wow – how suprising that IRD would stick to the talking points. yet another example of people of faith parroting a culture – in this case, the neo-con movement and faux news. Fred Barnes, Thomas C. Oden and Michael Novak certainly learned their lesson well.
Oh Please … it’s the truth. Twice now they’ve had an opportunity to demonstrate their willingness to respond positively. They haven’t. Actions have consequences. At least that’s what I’ve tried to teach my little children …
MD Brian, it’s the steady drum beat that IRD has been fostering since it’s inception. The damage done by IRD and other “grass-roots” movement to U.S. Christianity is sad to me – a group of elites playing out their agenda in much the same way that the neo-cons have used the Project for the New American Century. It makes ense given IRD’s early work in supporting U.S. foreign policy in Central America during the Reagan years
I try to teach my children that Christ calls us to love without boundaries, to pray for grace & wisdom & to expect salvation & transformation.
I try to teach my children that living in Christ is a dynamic with boundaries. Some behaviors are inappropriate, you know, like abusing people. Or thinking you can lead your way through life without input from others.
BTW, the damage done to “grass-roots” Christianity these days is not a small think tank publishing opinion pieces. The bulk of the damage happens whenever a pastor or priest steps into a pulpit and teaches something contrary to the Word. There’s a lot of that happening these days in mainline denominations …
IRD as a small think tank publishing opinion pieces ? C’mon. That’s like calling Wolfie & Feith just a couple of academics talking.
This small think tank is financed by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, Adolph Coors, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee. This small think tank works in an integrated fashion with right-wing groups like Concerned Women for America, Institute on Religion and Public Life (IRPL), Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), and American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
I try to teach my kids to tell the truth, even when it hurts. The IRD has spent millions of dollars over 20 years attacking mainline denominations.
It’s interesting… while I totally agree with IRD regarding TEC’s punitive legal attacks on dissident parishes — these are terribly unbiblical and uncharitable and utterly devoid of grace — I am baffled by the outrage they seem to feel towards TEC developing increasingly sharp clarity on the direction she wishes to go regarding gay ordinations and SSBs. It’s almost as though they want TEC to continue to make some “gesture” or other toward accomodating the Primates.
But actually I think this has been the exact problem we’ve been in for the last 36 months. The HOB in its 2005 and 2006 meetings kept making vague promises that they might comply with Windsor, but of course they couldn’t do anything without the HOD; and then at GC 2006 the two houses passed vague resolutions which kind of did something but really not and certainly with great reluctance. The truth is this: by its 2005 meeting, the HOB knew that there was no way it was going to ever comply with the plain intent of Windsor, no way that ECUSA would ever step in and stop all public same sex blessing/ceremonies going on in all dioceses. Also no way that the HOB would agree to not ordain any more gay bishops. They knew this. EVERYONE knew this. But instead we got all these dishonest half-promises and quarter-promises in vague language. The honest ethical folks on the reappraiser side were bothered by this too! The honest thing to have done was to state quite clearly that ECUSA would probably continue along this path and certainly that it would not stop its bishops who wished to from continuing down it. If only that had been done how much wasted time could have been saved! How much easier it would be for people in parishes (on both sides of the issue) to make principled decisions and plans regarding the direction they wished to go.
It’s with that in mind that I think it is wrong to constantly bash TEC for making moves towards a consistent message toward the rest of the Communion. Maybe we don’t like the message, but isn’t it a lot better for everyone than prevarication and procrastination?
PS. I have mentioned what I am about to say before on T19, but I’ll take one last shot. Almost everyone (certainly the secular press, and even most conservatives) refers to the requests made at the last Primates meeting as “demands” and “ultimatums.” I do not see them that way. I see them not as the Primates forcing a policy on TEC as asking TEC to clarify what she as an institution wants to do.
