Stephen Crittenden: Nonetheless isn’t it important now how the Episcopal church behaves, particularly in relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I mean if the American church is going to go on ordaining more gay bishops, or blessing same-sex unions in California, it’s just going to make Rowan Williams’ task of holding the global communion together more and more impossible.
Jim Naughton: I’m not sure. I mean I think one of the things that GAFCON has done is demonstrate that whatever concessions you make to these folks, they will want more. I mean the notion that we all need to go back to the 1662 Prayer Book and the 39 Articles of Religion from Elizabethan times is kind of whacky, yet that’s at the core of their movement. So we can’t give up enough to please them, and yet retain any kind of identity. Another point that we need to make is that every church in the Anglican communion has its own identity, and its own domestic situation. The Episcopal church would fall apart if it suddenly decided, ‘Oh, you know what? We really don’t mean anything that we said about the full inclusion of gays and lesbians’, it would be institutional suicide. I mean it would be a tremendous betrayal of our own consciences, but it would also be institutional suicide.
No, what Jim Naughton is making clear is that the Episcopal Church will continue to embrace the “truth that will set it free:” — that the gay and lesbian faithful who commit themselves to Christ and to each other are a gift for the Communion to celebrate. The “public immorality” that needs confronting is the dishonesty that is pro forma in most of the communion — and which does far more damage to the common life of the Anglican Communion than all the gay bishops in Christendom.
“So we can’t give up enough to please them .’
Think about that statement. “Give up enough of what?” “Give up enough” of “the Faith once given.” I don’t think so.
I think that he means “give up enough” of the the revolutionary inroads made by the revisionists against or in contradiction to “the Faith once given.”
I think that these are the words of a revolutionary who has gone past the revolutionary adage of “Two steps forward, one step back.” He wants more than that.
The 39 Articles are “whacky”? That would be news to the United Methodist Church, which still honors them and uses a slightly de-Calvinized version as our “Articles of Religion.”
Say, where’s my Ahmanson money, anyhow? I haven’t talked to or worked with or read much of anything put out by an IRD operative since . . . well, Tom Oden doesn’t count, since he was writing his stuff before the IRD came about, but however you slice it, i’m amazed they can be so all encompassing and pervasive and yet keep missing me and mine. Howard, e-mail me, and i’ll give you a snail mail address for the check. Subverting the liberal/progressive agenda in the mainline/oldline churches ain’t cheap, and my wife would love to see a little return on our investment this side of the jewels in our crowns and all that.
Susan – you see it as the “truth that will set it free”. I see you holding people in the bondage of their sexual sin instead of calling them to confess their sins to their Savior and receiving the freedom of absolution from their sexual sin. Completely incompatible theologies.
At least in the LCMS we a proud of our adherence to our 16th century confessions (which are only the doctrines of the church throughout history) instead of calling them “wacky”.
Thanks Kendall — so very true: “Jim Naughton, making clear that “inclusion” means affirmation of public immorality and that the Episcopal Church will instransigently embrace such theology and practice even if it costs the Anglican Common its common life in the process.”
Hmmm. I almost feel badly for the guy. His choices are “institutional suicide” by gunshot (rejecting the authority of the LGBT elite over the church) or a slow and ugly institutional death by attrition.
“…whatever concessions you make to these folks, they will want more.”
This is evidence for my opinion that the core problem in all this mess was that discipline was began far too late.
Besides, isn’t the idea of “concessions” the idea of compromise? Why did the saints die by the thousands over the last 4,000 years? It was because they were convinced that some things can not be compromised. Daniel needn’t have gone to the lions den if only he had made one concession.
The only question (within the Church) for Mr. Naughton is whether the ideas of GAFCON are up for any concessions. History and Holy Scripture tells us that they are not up for concessions.
Don
I thank God (and I mean this seriously) that this former RC agitator for WO, and prominent member of the liberal Jesuit parish of Holy Trinity, Georgetown (DC) found a “religious society” (or “ecclesial community”) congenial to his notions and beliefs. I regret only that many more RCs have not followed him in his chosen path to “the place appointed for him.”
Ms. Russell:
To quote the speaker
“kind of whacky, yet that’s at the core of their movement”
I guess it’s a question of which side’s notions fit the bill….
Incompatible visions, I’m afraid.
