Angered by their criticism, [Bishop of Washington John] Chane denied that the Episcopal church was guilty of leading the Anglican communion into error.
“I think it’s really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: ‘I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,'” he said “It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic.
“The Episcopal church has been demonised. It has been a punching bag, and I’m sick of being a punching bag as a bishop and I’m sick of my church, my province being a punching bag.”
He made the remarks in Battle of the Bishops, a BBC2 documentary to be aired on Monday evening, which follows key churchmen from the US and Africa as they prepare for Gafcon.
In the programme the archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, known in his home country as the Hammer of God, is seen hitting out at figures such as Chane.
“Gafcon is a rescue mission ”“ it is our duty to rescue whatever is left of the church from error,” Akinola said.
Sigh. More “fighting words.” Who’s more the punching bag, Bp. Chane or those who have to read the endless revisionist sarcasm and try to reply courteously?
Interesting that Bp. Chane takes a direct shot “the way and the truth” – those who believe what Jesus said are demonic? This just confirms what the Lord said. Those who accussed Him of being in league with the devil will say that and worse against his followers.
I am really, really praying for the revisionists. They are well intentioned people who are deeply deceived and I pray that this will be reversed to their joy and eternal life. What they are doing now, like Saul on the road to Damascus, hurts them more than those they attack. May they hear the voice of the One who IS The Way, The Truth and The Life.
I find it telling that the mainstream progressive media and their Anglican shills want to focus on the one or two African bishops who defy their Primates and not the 99.5% who didn’t come and the reason why they didn’t come. Maybe that is the place to start the indaba instead of making the one or two defiant African bishops progressive heros.
Chane says: [i]”I think it’s really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: ‘I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,'” he said “It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic.”[/i]
I quite agree. That is [b][i]exactly[/i][/b] what Chane himself and the left wing of TEC have been doing all along. [b][i]”We[/i][/b] are the enlightened ones. [b][i]We[/i][[/b] have the only real truth about all these issues, and we are interpreting Holy Scripture correctly while all of [b][i]You[/i][/b] are “Bible-olaters” who are just wrong, wrong, wrong!”
Only they have the answers and the rest of us are only catching up. They have truly been doing exactly what Chane described.
Kendall, I think this is another one that needed the “You Cannot Make this Stuff up Department” headline. This seems to be a regular feature of missives from Chanestan.
Here we have an example of those who call good evil and evil good. What blindness! Lord, have mercy.
I’ve posted a piece on “Lambeth: Bread and Circuses” here:
http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2008/07/lambeth-bread-and-circuses.html
It is sad that some bishops have resorted to name calling and stereotyping of traditionalists. Demonizing anyone serve no good purpose. It does appear that this is plan of the leadership of TEC. The game plan is set and we are getting a sample of what to expect.
I wonder what he means by the word demonic. It seems to imply a reality that I do not think he would believe in.
“It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic…..” and I think just possibly, Chane is hitting out at African churchmen because he didn’t have the guts to say this thing he believes to another churchman who recently visited his diocese – one named Benedict – oh, I didn’t somehow miss that Chane spoke up and told the Pope his stance was very, very dangerous, even demonic, did I?
#4 is correct, this is one of those “You Cannot Make this Stuff up Department” pieces. [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2286440/The-50-most-influential-figures-in-the-Anglican-Church-30-21.html]From this piece:[/url]
[blockquote]He (John Chane) is known for his interest in interfaith dialogue and has close links to Iran and former President Khatami, who he invited to speak at Washington’s National Cathedral.
He has attacked the Nigerian Archbishop, Peter Akinola, who he accused of intolerance and bigotry for supporting draconian anti-gay laws.[/blockquote]
Homosexuality is a capital offence in Iran. Ayatollahs such as Khatami are a large part of that reality. I cannot fathom the mentality of people who find tolerable in Islam what they cannot stand in Christianity. And I cannot fathom the mentality of reappraisers such as +Chane who have assured us for years that there is no personal devil and yet attack others as demonic.
