last thing Bishop Salmon would seem to want to do is issue a statement saying “in light of the fact that many many people both in TEC and ACNA believe the Presiding Bishop to be a heretic and false teacher, I’ve cleverly shifted her venue to an academic discussion and a little eulougy.â€
That would be an appalling statement—from a “consequences†point of view—as obviously it further highlights the massive chasm between the bishops of TEC and a seminary that would very much like bishops of TEC to send students to them.
As I said a month ago—there is no “win win†in this situation. It is all “lose lose.†He will either grossly offend revisionist TEC bishops. Or grossly offend those who believe the Gospel and believe it to be intrinsically immoral to have false teachers and noted heretics preach. There is no “graceful exit†from this.
This brings us back to the original “let’s assert to everybody that there is no crisis—or shouldn’t be.†The only fallback position—one that I suspect is no real position at all—is to make spiritual-sounding clucking noises about how the *Gospel-believers* should not demonstrate their revulsion over the invitation by doing anything that would be seen as “negative†for Nashotah House. In other words . . . those who deem the invitation to be unBiblical and wrong must do nothing other than issue private reproofs.
“Please let there be no consequences for an action that I personally don’t think was wrong anyway even though a number of others do†is the rhetorical line.
It seems to me that the significant question to review is not “why hasn’t a statement been issued of repentance†or “why hasn’t Bishop Salmon been public about his changes to the invitation so that once again we can all be joyous and unified.†The significant question seems to be . . . “how come our Dean does not seem to believe that it is morally repugnant and opposed to Scripture’s edicts on how to behave towards false teachers to invite Katherine Jefferts Schori to preach?â€
If there can be some conclusion to arrive at for *that* question than the board could get somewhere.
I suspect strongly that there are plenty of people on the board who do not know what Scripture says about what the Church’s behavior towards false teachers should be—or if they do, don’t particularly care or see how it applies to Schori. And if that’s the case, then it’s best to go ahead and get that very real division out there in the open for discussion.
The issue is not “is it wise†or “will it hurt people†or “KJS has been mean and will offend others†or “KJS has sued people on our board†or even “some bishops won’t send us students if we invite herâ€â€”those are merely “unhappy consequences.†The issue is “KJS is a false teacher and Scripture is clear that we do not provide a platform or recognition or a preaching opportunity to false teachers—how many on our board believe this and how many do not, and what can we do about our clear disunity about this extremely important Biblical principle.â€
It may be that the board and leadership are utterly and entirely divided about this Biblical principle—in which case, it’s probable that all of this will come up again and again and again. It doesn’t stop with KJS, obviously. There are masses of false teachers and heretics that might be invited to the pulpit and given recognition as a “Christian brotherâ€â€”in fact we’ve seen that there are those in ACNA who don’t have an issue with promoting the ministry of false teachers either, so it’s hardly merely a “TEC problem.â€[/blockquote]
It seems to me that that’s the issue that the board needs to be able to speak clearly about. I’m not certain how they resolve it or work together in light of such a division. And I also don’t see how it would be helpful for, say, Bishop Salmon to resign — after all, if the *board* is divided on the question of “is it intrinsically immoral and unBiblical for a false teacher and noted heretic to be invited to share pulpit or altar” then the resignation of a Dean wouldn’t help matters anyway.
I’m guessing that were I in the minority regarding *that* question about inviting false teachers and noted heretics to share pulpit or table, it’d probably be important enough for me to resign from the board.
There’s no question that it’s very challenging to reach out to bishops who are in large majority heretical false teachers, and say “hey, please come visit our campus and see how great our seminary is — we can’t invite you to preach or celebrate, of course — but we’d really like you to send us your students.”
Inevitably the pressure would be intense to invite them to preach or celebrate! And I honestly understand that.
This gets us to a very large question which is . . . can there be a successful TEC seminary that is also Gospel-believing? I don’t know the answer to that.
It is sad for the ACNA if that is not the case — it means they are confronted with the reality of launching off and shoring up or founding new seminaries — and they lose an impressive institution that is chock full of a tradition, history, and Anglican ethos that is unparallelled in the US. And of course . . . ultimately losing a swathe of ACNA students is tough on the TEC seminary as well.
I would be *very* interested in some rational, calm, objective analysis of that particular question. What does one do as a TEC seminary that is Gospel-believing?