Here’s what I think happened (though of course maybe I am wrong). TEC ordained VGR and gave a green light for gay liturgies at GC 2003 — in defiance of what most of the Communion begged them to do. In 2004 the Windsor Report came out explaining very clearly what TEC needed to do. In 2005 the Primates reaffirmed it very clearly. At GC 2006 TEC manifestly rejected the Windsor Report — that is simply obvious to anyone who watched the deliberations and read the WR and the resolutions passed. A legitimate thing to do by the Primates in 2007 would be to say that TEC had rejected the WR. But no… strangely enough, our new PB, along with the Gang of Four, assured the Primates that actually GC 2006 represented COMPLIANCE (!) with the WR, and a deep desire to abide by it (!!!). It was to THIS claim, preposterous as it might seem, that the Primates were responding. They were NOT demanding that TEC do something it didn’t want to do. Rather, they were saying: your PB assures us that your resolutions actually mean a desire to abide by the WR. If that is true it must mean X and Y — can you please confirm for us that this is what you mean? Thus, in my view, they were asking for clarity. Which is why I was so baffled by the HOB’s subsequent outrage. Why is it outrageous for someone to ask you (one last time) to state very clearly your intentions? It’s a bit like someone promising to go see a movie with me, and consistently failing to show up. So at some point I say: OK, I’ll take your word for it, but just for clarity give me a call in the next hour and confirm that you will (a) be at this movie theater and (b) you’ll be there by 8 pm. And then the person responds by asking where I get off issuing demands and ultimatums?
RE: “MD Brian, it’s the steady drum beat that IRD has been fostering since it’s inception. The damage done by IRD and other “grass-roots†movement to U.S. Christianity is sad to me . . .”
Heh. Read “The damage done by IRD and other “grass-roots” movements to [the progressive agenda which we have worked so hard in foisting off on traditional Christian institutions] is sad to me . . . ”
Thank God for the IRD and any other movement out there that is exposing with clarity the very calculated and organized assault on Christianity that the progressives have maintained in the mainlines.
Nice to see that the power that progressives have held in these organizations is being challenged. Win, lose, or draw, the IRD and others like them have made it a challenge for the progressives to win both the public relations and the pew battles.
Wow – how suprising that TEC/EC/HoB would stick to the talking points. Yet another example of people of the culture parroting a faith – in this case, the activist homosexualist movement and faux news. +JJ, +Smith, +KJS, +Mathes, Beers et al certainly learned their lesson well.
And just WHAT is US Christianity? How in your mind, does it differ from what I would describe as normative, universal Christianity?
wow, we agree. TEC/EC/HoB is just as guilty of spin & lobbying as the IRD. While I do not know all the + you note, what I do know is that lots of people – in the pew & outside of them – are tired of the rhetoric of the last 20-30 years that Fox, IRD, Michael Moore and NCC have had a hand in fostering.
I am curious what you sense normative, universal Christianity is. Yesterday was the anniversary of the first day of the Council of Nicea. It seems like a constant in the 1700 years since this first meeting of a normative, universal Christian body is that Jesus following is a messy transformation. We struggle to make it clean, repeatable, even predictable – and in the process we re-make Jesus in our image.
#10, since you agree that TEC etc., is just as guilty of spin & lobbying, how can such actions serve Christ and the gospel?
Unless you are completely unaware of the worldwide ramifications of TEC’s actions, you must know that TEC’s spin and lobbying are directed against the majority of the world, who call themselves Christian.
Either this TEC-led chaos somehow meets your approval as messy (but positive) transformation and is therefore good on its merits and will ultimately be proved as such, or, you are claiming that Everyone is out of step, except TEC and that the tail is wagging the dog.
Yes, the Council of Nicea resulted in part, with a creed that all Christians, then as today, say and believe in order to honestly call themselves Christian. Except that is, a surprising number of TEC clerics who mouth the words, but do not believe them.
I’ve been to the IRD offices in DC. I was taken there during a VTS D.Min. residency. I don’t think you can in any way compare their digs to the NRA building on the beltway, just for a little perspective. It is a small think tank – this is accurate, despite the deep pockets who contribute to the work.
Bob – I hope your tounge was in your cheek on #12. In this medium it is very difficult to tell when sarcasm or satire is being employed without “markers” that would indicate sarcasm or satire such as /sarcasm (end sarcasm HTML “tag”) or a smiley face.
Just in case you were not or others take you seriously, it is decidedly NOT about us. It is about Jesus and our being faithful to God’s will.
“TEC’s spin and lobbying are directed against the majority of the world, who call themselves Christian”
I no more believe that than I believe that Barnes, Novak & Nuehaus are working FOR the majority of the world, who call themselves christians
#17
great point, phil – sarcasm alert there
the difficulty here – one of many – is that so many people in this “fight” sense that they are responding to a call from their savior. VGR’s conviction of that and the way in which it manifests a faithful-ness to God’s will is just as strong as Bob Duncan.