For a second there, TACit, I thought you were talking about Chane’s good pal, the ayatollah. Do you think the good bishop took the opportunity to lobby Khatami for gay mullahs and SSBs in Qom?
Actually, Chane’s comments are more than misguided or hypocritical. If he has not done so already, he has come perilously close to the sin of blasphemeing against the Holy Spirit, by ascribing to the devil the work of the Holy Spirit (see Mark 3:20-30). Yes, he needs our prayers for a serious change of heart. Lord have mercy.
I always thought that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one comes to the father except by Him. It would seem that Chane doesn’t know this. It would also seem that Chane did not read the Gafcon report which states this as its fundamental tenet.
Chane says: “I think it’s really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: ‘I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,’†he said “It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic.â€
Chane needs to look in a mirror.
Can’t think of much more demonic than appearing as a clergy member in a “pride” parade.
At the closing ceremonies where Rowan “Neville” Williams declares that they have achieved “unity in our time,” I hope Chane receives the “speaking truth in love” Joseph Goebbels award.
Bill C. wrote:
[i]I always thought that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one comes to the father except by Him. It would seem that Chane doesn’t know this. [/i]
Actually, Bill, that scripture was repudiated quite clearly by a speaker in the pulpit of the National Cathedral not too long ago.
I didn’t somehow miss that Chane spoke up and told the Pope his stance was very, very dangerous, even demonic, did I?
That’s because the Pope isn’t demonic (he just worked for them as a youth). What is demonic about some GS Primates is the fact that they celebrate and encourage destruction. This is what true evil does. It never builds up, it always tears down. It always works for its own power and glory.
I now await the ironic posts about how this is what we reappraisers do by [insert gay-bashing/exclusionary condemnations here]
Can’t think of much more demonic than appearing as a clergy member in a “pride†parade.
True-that far outweighs something like the Third Reich or the Killing Fields or Darfur or child molestation or physical abuse. There’s a bishop who used to guard slave labor and wear a swastika, but that’s nothing compared to being in a parade.
Chane takes a direct shot “the way and the truth†– those who believe what Jesus said are demonic?
No. Only those who think they are Jesus.
Look, I’m no big fan of +Chane, but you all act as if there is no sin among your leaders. Some Primates have done some very bad things. Some they have repented for and some they have not. This isn’t really a time for moral relativism.
MichaelSean (#6) writes: “It is sad that some bishops have resorted to name calling and stereotyping of traditionalists. Demonizing anyone serve no good purpose.”
Hello, kettle, this is pot. You’re black.
I find it hard to have much sympathy for those who’ve been doing the demonizing for much longer. Sorry you got your feelings hurt. Boohoo. Get over it.
All this bit about the African bishops not getting much respect? Let them listen to their own words. Respect is earned. Right now they’re acting like a bunch of teenagers whining, “Why don’t you treat us like adults?” Then they should act like adults. This is my message: You’re falling into the exact same colonialism you fought so hard to shake off. Don’t make that mistake. And this is my warning: If you do, we will fight just as hard as you did.
All of you, don’t you EVER question our faith. We take this just as serioiusly as you do. And we are just as much part of the Body of Christ as you are.
Poor ol’ Chane. Over half of his diocese stays home on Sundays. His cathedral is losing money and ministries are being excised and cancelled. And somebody told him he was wrong. Hard to swallow.
Stand back and give him some air. He needs it.
http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/154/1/
[blockquote]”It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic.[/blockquote]
Well, that is an ironic statement, as I have heard Bishop Chane go on at some length about how there is not such a think as personified evil apart from humans, i.e. that the social evil is from within us. So I am curious what he means here by the usage of that term.
Please, can we use the bishop as a punching bag? That might help alleviate some of the stress. He certainly hasn’t stopped punching the orthodox!
Always a pleasure to read insights from Rev. Dr. Chris Seitz and this is no exception. I must ask about the last paragraph; are you being sarcastic or just very dry?