We seem to be missing something here–the usual TEC Big Lie. Can any of you tell me one concession TEC, Kate, Gene, Susan et.al have given the orthodox? The answer is “None”. If we had ever gotten any concessions at all, we might be able to hold the Communion together. If Kate had let the people who wanted to leave, (with their property, Susan) go, there probably wouldn’t even be a discussion about Gene at Lambeth. Most of the world would just “ho-hum” the whole thing. But they are intransigent. The good news seems to be that their intransigence may yet have a cost.
It will have a cost. One way or the other, the drum beat is loud and clear. The cost will come soon. Everyone will have a choice to make. TEC is now in a box; this one IS tiny!
A biblical lens for the current iteration of the continuing conflict between the tradition and new insights is Paul’s comments to the Corinthians about eating meat sacrificed to idols. The leadership of General Convention could say something like, “While we think, as Susan Russell says, “that the gay and lesbian faithful who commit themselves to Christ and to each other are a gift for the Communion to celebrate,” and we think that people in same-sex relationships should be ordained in all orders of ministry and their relationships seen as godly and blessed, we recognize that many of our fellow Christians in the Anglican Communion do not think as we do, and for the sake of our koinonia fellowship with the we agree to set aside our preference and conform to their wish that (choose one) a. that the gay and lesbian faithful who commit themselves to Christ and to each other will not be ordained (or b. not be ordained bishop) and that we will not conduct any services to bless their relationships.”
The question of the status of the parishes of other provinces of the Anglican Communion located in the United States (and other dioceses of the Episcopal Church) will be determined by negotiation between the bishops of the dioceses where these parishes are ecclesiastically and physically located. In the mean time as an aid to these negotiations (1) the parishes and their clergy will be invited to diocesan conventions with seat and voice and their clergy will be invited to all Episcopal diocesan events, membership in the Church Pension Fund, and membership in diocesan health insurance programs, (2) all sentences of deposition for abandonment of communion are rescinded and letters dimissory will be issued.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
So the Episcopal Organization is a pseudo-Christian body that is, to paraphrase Lincoln, of the homosexuals, by the homosexuals and for the homosexuals? Thanks, Ms. Russell, for once again demonstrating that there is only one sin left in TEO.
“I mean I think one of the things that GAFCON has done is demonstrate that whatever concessions you make to these folks, they will want more. I mean the notion that we all need to go back to the 1662 Prayer Book and the 39 Articles of Religion from Elizabethan times is kind of whacky, yet that’s at the core of their movement.” No, Jim, what’s REALLY at the core of their movement you’re going to find TOTALLY “whacky,” because what’s at the core of their movement is taking Holy Scripture seriously and understanding it in the same ways that the VAST majority of faithful Christians, living and dead, have understood it. Doesn’t that just blow your mind that people in this day and age REALLY still want take the Bible seriously and don’t twist it and turn it or totally ignore it to suit their own purposes? I think you’re absolutely right, don’t make ANY concessions to these folks! These Christians are VERY dangerous people, they always have been and they always will be. And this “whacky” text that they insist on taking seriously and understanding with due reference to historical understanding of that text is even MORE dangerous. Just ask the early Roman emperors who tried to stamp it out — look what happened to them!
St. Paul gives us a very good picture of how Israel defended itself against the wide spread practice of homosexuality by the pagan cultures that surrounded them. In Romans 1:18-27 he summed it all up in that the deviant sexual behavior, homosexuality, lesbianism, etc. is a result of the total alienation of those cultrues from God. “Although they knew God, they did not adore hom or give him thanks.”
If we go back to Matthew 16:13-19 we see how Christ actually started his Church. He was not including everyone. Even speaking to Peter when Peter rebuked Christ, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Matt 16:23 (KJV)”.
The GLBT dissadents are not of God, they are of men, and an offense to our Lord and Saviour. They are the ones denying the word of God and the authority it contains. They make a mockery of Christianity and dare to call themselves “Christian”. Yes, I am being judgemental. I do not want to walk with someone who is blaspehmous. Let’s call the GLBT agenda what it is BLASPHEMY. I define blasphemy as intentionally insulting and denying the goodness of God, and the good news of his Son, Jesus Christ.. By that it is directly opposed to the respect that is due God. Homosexuality directly challenges God and says that “we know better, and will do as we please, not what pleases God.”