The nice part of this is that no matter what the PB or Akinola think, God is our judge, whose love was made manifest in the world by sending his only begotten Son so that we might live through him
Bob, My efforts at Christian Charity call for me to think carefully about my response to the diatribe about the IRD. Having known these people for many years, and not always being in total agreement with them, I submit that the mainline churches would be farther down the road to oblivion, if it were not for the likes of these Christians who call for repentence and reform in the churches.
Bob (#18) – then how do we know God’s will? Well, in specific terms (whom does God want me to marry, should I buy this house/car/computer, etc.) it is best done in prayer and in our small community. On issues that effect the whole body – say what the church should teach regarding the proper expression of sexuality, I submit that the Church is bound by Holy Scripture and any changes in the teaching should be approved by the entire Church (or communion) prior to the acting on the new changes. Thus, +Robinson may have indeed been called to be a bishop in Christ’s church. I don’t dispute that. However, I do dispute that he should have accepted that call while unrepentedly living in a relationship that the Church teaches is “sinful.” If he wants to change the teaching of the Church, then he should do the work necessary to convince the rest of the Church that what he proposes better reflects the Mind of God.
I think we loose site of the fact that TEC, as it is organized currently, is a completely different thing the IRD as it is currently organized.
TEC is a voluntary religious organization that is steeped in tradition and historic Christianity whose leaders are ordained and elected according to a set of rules. (not prefect by any means) The purpose of TEC is to further the Gospel of Jesus Christ and spread God’s Kingdom. The voluntary members meet in local house churches, congregations, cathedral, campus ministries and are organized into Dioceses by the General Convention. The ministers are ordained in the three historic orders of the church. All leaders are elected to office by members of the local congregations and by diocesan representation and general convention deputies. TEC is an autonomous church in the Anglican Communion of Churches.
IRD is a political organization who has a board that raises money to further their own cause/ view point. Board members are appointed by other board members. There is no membership in IRD. At this their point of view is expressed in a variety of ways and is particularly critical of some decisions and action by leaders in TEC. It is not a church, does not have local gatherings, and is in no way related to a larger organization. It is simply a political organization.
Both have a right to exist and a right to do what they are doing. But, they are very different things and can’t be compared to each other. They are not in the same category.
I think if you take a look at what TEC does and where it gets it “theology,” you have to conclude that it, too, is a political organization. I agree with plainsparson, however, that both have a right to exist. I would also say that more speech enhances the probability that truth will prevail.
5. bob carlton wrote:
This small think tank is financed by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, Adolph Coors, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee.
So … ??? They have a lot of money and they seek to promulgate their ideals. I’m not a member nor do I really care about the financial backing of the IRD. They’re free to do whatever they want.
The original article was to point out the obvious: TEC is not making moves to meet the demands expected by September. So shoot the messenger. The message is still valid. And logical consequences will probably follow.
TEC/EC/HoB is just as guilty of spin & lobbying as the IRD.
The big difference, as I see it, is that TEC and its grandees have direct influence over the direction and actions of the organization, whereas IRD does not. If TEC engages in heretical, apostate, buffoonish and actions otherwise destructive to the mission of Christ on Earth, is the responsibility for the attendant guilt and shame TEC’s or that of those that point out said actions?
You are correct that in TEC members and leaders have a direct influnece over the direction and actions of the organization. However, IRD is not a member of TEC, and therefore can certainly issue an opinion, but is not and should not have any influence in the internal workings of this church. I suppose one could belong to IRD and be a member of TEC. BUt IRD is not TEC and IRD is not a church nor is IRD god, who is the real judge of all our actions.
BTW, I would say that the official teaching of this church remains throughly orthodx- that being what is found in the BCP, Hymnal 1982 and the supplemental texts and hymnals.
Plainsparson (#29)
Then what should we do with ordained leaders who vow to be faithful to the worship of Christ “as this church has received them) and then do not uphold the official teaching of this church as found in the BCP (marriage is one man and one woman, Jesus is the only way to the Father, the Church is to “continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, etc) and other assorted materials?
I’m amazed that people see the political machinations of the IRD and yet still grant them credibility. Their only goal is to cripple mainstream protestant denominations.