If a covenant is written that underscores mutual subjection in Christ, it would be difficult for TEC as a province to sign on. Gregory Cameron offered a very persuasive endorsement at the covenant discussion in NYC at GTS. Still, 85% there seemed dismissive. Now that could be boilerplate brinksmanship, and when the time comes, the covenant would be signed — but only if it were robbed of all force. At present, the resistance inside TEC is palpable, as if covenanting is in the nature of the case ‘unanglican’ (Cameron shrewdly reminded TEC how often the word appears in formal linkages presently active in TEC). A covenant that focusses on mutual subjection would preserve what is usually meant by a word like Communion. States-rights polity historically with an ever increasing CEO centralisation is the way of TEC (inherently unstable). As it increases its own centralisation claims (asserting these, because without warrant or historical precedent) it ironically claims the Communion cannot have anything comparable: not even a covenant of mutual subjection. The key is then to make sure a covenant like this emerges and if TEC cannot abide by it, let them ‘fast’ as K Grieb argued. I have said all this before and apologise for repeating. But this gives the background on my final remarks. Enlightened episcopalianism — like all such claims in history — ought to accept a special burden and its responsibilities. Postmodernism has found a way to produce pain-free advocacy — pain-free for those in power, but not for the rest of the Communion. Let the Communion then come of age.
PS — when asked what would happen to those like Communion Partners who wished to join and sign the covenant, inside a resistant province, Cameron initially refused to be drawn, but then allowed that the wider covenant partners would likely make critical provision. But much water must pass under the bridge before that…
Dr Seitz-ACI analysis is spot on. Well done. The question however is this: if “enlightened Episcopalianism” is virtually as solipsistic as Dr. Seitz observes, and as many of us have experienced, and if as Dr. Seitz suggests in the concluding paragraph that “Enlightened Episcopalianism” is not likely to wait for the great unwashed and unenlightened orthodox majority in the AC to catch up with them, what meaningful purpose is there in trying to engage in rational scriptural and theological discussion with “Enlightened Episcopalianism”?
Chris Seitz:
It seems to me that the ‘enlightened’ as described in your excellent ACI piece are engaging in a form of gnosticism. Little wonder that it isn’t compatible with orthodox Christianity.
#26 Tertullian deals with this is detail, as I have tried to do in my own writings re: rule of faith. There is a balance. Tertullian realised (as does Hauerwas in our own day) that the Bible will become a place of great sickness in rival interpretating contests. In those instances, appeal to the ‘rule’ was a way to speak of habits in the sacramental context of catholic life. In a divided church, that becomes harder. My colleague Childs wrote a book where he spoke of ‘family resemblance’ of such a character as one plot the respective interpretations of alexandria, antioch, augustine, thomas, luther, certain kinds of modern historical reading, and then even de Lubac and Danielou! But it was also possible to see readings that offended against this, even if at the time, it took time (e.g., Athanasius’ catholic reassertion of Proverbs 8:23 in defense of ‘of one substance’ v Arius: a combination of appeal to the rule of faith and an exegetical set of decisions better tuned to the total witness of scripture, v. Arius’s biblicism). Prudential engagement, with appeal to the plain sense of scripture read canonically, and the rule of faith, both. My own sense of many today is that they stand outside any sense of ‘rule of faith’ as this functioned in the church — even a divided church of Luther and Erasmus.
[blockquote]he just worked for them as a youth[/blockquote]
Enforced conscription equals working for them, huh? Your spinmeistering is appalling and worthy of a Goebbels or Pravda.
[i] Slightly edited.[/i]
-Elf Lady
when Christ himself spoke about these samethings, he speak out of both sides of his mouth. He spoke the Truth. So Kevin #18 who said, ” All of you, don’t you EVER question our faith. We take this just as serioiusly as you do. And we are just as much part of the Body of Christ as you are.” No one questions the depth of your faith, just who or what your faith is in. You can not live against Christ’s commands and be a part of the body of Christ without repentance. Continuing to wallow in the same sin without any hint at change is seperating oneself from God. “Marrying” your gay partner and continuing to live a life of abomination as the Bible calls it certainly is not living a holy life. Call me judgemental if you wish, I am just stating what is written in my Bible. May some of the revisionist should get theirs outif they have one and read it without trying to change what it says. Take the words at plain meaning and you can not help but reach a different conclusion from the GLBT lobby.