One thing I need to make clear, yes, homosexual people are children of God, they must be ministered to. Like all sinners, which includes every one of us, they need to be called to repentance, and taught to seek reconciliation with God, which denies the practive of homosexuality. Homosexuals can be and are nice people, but they are not following the commands of Christ by their behavior. The leaders of the GLBT dissidents, and yes that includes you Ms. Russell are the blasphemors. They teach the strange and wrong doctirne clothed as a person of God when they in fact represent satan.
Kendall – it doesn’t cost us anything unless we want it to. We mistake our own wrath for God’s. Nobody is forcing anybody to go. Just because I have fixed my patio doesn’t force my neighbor to do the same.
We think that homosexuals are not disordered heterosexuals. It’s not about sin – homosexuals and heterosexuals can sin. Be careful about the term “public immorality.” George Clooney kissing Miss India is public immorality in one place. A man cooking his partner a candlelight dinner isn’t immorality somewhere else.
#13 – Christopher: your statement is does reveal the fantasy of most reasserters. I imaging you think that my church is full of gay Stalinists who force straight people to take public transportation and eat vegetables. When we’re not listening to Holly Near, we’re encouraging kids to listen to Rap and watch family destroying shows like Arrested Development and Desperate Housewives. And when Obama becomes president, we’ll enslave all the white people and force people like you to marry someone gay. That’s our plan.
Really.
Then of curse you could say: “We think that adulterers are not disordered monogamists. It’s not about sin – adulterers and monogamists can sin.”
John Wilkins (#17),
For SNL/Poehler/Meyers intonation, as used in [i]Weekend Update[/i], the punctuation to use is:
Really!?!
🙂
Susan, by your logic, we could embrace any truth that we deem appropriate, and it would set us free. That would mean that any one group could claim any truth it chose and in so doing it would be set free.
The problem with your logic, is that it is socially rather than biblically derived. Our freedom, is certainly one of individual conscience when, and only when, that individual conscience is formed by Scripture and by the WHOLE living community that discerns that Scripture. In our divided state, our whole community at present includes the whole Anglican Communion. In our widest expression of Communion, at Lambeth, we have expressed a discernment of Scripture on the issue of SSB: it is not consonant with God’s will for human sexual relationship and thus for marriage.
The dishonesty then, is in violating a promise of trust that the Episcopal Church made to other members of the Communion. This is not a faithful pursuit of truth; it is rather, an arrogant, self righteous justification for unilateral action borne of a seeming conviction that somehow TEC has (perhaps through a remnant notion of Manifest Destiny) been given a prophetic vision greater than the ‘lesser’ members of the Communion.
We are accepted where we are because we are all sinners. But, and this is the key point, we are called to transformation that takes place only when we give ourselves up to being shaped and formed by God’s will and his law. Being made free, as Romans 1 and Mark 10 and Romans 8:4 point out, is not being given a freedom to be affirmed in who we are; rather we have been made free by Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection so that we might be made free to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law rather than living according to our sinful nature. God has set forth throughout all of Scripture, but beginning most particularly in Genesis, his intent for intimate human relationships. The act of homosexuality has been condemned as an act that is according to our sinful nature throughout all of Scripture.
So you’re right Susan, “only the truth will set us free.” But the truth of which you speak is a particular truth, not one defined by our own particular ideologies. It is truth that takes the form and shape of Jesus Christ who gave himself for the sake of ALL of his sheep because this truth was according to God’s will and his law as proclaimed by the OT Scriptures.
But we are not Jesus Christ; we do not live in relationship with the Father through our own accord. We live only through Christ and so we must take this same shape and form and realize that the shape and form is manifest through His body: the Church. Our limit therefore, in proclaiming our own truths, is the Word of God discerned by our whole (albeit fractured) Church. One is not called to give of themselves for the sake of social acceptance; rather one is called to give of themselves for the sake of following God’s law. God’s law (His limit) and his Gospel (His freedom) must go hand-in-hand in how we live our lives.
The truth as you have proclaimed it, is simply your own idolatrous, individualistic, and autonomous social conscience. You want to respond to a truth of sexual and marital relationships between homosexual members of the Church; but this is not how God has intended relationships to be.
