The document handed out to the Episcopal church’s Lambeth contingent encourages bishops to promote the idea of diversity by using examples from the Bible and scripture.
“God made a diverse creation who reveals many gifts but the same spirit. Jesus calls a diverse witness into being and sends them into witness. St Paul called a diverse church to unity in Christ.”
The document, entitled Lambeth Talking Points, also provides advice for bishops when dealing with journalists: “A good message will reach the audience without giving the media more than they need or can use.”
One US bishop, Keith Ackerman from the diocese of Quincy, said the document was “embarrassing”.
“We should come to Lambeth spiritually prepared, not tactically prepared. It is a clear attempt to dominate the debates we are having and push them in a certain direction.
“The Episcopal church is attempting to manipulate this conference. It was hoping to convince the rest of the Anglican Communion that its innovations should be incorporated and respected.”
Important update: A copy of TEC’s talking points material is here.
And this is surprisng? It’s the way TEC operates. If you want to see real reappraiser organization wait until GC 09.
Every document of the past 20 years emanating from the institution formerly known as ECUSA has been embarrassing, and their content has been increasingly vacuous. No surprise there.
None of this is news, and certainly isn’t surprising…….they’ve been at it since Lambeth ’88, and especially since they ignored Resolution 1.10.
Thanks, once again, to +Ackerman for pointing this out and calling them on it! We need more like him, +Iker, +Duncan, ++Sudan, ++Venables, etc. to keep pointing this “stuff” out–keep it in the public….maybe, just maybe, some “Joe Pew-sitters” will finally get their heads out of the sand and realize what is going on!!!
Strategy is no substitute for godliness.
Let the politicians spin. Let the redeemed of the Lord say so.
What does it say that TEC’s bishops are so theologically illiterate that they need to have “talking points’ to help them articulate their message? What does it say that the talking points themselves contain one logical fallacy after another, and are themselves theologically inane–and apparently those who recommend them are oblivious to this? I hope someone did not pay good money to those who put this nonsense together. If so, they were robbed.
#2–Actually I do know of one really good document from TEC in the past 20 years–the report of the 20/20 Task Force. The group that actually penned the document was headed up by Bishop Gethan Hughes of San Diego. That’s the good news. The bad news is consistent with your take–Louie Crew and the Standing Committee trashed the report and fired Bishop Hughes. Big surprise, huh?
Maybe I shouldn’t start, but it’s a slow day for me. I’ll keep this brief:
[b] Idea Three: [/b] It is hard to see God at work when we are in disagreement.
[i] This document appeals to the context of Galatians 2 and 3 for support, so I will limit my responses to the same text. [/i]
[i] Supporting points: [/i]
1. Even Paul and Peter disagreed. Paul and Peter were in disagreement about the inclusion of those who did not follow the law of the Jews.
[b] [i] Wrong: [/b] [/i] [i] “On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised… and when James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.†(Galatians 2:7-10, ESV) [/i]
[i] Peter lost his nerve and did not stand up for his convictions: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned†(v. 11). [/i]
2. The church continues to participate in God’s reconciling work [implied: even as we disagree as Peter and Paul did], as we have been called from the beginning.
[b] [i] Wrong: [/b] [/i] [i] “But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel…†(v. 14). How can we continue “to participate in God’s reconciling work†when our conduct is not in step with the gospel? [/i]
3. The church has focused on its mission rather than its disagreements in order to remain faithful.
[b] [i] Wrong: [/b] [/i] [i] “For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor (v. 18). O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?†(3:1a). Disagreements that change the substance of the gospel make common mission impossible. To ignore such disagreements is not to be faithful, but unfaithful. [/i]
[b] [i] Conclusion: [/b] [/i] [i] Whatever this “Idea Three†is trying to promote, it cannot do so by appealing to the “disagreement” between Paul and Peter in Galatians. [/i]
William Shontz
Mr. Clay Matthews needs to read the Acts of the Apostles. Peter and Paul did NOT disagree on the inclusion of the Gentiles.
Peter was the first to include gentiles (Cornelius and his family). Peter was the first to speak in defense of inclusion of Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council – before Barnabas and Paul had a chance to explain their work:
[ACTS 15:6 -13] The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up…
#9: Most orthodox Anglicans (like me) would agree with you and believe that the Galatians passage represents Peter [i] backsliding [/i]. Unfortunately, there’s a strong “tradition” in protestant liberal interpretation which questions the historical validity of Acts. Many have argued that Luke, in Acts, is trying to show the Romans that Christians are not anti-Rome. Having someone described as nobly as Cornelius becoming “one of us” would show that.
See how we just keep talking past each other?
William Shontz