Their only goal is to cripple mainstream protestant denominations.
That statement is absolutely false. IRD is committed to preserving tradition Christian beliefs in mainstream protestant denominations. We as Christians should be happy that there are people putting their time and money in fighting the awful heresies attacking these churches.
The statement is absolutely and demonstrably true. The IRD is a political body. It is not a religious body. It has no business interfering in TEC, ELCA, The Methodist CHurch or any other body it has set its sites upon.
As a Christian, I get very concerned when our churches get attacked by outsiders and unwitting rubes inside who assist in these nefarious schemes including parroting the big lie of heresy.
The statement is absolutely and demonstrably true. The IRD is a political body. It is not a religious body. It has no business interfering in TEC, ELCA, The Methodist CHurch or any other body it has set its sites upon.
How, exactly, is it “interfering?” By commenting on the obvious takeover of the asylum by the lunatics?
RE: “The IRD is a political body. It is not a religious body. It has no business interfering in TEC, ELCA, The Methodist CHurch or any other body it has set its sites upon.”
Yeh, I’m sure it’s irksome to progressives to find that an organization is devoted to combatting their agenda in the mainlines. And of course it has plenty of “business” interfering in the mainlines — just as much as Integrity has business interfering in the ECUSA.
Politics breeds politics. And that’s what has the progressives hacked off — the gall of their political and calculated machinations actually being challenged by others!
RE: “As a Christian, I get very concerned when our churches get attacked by outsiders and unwitting rubes inside who assist in these nefarious schemes including parroting the big lie of heresy.”
Not “our churches” — just the progressive agenda. And I’m sure it makes progressives “very concerned” . . . good.
. . . “unwitting rubes” — heh . . . a good progressive description of the traditionalists in ECUSA. Sweet! ; > )
Go IRD! How nice to see how upset progressives get when their name is mentioned — must be doing something right.
I suppose Eprhaim Radner would be a “witting rube” in all of this because he is on the board of the IRD and he wants to set up a theocracy* in this country?
And that would make me just an “unwitting rube” falling for his conniving machinations? Is that right, Ruidh? I guess with two doctorates, and I am still a country bumpkin. Tis a gift to be simple, don’t ya know. Vulgar me, I just can’t tell heresy from orthodoxy unless Ruidh illuminates me.
* Actual charge by the woman who sits in the bishopric of Utah.
Yesterday was the anniversary of the first day of the Council of Nicea. It seems like a constant in the 1700 years since this first meeting of a normative, universal Christian body is that Jesus following is a messy transformation.
It is certainly ironic that someone who deplores the influence of what he considers outside political interference in the church would uphold Nicea as an example of an apparently better approach.
The fight in TEC is certainly political, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has yet been forced into exile or executed because of their position.
IRD must be doing a fine job judging from all the “progressive” howls of protest. The reappraisers are very good at this sort of political organization. IRD meets them on their own terf and they don’t like it. Good.
I do not believe IRD’s efforts are designed to cripple TEC – though that may be the result. IRD is only able to get out information to TEC’s members and help organize opposition to changes from within TEC’s membership. The problem with the progressives’ changes was how few members of the mainline churches shaped them are even knew about them. IRD is helping to ensure that any further leftward creep will come at a price – if that means the mainline churches are being crippled – that is a good thing. The fact that establishment conservatives have been funding organizations moving to radically alter the religous, cultural and political fabric of the country over the last 30 years has been astonishing. Sunshine is a great disenfectant.
Mercy sakes alive, What a storm we have! I have been on storms at sea when important parts of the ship were washed overboard. But, My Lord was there. May He bring calm to the troubled waters. as He brought calm to the turmoil so long ago. And, may His truth reign!
wow – how suprising that IRD would stick to the talking points. yet another example of people of faith parroting a culture – in this case, the neo-con movement and faux news. Fred Barnes, Thomas C. Oden and Michael Novak certainly learned their lesson well.