Don’t think for a moment that I don’t understand the pain and agony of believing that it is my very nature to be something only to be told by the Church that I cannot act according to what I perceive my nature to be. I will not go into details; but I understand this calling only too well. However, my true nature does not reside in creation or in me; it resides only in Jesus Christ and it is to his Cross that I must look when I decide how to act. It is to his Cross that I must look to be formed into my true being. Is this painful: hell yes it is. It is often agony, it is often draining mentally and emotionally. But this is what it means to carry our crosses; to be shaped and formed according to God’s purposes, not our own. And we are called to this sacrifice because we are called to hope in Christ; not to hope in our own still frail, incomplete, imperfect and very broken selves. Redemption is not in us; it is not in our self delusions and so not in following our own ideas of what is right.
Susan, what damages the life of this Communion most, is when some of its members, few in number but great in resources, makes autonomous decisions that make others lose their ability to trust in any form of relationship. This damages the life of the Communion because it makes nearly impossible, the vocation of the Church: mission. How can we engage in mission, how can we grow in fellowship with no trust between one another, and most particularly with no trust from the outside world to whom we minister? How do our actions appear to the world outside our parishes? I’ll give you a hint, in my generation (under 30), most think the Anglican Church to be full of stuffy, judgmental, angry, narcissistic, grey heads who are more concerned with their own situations of power, influence and social justice than with communicating the gospel of Christ (hence the success of “Churches for people who don’t like Church). Well now there’s a great witness; let’s drive all of our young people away by trying to on one hand, to compete with the market by enabling affirmation of all types, putting on ‘entertainment shows’ in our parishes and doing deeds of social justice that pale in comparison to any secular organization, and on the other hand, to create an internal environment of such mistrust that a generation that already trusts no one and nothing simply decides to check out the next shopping mall (ie should it be Roman Catholicism today, or perhaps some Pentecostal, maybe something with some tradition and authenticity – how about the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Finally Susan, without Christ and our discernment of his will across the whole Church in time and space, without sticking to our promises, we’re but another choice on the market of churches with nothing to proclaim except a false gospel. So please Susan, recognize that the truth you believe will set you free is simply a relative truth that resides in your own self perceptions of right and wrong. The truth of Christ sets us free; but only free insofar as we are bound to the glorious ways the Lord has so graciously given us.
Well, John, your side did shove Gene Robinson down the throats of the rest of the Anglican Communion(which under the rules of the Anglican game made him an Anglican bishop) in spite of the fact that the Communion didn’t buy your “theological arguments.” Nobody on your side, least of all Robbie, has displayed the least bit of humility through this controversy that your side and your side alone caused.
Really.
RE: “We mistake our own wrath for God’s.”
Oh well, John Wilkins might. But we don’t, since we have scripture as a sure guide as to what actions evoke God’s wrath as well as condemnation too.
RE: “George Clooney kissing Miss India is public immorality in one place.”
Right but unlike John Wilkins, you know, we’re talking about truth for all time and in all places — God’s truth — but you know, that’s a gospel that John Wilkins and reasserters don’t share.
Which is why our church is so much at war, and will continue to for many decades.
Two antithetical and opposing gospels in one organization will certainly create conflict.
The Church should be laying hands on self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinners for the purpose of healing, certainly NOT for the purpose of conferring Holy Orders. Those who are presently in Holy Orders and yet are self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinners, can repent. Those who choose not to should resign and retire.
I think one of the things that liberal theology has done is demonstrate that whatever concessions the orthodox make to these folks, the liberals will want more. I mean, the notion that we all need to ignore Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, the 1662 Prayer Book, and the 39 Articles of Religion is kind of whacky (if not outright heresy), yet that’s at the core of their movement. So we can’t give up enough to please them, and yet retain any kind of identity as Christians. Another point that we need to make is that every church in their version of Anglican communion should have its own identity, and its own domestic situation, justifying their approach to cafeteria Christianity. The Episcopal church would come together if it suddenly decided, ‘Oh, you know what? We really don’t mean anything that we said about selectively ignoring Holy Scripture’; not to do this would be institutional suicide. I mean it would be a tremendous relief for our own consciences; otherwise it would also be institutional suicide.
Naughton is a hireling.
Period.
I thought that Susan Russell was in mourning and would possibly not have time to blog.