A year ago there was much obfuscation on the part of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and Bishops Salmon, Martins, et al., about both a certain process of so-called “conciliation” into which they had entered with her and the undisclosed terms of the “Accord” she imposed upon them (and fellow signers of their amicus brief on behalf of Bishop Iker and his unrighteously beleaguered Diocese). [url=http://mereanglicanism.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/a-self-inflicted-wound-in-the-household-of-faith/]A Self-inflicted Wound in the Household of Faith[/url] Now, alas, there is even more obfuscation about both the way in which the recent Nashotah House invitation to the PB was covertly proffered and the way in which, by retroactive legerdemain, Nashotah is trying to smooth over the traces. As usual, the cover-up only compounds the original offense. This is hardly leadership of the kind to which apostolic witnesses are called and for which at one time Bishops Salmon and Martins were deservedly reputed. Reflecting of late on that often undervalued but deeply Christian tragi-comedy ‘Measure for Measure’ by William Shakespeare, I am reminded of two immortal judgements. First: “Some rise by sin, some by virtue fall.” Then, with reference to the play’s anti-hero, ultimately redeemed by grace alone: “ … thy fault’s thus manifested / Which, though thou wouldst deny, denies thee vantage.” Truly, in Cranmer’s phrase, “we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves.â€
Sarah, I really appreciate your long and thoughtful comments at #8 and #9, which help move the discussion beyond mere reaction to analysis and brainstorming about what might be possible going forward. I think you’ve nailed the crux of the issue correctly, i.e. the different views / beliefs on how to deal with false teachers and what degree of interaction is possible with them.
My prayer is that somehow in this mess, the Lord will shine His light on areas of weakness and compromise and in His grace strengthen believing Anglicans to stand boldly for His Word and obey His commands.
Sarah,
I haven’t often acknowledged being set straight by you in the past, but I will gladly do so here. I shouldn’t have framed the problem with the Board the way that I did, especially when the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are so loaded, imprecise, and inflammatory. Like Karen B., I think you have indeed nailed the real problem here.
Unfortunately, I also think you’re probably right that this persistent dispute between conservative Anglicans over just where to draw a “red line” that is uncrossable is very likely to continue indefinitely. Sad, but true. We’ve seen it happen again and again, with no end in sight.
Like SC blu cat lady, I hesitate to play the blame game (although I did in #1 above and regret it now). Alas, there is egg on plenty of faces in this disturbing incident. Unfortunately, Sarah is right that this is basically a “Lose-Lose” situation for everybody on our side of the Anglican Civil War. Only our foes will benefit from this confusion and ongoing conflict.
I do believe that the future of Nashotah House is indeed in grave jeopardy. I hate to think that the only Anglo-Catholic seminary in North America that’s worth attending is going to end up suffering the fate of liberal seminaries like EDS, Seabury-Western, or General, because of a self-infliced wound by the school’s well-intentioned leadership that made a horrendous and foolhardy decision. But sadder things have happened. History is full of ironies.
We all make mistakes. I’ve just admitted that I did above. But will +Salmon admit that he made a terrible blunder in time to save this outstanding school? Will the Board admit to its problems and responsibility in all this? We’ll see.
David Handy+
P.S. One final comment before this thread totally disappears into the archives.
What I should’ve said initially was that the problem with the Board of Trustees is that there are people on the Board who don’t belong there, not because they are too “liberal,” but because they are too lenient.
Upon further reflection, my own way of reframing what Sarah has said above is that what really matters in this wearisome dispute over sexual ehtics and the competing worldviews that underlie the two rival siades is not where people stand on the Liberal to Conservative spectrum in terms of Doctrine, but rather where they stand on the Strict to Lenient spectrum in terms of Discipline. IOW, what matters most isn’t WHERE people draw a line in the sand, but HOW STRICTLY they are prepared to enforce it.
FWIW, I can readily imagine that Bishop Salmon, and some members of the Board, would draw a theological line in the sand that’s actually considerably more to the right of where I would myself (not least, as a staunch supporter of WO and a diehard opponent of biblical inerrancy). But the more important difference is that, while I might draw a line in the sand conside4rably to the left of such folks, I would be inclined to ENFORCE that line FAR more strictly, and if necessary, FAR more harshly.
However, that still leaves a basic question unanswered. If there are people on the Board who shouldn’t be there, how is such a problem to be solved? How can a self-perpetuating board be reformed? How can a Board of Trustees be held accountable by the constituency it serves, when they can’t vote people off the board?
David Handy+