Bob,
Oh Please … it’s the truth. Twice now they’ve had an opportunity to demonstrate their willingness to respond positively. They haven’t. Actions have consequences. At least that’s what I’ve tried to teach my little children …
MD Brian
MD Brian, it’s the steady drum beat that IRD has been fostering since it’s inception. The damage done by IRD and other “grass-roots” movement to U.S. Christianity is sad to me – a group of elites playing out their agenda in much the same way that the neo-cons have used the Project for the New American Century. It makes ense given IRD’s early work in supporting U.S. foreign policy in Central America during the Reagan years
I try to teach my children that Christ calls us to love without boundaries, to pray for grace & wisdom & to expect salvation & transformation.
Bob,
I try to teach my children that living in Christ is a dynamic with boundaries. Some behaviors are inappropriate, you know, like abusing people. Or thinking you can lead your way through life without input from others.
BTW, the damage done to “grass-roots” Christianity these days is not a small think tank publishing opinion pieces. The bulk of the damage happens whenever a pastor or priest steps into a pulpit and teaches something contrary to the Word. There’s a lot of that happening these days in mainline denominations …
MD Brian
IRD as a small think tank publishing opinion pieces ? C’mon. That’s like calling Wolfie & Feith just a couple of academics talking.
This small think tank is financed by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, Adolph Coors, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee. This small think tank works in an integrated fashion with right-wing groups like Concerned Women for America, Institute on Religion and Public Life (IRPL), Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), and American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
I try to teach my kids to tell the truth, even when it hurts. The IRD has spent millions of dollars over 20 years attacking mainline denominations.
It’s interesting… while I totally agree with IRD regarding TEC’s punitive legal attacks on dissident parishes — these are terribly unbiblical and uncharitable and utterly devoid of grace — I am baffled by the outrage they seem to feel towards TEC developing increasingly sharp clarity on the direction she wishes to go regarding gay ordinations and SSBs. It’s almost as though they want TEC to continue to make some “gesture” or other toward accomodating the Primates.
But actually I think this has been the exact problem we’ve been in for the last 36 months. The HOB in its 2005 and 2006 meetings kept making vague promises that they might comply with Windsor, but of course they couldn’t do anything without the HOD; and then at GC 2006 the two houses passed vague resolutions which kind of did something but really not and certainly with great reluctance. The truth is this: by its 2005 meeting, the HOB knew that there was no way it was going to ever comply with the plain intent of Windsor, no way that ECUSA would ever step in and stop all public same sex blessing/ceremonies going on in all dioceses. Also no way that the HOB would agree to not ordain any more gay bishops. They knew this. EVERYONE knew this. But instead we got all these dishonest half-promises and quarter-promises in vague language. The honest ethical folks on the reappraiser side were bothered by this too! The honest thing to have done was to state quite clearly that ECUSA would probably continue along this path and certainly that it would not stop its bishops who wished to from continuing down it. If only that had been done how much wasted time could have been saved! How much easier it would be for people in parishes (on both sides of the issue) to make principled decisions and plans regarding the direction they wished to go.
It’s with that in mind that I think it is wrong to constantly bash TEC for making moves towards a consistent message toward the rest of the Communion. Maybe we don’t like the message, but isn’t it a lot better for everyone than prevarication and procrastination?
PS. I have mentioned what I am about to say before on T19, but I’ll take one last shot. Almost everyone (certainly the secular press, and even most conservatives) refers to the requests made at the last Primates meeting as “demands” and “ultimatums.” I do not see them that way. I see them not as the Primates forcing a policy on TEC as asking TEC to clarify what she as an institution wants to do.
Here’s what I think happened (though of course maybe I am wrong). TEC ordained VGR and gave a green light for gay liturgies at GC 2003 — in defiance of what most of the Communion begged them to do. In 2004 the Windsor Report came out explaining very clearly what TEC needed to do. In 2005 the Primates reaffirmed it very clearly. At GC 2006 TEC manifestly rejected the Windsor Report — that is simply obvious to anyone who watched the deliberations and read the WR and the resolutions passed. A legitimate thing to do by the Primates in 2007 would be to say that TEC had rejected the WR. But no… strangely enough, our new PB, along with the Gang of Four, assured the Primates that actually GC 2006 represented COMPLIANCE (!) with the WR, and a deep desire to abide by it (!!!). It was to THIS claim, preposterous as it might seem, that the Primates were responding. They were NOT demanding that TEC do something it didn’t want to do. Rather, they were saying: your PB assures us that your resolutions actually mean a desire to abide by the WR. If that is true it must mean X and Y — can you please confirm for us that this is what you mean? Thus, in my view, they were asking for clarity. Which is why I was so baffled by the HOB’s subsequent outrage. Why is it outrageous for someone to ask you (one last time) to state very clearly your intentions? It’s a bit like someone promising to go see a movie with me, and consistently failing to show up. So at some point I say: OK, I’ll take your word for it, but just for clarity give me a call in the next hour and confirm that you will (a) be at this movie theater and (b) you’ll be there by 8 pm. And then the person responds by asking where I get off issuing demands and ultimatums?