The Episcopal Church has no problem with a Covenant that demands mutual submission to Christ; the problem is with requiring submisssion to substitutes for Christ, like man-made interpretations of Holy Scripture.
For the Episcopal Church, submission to Christ implies being open to correction and having to repent; a Covenant that empowers a bureacracy to close off the possibility of correction and repentance fits Kierkegaard’s Scriptural concept of the Demonic. Recall the demons who, confronting the Word Incarnate, demand to be left alone. Precisely that self-satisfied closure to the Spirit is teh Essence of the Demonic.
Seitz-ACI need to ask themselves if they really belive in the Creeds, which open with confession of the Father Omnipotent. Do you belive in the Almighty, a God who is Other, Other, Other–to allude to Isaiah–and Free?
Seitz-ACI,
When you speak of the “Rule of Faith”–presumably alluding to the book of that title on the Apostles Creed, do you Confess that the God referred to Must be Understood as Atemporal, Immutable and utterly Impassible, on pain of Heresy?
If you do not:
how can you credibly claim to share the ancient rule of faith of the catholic church? Have you not copnjured up another god? But then, are you not a revisionist of greater magnitude than one who worships the God of the Creeds, but makes an error about reading the Bible on gays?
If you do:
you turn your back on Barth & Jenson, both of whom are Servants of the new revised version of god–would you not also turn your back on Childs too?
Oh please, Anglican Scotist. Do you seriously believe that the Episcopal Organization is “open to correction” or thinks it has anything for which it needs to repent?
That’s the theology of 815: Epistemic Humility, in very sharp contrast to the tripe from late Wittgenstein peddled by Lindbeck –whose only consistent endpoint is exemplified in the recently departed DZ Phillips–and big fans of Polanyi.
Look–putting theory aside–GC is like Lambeth, capable of reversing itself on legislated theology from meeting to meeting. Both groups have histories of reversals; that’s the price to be paid if you think not having a Pope or magisterium is a greater evil.
Put “unless” for “if” in #34;
the only real alternatives are Rome and Canterbury.
Any Covenant passed can be re-written and revised.
Rule of faith. Regula fidei. In Tertullian, Origen, Clement, Irenaeus.
The rest of your comment is incoherent.
Will someone please explain to me what Anglican Scotist has written? I cannot follow what he said, his references have lost me, and he asks questions which seem to have no referent. A little help here, please. LM
vulcanhammer said:
[blockquote]I cannot fathom the mentality of people who find tolerable in Islam what they cannot stand in Christianity. And I cannot fathom the mentality of reappraisers such as +Chane who have assured us for years that there is no personal devil and yet attack others as demonic.[/blockquote]
I used this recently in a slightly different context:
“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand”
I’m slowly learning that a basic quality of evil is its self-destructiveness. Both of your observations show that Chane is divided against himself. This is clearly self-destructive. I’m not sure if this qualifies as unconscious self-loathing, but perhaps in a way it is.
Here’s a thesis: Evil knows that it is evil. It knows that good eternally reigns over it. But evil forever wants to be supreme. Therefore, it hates itself to some degree because it *is* evil, and therefore cannot overcome good. (I may be out-to-lunch here :^)
#38 (cmsigler): I thought about that verse when writing my comment. In a sense, you bringing it up finished it. Thanks so much.
RE: “I find it hard to have much sympathy for those who’ve been doing the demonizing for much longer. Sorry you got your feelings hurt.”
Kevin Montgomery — I didn’t get my feelings hurt at all. I have to giggle over Chane calling conservatives “demonic” and couldn’t care less what he or you think of me.
RE: “All of you, don’t you EVER question our faith. We take this just as serioiusly as you do. And we are just as much part of the Body of Christ as you are.”
Oh, I don’t question revisionist faith at all. I know quite well you’re serious. And certainly you’re a part of whatever gospel you hold and whatever definition of “Christ” you like.
That’s not really my concern. I’m happy for you to believe whatever you like about whatever you wish.