Kendall+,
Your editor’s comment:
[blockquote]
–Jim Naughton, making clear that “inclusion” means affirmation of public immorality and that the Episcopal Church will intransigently embrace such theology and practice even if it costs the Anglican Common its common life in the process.
[/blockquote]
My fear is that, because T19 threads appear in reverse chronological order, many, if not most, of those commenting in this thread missed what you rightly said in the previous thread re the comments on the Windsor Continuation Group by the Bishop of Iowa:
[blockquote]
Once again, it needs to be stated in the strongest possible terms that ministering among gay and lesbian people, and enabling the church to be accessible to such people, which is a good thing, is NOT the issue. Rowan Williams hit the nail on the head when he said:
[i] Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes – which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society – there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, [b]this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against[/b] – and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.[/i]
[/blockquote]
Inasmuch as a number of the commenters here have identified themselves as being Christians not in the Anglican tradition, I would like to reiterate that The Episcopal Church
1. has never authorized rites for ss unions.
2. has, in B033 at the General Convention of 2006, effected a moratorium on the ordination of gay bishops.
The closest thing to a theological statement by TEC on these matters is the [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/theologycomreport.pdf]March 2003 Report[/url] of the House of Bishops Theology Committee, that presents a position of dividedness.
The statement you quoted from Archbishop Rowan Williams represents a consensus, short of unanimity, in the Anglican Communion in light of the preponderant majority that voted in favor of Resolution I.10 at the 1998 Lambeth Conference.
Your use of the phrase “public immorality” is controversial in the Anglican Communion because it is a matter of debate whether or not the “moral commandments”, as opposed to the “civil precepts”, in the understanding of the [i]Articles of Religion[/i], number 7, cover, for example, Leviticus 18:22:
[blockquote]
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman kind: it is abomination.
[/blockquote]
More importantly, it is a matter of debate in the entire Christian community how Leviticus 18:22 and other similar admonitions comport with the understanding of the Summary of the Law, rooted in the Old Testament, taught by Jesus, that is held by all Christians to be the foundation of Christian ethics, should the Church come, in its wisdom, to understand some of God’s children to have been made differently.
The liberals have advanced their causes over the years with little regard to what it does to anybody (except of course, what it does to themselves). They have pushed and pushed, have bent and broken canons in the name of their causes, and now that conservatives have finally said “enough” they are indignant. This perpetual adolescence has hurt many churches, and even nations and groups of people (look at what the sexual revolution has done to some inner city neighborhoods). But the bottom line, is that it is about them, and nobody else. Frankly, it does not surprise me anymore that the most most exclusive, ill-informed, passive-aggressive, and condescending comments come from those who are all about so-called inclusion.
Mr Naughton said,
“The Episcopal church would fall apart if it suddenly decided, ‘Oh, you know what? We really don’t mean anything that we said about the full inclusion of gays and lesbians’, it would be institutional suicide”.
And yet, what about the actual TRACK RECORD of these valued people? What has Robinson done/accomplished in New Hampshire? What of the Rev. Dr. Cythia Black, the failed dean of the bankrupted, evacuated, and sold cathedral in Michigan? If THIS bright light had spent more of her time being the dean of that cathedral, and less time being a part-time LGBT Activist, would things have been different? Here’s the Rev. Dr. Black doing what she does best…documenting activist priorities at Lambeth for the liberal cause. (Thanks to Susan Russell’s blog which never wastes a moment documenting such).This is the kind of activity that kept Ms. Black away from securing her own cathedral’s future.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_rvaAL1L_55s/SIw5JMDdnvI/AAAAAAAADxE/SQKQxrN2nPE/s1600-h/011cynthia.photog..JPG
Uh, Jim Naughton,
you said something about institutional suicide if we lost people like this?
RE: “I would like to reiterate that The Episcopal Church
1. has never authorized rites for ss unions. . . . ”
Nice sophistic language there, but the Episcopal Church’s General Convention acknowledged that same sex blessings were within the bounds of our common life, and as such were acceptable. 20 or more bishops have given permission for same sex blessings in their dioceses.
RE: “Your use of the phrase “public immorality†is controversial in the Anglican Communion because it is a matter of debate whether or not the “moral commandmentsâ€, as opposed to the “civil preceptsâ€, in the understanding of the Articles of Religion, number 7, cover, for example, Leviticus 18:22”
LOL.