RE: “MD Brian, it’s the steady drum beat that IRD has been fostering since it’s inception. The damage done by IRD and other “grass-roots†movement to U.S. Christianity is sad to me . . .”
Heh. Read “The damage done by IRD and other “grass-roots” movements to [the progressive agenda which we have worked so hard in foisting off on traditional Christian institutions] is sad to me . . . ”
Thank God for the IRD and any other movement out there that is exposing with clarity the very calculated and organized assault on Christianity that the progressives have maintained in the mainlines.
Nice to see that the power that progressives have held in these organizations is being challenged. Win, lose, or draw, the IRD and others like them have made it a challenge for the progressives to win both the public relations and the pew battles.
And that’s so nice. ; > )
Win, lose, or draw.
yep – that’s american churchianity for you
#1, Let me try a rephrase of your statement:
Wow – how suprising that TEC/EC/HoB would stick to the talking points. Yet another example of people of the culture parroting a faith – in this case, the activist homosexualist movement and faux news. +JJ, +Smith, +KJS, +Mathes, Beers et al certainly learned their lesson well.
And just WHAT is US Christianity? How in your mind, does it differ from what I would describe as normative, universal Christianity?
#9
wow, we agree. TEC/EC/HoB is just as guilty of spin & lobbying as the IRD. While I do not know all the + you note, what I do know is that lots of people – in the pew & outside of them – are tired of the rhetoric of the last 20-30 years that Fox, IRD, Michael Moore and NCC have had a hand in fostering.
I am curious what you sense normative, universal Christianity is. Yesterday was the anniversary of the first day of the Council of Nicea. It seems like a constant in the 1700 years since this first meeting of a normative, universal Christian body is that Jesus following is a messy transformation. We struggle to make it clean, repeatable, even predictable – and in the process we re-make Jesus in our image.
Conspiracy: n. An organized effort aimed at poliitical ends the speaker does not favor. See Also “politics.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
amen phil – whether it’s the gay agenda or the vast right-wing conspiracy, it’s all about us
RE: “yep – that’s american churchianity for you”
Nope — just the Episcopal church and a couple other mainlines.
; > )
um sarah
the new mainline – evangelicals – is unabashedly win, lose or draw
#10, since you agree that TEC etc., is just as guilty of spin & lobbying, how can such actions serve Christ and the gospel?
Unless you are completely unaware of the worldwide ramifications of TEC’s actions, you must know that TEC’s spin and lobbying are directed against the majority of the world, who call themselves Christian.
Either this TEC-led chaos somehow meets your approval as messy (but positive) transformation and is therefore good on its merits and will ultimately be proved as such, or, you are claiming that Everyone is out of step, except TEC and that the tail is wagging the dog.
Yes, the Council of Nicea resulted in part, with a creed that all Christians, then as today, say and believe in order to honestly call themselves Christian. Except that is, a surprising number of TEC clerics who mouth the words, but do not believe them.
I’ve been to the IRD offices in DC. I was taken there during a VTS D.Min. residency. I don’t think you can in any way compare their digs to the NRA building on the beltway, just for a little perspective. It is a small think tank – this is accurate, despite the deep pockets who contribute to the work.
Bob – I hope your tounge was in your cheek on #12. In this medium it is very difficult to tell when sarcasm or satire is being employed without “markers” that would indicate sarcasm or satire such as /sarcasm (end sarcasm HTML “tag”) or a smiley face.
Just in case you were not or others take you seriously, it is decidedly NOT about us. It is about Jesus and our being faithful to God’s will.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
# 15
“TEC’s spin and lobbying are directed against the majority of the world, who call themselves Christian”
I no more believe that than I believe that Barnes, Novak & Nuehaus are working FOR the majority of the world, who call themselves christians
#17
great point, phil – sarcasm alert there
the difficulty here – one of many – is that so many people in this “fight” sense that they are responding to a call from their savior. VGR’s conviction of that and the way in which it manifests a faithful-ness to God’s will is just as strong as Bob Duncan.
The nice part of this is that no matter what the PB or Akinola think, God is our judge, whose love was made manifest in the world by sending his only begotten Son so that we might live through him
Bob, My efforts at Christian Charity call for me to think carefully about my response to the diatribe about the IRD. Having known these people for many years, and not always being in total agreement with them, I submit that the mainline churches would be farther down the road to oblivion, if it were not for the likes of these Christians who call for repentence and reform in the churches.
#18, by deduction, I presume that you feel that TEC’s spin and lobbying are SUPPORTIVE of the majority of those who call themselves Christian?
As to your final paragraph, I agree entirely and am happy with that understanding.
On thing about IRD, they certainly know how to draw out passions in folks :coolhmm:
Nice piece Chip! :coolsmile:
#19
I repect your experience with IRD – that has not been mine.
This conversation is becoming quite one-sided. Let’s try to allow time for others to comment. – Elf Lady
Bob (#18) – then how do we know God’s will? Well, in specific terms (whom does God want me to marry, should I buy this house/car/computer, etc.) it is best done in prayer and in our small community. On issues that effect the whole body – say what the church should teach regarding the proper expression of sexuality, I submit that the Church is bound by Holy Scripture and any changes in the teaching should be approved by the entire Church (or communion) prior to the acting on the new changes. Thus, +Robinson may have indeed been called to be a bishop in Christ’s church. I don’t dispute that. However, I do dispute that he should have accepted that call while unrepentedly living in a relationship that the Church teaches is “sinful.” If he wants to change the teaching of the Church, then he should do the work necessary to convince the rest of the Church that what he proposes better reflects the Mind of God.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I think we loose site of the fact that TEC, as it is organized currently, is a completely different thing the IRD as it is currently organized.
TEC is a voluntary religious organization that is steeped in tradition and historic Christianity whose leaders are ordained and elected according to a set of rules. (not prefect by any means) The purpose of TEC is to further the Gospel of Jesus Christ and spread God’s Kingdom. The voluntary members meet in local house churches, congregations, cathedral, campus ministries and are organized into Dioceses by the General Convention. The ministers are ordained in the three historic orders of the church. All leaders are elected to office by members of the local congregations and by diocesan representation and general convention deputies. TEC is an autonomous church in the Anglican Communion of Churches.
IRD is a political organization who has a board that raises money to further their own cause/ view point. Board members are appointed by other board members. There is no membership in IRD. At this their point of view is expressed in a variety of ways and is particularly critical of some decisions and action by leaders in TEC. It is not a church, does not have local gatherings, and is in no way related to a larger organization. It is simply a political organization.
Both have a right to exist and a right to do what they are doing. But, they are very different things and can’t be compared to each other. They are not in the same category.
I think if you take a look at what TEC does and where it gets it “theology,” you have to conclude that it, too, is a political organization. I agree with plainsparson, however, that both have a right to exist. I would also say that more speech enhances the probability that truth will prevail.
5. bob carlton wrote:
This small think tank is financed by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, Adolph Coors, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee.
So … ??? They have a lot of money and they seek to promulgate their ideals. I’m not a member nor do I really care about the financial backing of the IRD. They’re free to do whatever they want.
The original article was to point out the obvious: TEC is not making moves to meet the demands expected by September. So shoot the messenger. The message is still valid. And logical consequences will probably follow.
MD Brian
The big difference, as I see it, is that TEC and its grandees have direct influence over the direction and actions of the organization, whereas IRD does not. If TEC engages in heretical, apostate, buffoonish and actions otherwise destructive to the mission of Christ on Earth, is the responsibility for the attendant guilt and shame TEC’s or that of those that point out said actions?
Jeffersonian,
You are correct that in TEC members and leaders have a direct influnece over the direction and actions of the organization. However, IRD is not a member of TEC, and therefore can certainly issue an opinion, but is not and should not have any influence in the internal workings of this church. I suppose one could belong to IRD and be a member of TEC. BUt IRD is not TEC and IRD is not a church nor is IRD god, who is the real judge of all our actions.
BTW, I would say that the official teaching of this church remains throughly orthodx- that being what is found in the BCP, Hymnal 1982 and the supplemental texts and hymnals.
Plainsparson (#29)
Then what should we do with ordained leaders who vow to be faithful to the worship of Christ “as this church has received them) and then do not uphold the official teaching of this church as found in the BCP (marriage is one man and one woman, Jesus is the only way to the Father, the Church is to “continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, etc) and other assorted materials?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#30 We pray for them and then as Our Lord told certain disciples, ‘We shake the dust of their city off our feet,”
I’m amazed that people see the political machinations of the IRD and yet still grant them credibility. Their only goal is to cripple mainstream protestant denominations.
That statement is absolutely false. IRD is committed to preserving tradition Christian beliefs in mainstream protestant denominations. We as Christians should be happy that there are people putting their time and money in fighting the awful heresies attacking these churches.
The statement is absolutely and demonstrably true. The IRD is a political body. It is not a religious body. It has no business interfering in TEC, ELCA, The Methodist CHurch or any other body it has set its sites upon.
As a Christian, I get very concerned when our churches get attacked by outsiders and unwitting rubes inside who assist in these nefarious schemes including parroting the big lie of heresy.
ruidh, you then object to the GAY AGENDA as the gospel of ECUSA/TEC de facto, I take it?
The mainstream denominations have been doing a pretty good job of that without any help from the IRD…
How, exactly, is it “interfering?” By commenting on the obvious takeover of the asylum by the lunatics?
I’d prefer the “the takeover of the circus by the clowns”.
fred barnes has a uniquely clown shaped face
RE: “the new mainline – evangelicals”
Really? How cool! ; > )
RE: “The IRD is a political body. It is not a religious body. It has no business interfering in TEC, ELCA, The Methodist CHurch or any other body it has set its sites upon.”
Yeh, I’m sure it’s irksome to progressives to find that an organization is devoted to combatting their agenda in the mainlines. And of course it has plenty of “business” interfering in the mainlines — just as much as Integrity has business interfering in the ECUSA.
Politics breeds politics. And that’s what has the progressives hacked off — the gall of their political and calculated machinations actually being challenged by others!
RE: “As a Christian, I get very concerned when our churches get attacked by outsiders and unwitting rubes inside who assist in these nefarious schemes including parroting the big lie of heresy.”
Not “our churches” — just the progressive agenda. And I’m sure it makes progressives “very concerned” . . . good.
. . . “unwitting rubes” — heh . . . a good progressive description of the traditionalists in ECUSA. Sweet! ; > )
Go IRD! How nice to see how upset progressives get when their name is mentioned — must be doing something right.
# 40
cool – yep – they are winners, right ?
I suppose Eprhaim Radner would be a “witting rube” in all of this because he is on the board of the IRD and he wants to set up a theocracy* in this country?
And that would make me just an “unwitting rube” falling for his conniving machinations? Is that right, Ruidh? I guess with two doctorates, and I am still a country bumpkin. Tis a gift to be simple, don’t ya know. Vulgar me, I just can’t tell heresy from orthodoxy unless Ruidh illuminates me.
* Actual charge by the woman who sits in the bishopric of Utah.
It is certainly ironic that someone who deplores the influence of what he considers outside political interference in the church would uphold Nicea as an example of an apparently better approach.
The fight in TEC is certainly political, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has yet been forced into exile or executed because of their position.
IRD must be doing a fine job judging from all the “progressive” howls of protest. The reappraisers are very good at this sort of political organization. IRD meets them on their own terf and they don’t like it. Good.
I do not believe IRD’s efforts are designed to cripple TEC – though that may be the result. IRD is only able to get out information to TEC’s members and help organize opposition to changes from within TEC’s membership. The problem with the progressives’ changes was how few members of the mainline churches shaped them are even knew about them. IRD is helping to ensure that any further leftward creep will come at a price – if that means the mainline churches are being crippled – that is a good thing. The fact that establishment conservatives have been funding organizations moving to radically alter the religous, cultural and political fabric of the country over the last 30 years has been astonishing. Sunshine is a great disenfectant.
Mercy sakes alive, What a storm we have! I have been on storms at sea when important parts of the ship were washed overboard. But, My Lord was there. May He bring calm to the troubled waters. as He brought calm to the turmoil so long ago. And, may His truth reign!