No it’s not.
The moral law was repeated in the New Testament, by Jesus, by the letters to the churches, and by the Council in Jerusalem.
RE: “More importantly, it is a matter of debate in the entire Christian community how Leviticus 18:22 and other similar admonitions comport with the understanding of the Summary of the Law, rooted in the Old Testament, taught by Jesus, that is held by all Christians to be the foundation of Christian ethics, should the Church come, in its wisdom, to understand some of God’s children to have been made differently.”
Well, no it’s not.
It’s not “a matter of debate” in the least. The moral law, expressed in the NT, is perfectly compatible with the first and greatest commandment, as well as the second.
And not only “some” of God’s children have been “made differently” but [i]all[/i] of God’s children have been made differently, each with their own distinct personalities, backgrounds, genetic pre-dispositions, and proclivities to all sorts and conditions of temptation to sin. It’s certainly not merely those with same-gender sexual attraction who have “different” temptations, but all human beings.
# 26
Are you advocating that we continue to debate the issue when a clear majority of the Church has made a statement of discernment by which all, even those who disagreed, agreed to abide? How does this work out practically? I mean in terms of our life together? How can we trust one another in any future decision-making?
Are you advocating that God has made certain individuals to be homosexual and that therefore these individuals are a natural part of God’s creation and that against Genesis, Leviticus and several Pauline Epistles, God has two plans for the consummation of human relationship: hetero and homosexual sex? Then where is the biblical affirmation, or where is the pattern of biblical and so theological affirmation of homosexual relationship? I don’t wish to be fundamentalist or to be propositional in my reading of Scripture; but I would like to know how a case might be made other than the standard – affirmation and acceptance of all – for these ideas must be qualified by an argument from Scripture, not simply general, relative, social and political constructs.
[blockquote]The Episcopal church would fall apart if it suddenly decided, ‘Oh, you know what? We really don’t mean anything that we said about the full inclusion of gays and lesbians’, it would be institutional suicide. I mean it would be a tremendous betrayal of our own consciences, but it would also be institutional suicide.[/blockquote]
And is the Episcopal Church strong and healthy now? Where are all of the millions VGR and the gang predicted would join the church if the “new thing” was implemented? Fall apart, indeed. It’s falling apart now and they don’t wish to acknowledge that.
I hope that rhetoric like this gets our moderate bishops and faithful off the fence. Naughton and Co. are acting as if the entire Episcopal Church is committed to their agenda. How dare he speak for “the institutional church” when he clearly is speaking only for a faction of it. Even though this faction WANTS us to leave, many of us won’t and we won’t accept their innovations. As long as parishes can call their own rectors and dioceses can call their own bishops, they cannot force us to accept and implement their goals and innovations.
I believe Kendall’s characterization of Jim Naughton’s theology was borrowed from those who opposed the abolition of slavery and full status for women in American society and in the Episcopal Church.
Here he has reverted to a theology of body parts (who does what with which body parts) rather than a theology of relationships. What, Kendall, is immoral in these relationships? St. Paul, when set beside the ethics of Jesus, was right in Galatians 5 in judging people and relationships by the presence of the Holy Spirit in them. He was wrong in his Hugh Hefner/Playboy Philosophy judgments about body parts. Again, what is immoral in these relationships, knowing what we know about fidelity, mutuality and loving relationships?
This is my third attempt to post this — I began right after the Rightmeyer post.
#30
How has the act of dissenting from a decision arrived at by a large majority, and agreed to by all at Lambeth 98 been an act of fidelity, mutuality and love toward those to whom the Episcopal Church made a promise?
Furthermore, are you suggesting with the following quote, “St. Paul, when set beside the ethics of Jesus, was right in Galatians 5 in judging people and relationships by the presence of the Holy Spirit in them. He was wrong in his Hugh Hefner/Playboy Philosophy judgments about body parts,” that we can pick and choose which parts of Scripture we wish to adhere to and follow? I will refrain from commenting until you clarify.
Christopher –
Which theological argument didn’t they buy? Oh – that a bishop can be elected by the laity. That’s the problem – lay people thinking for themselves. Unfortunately, we’re a democratic denomination. Who intends to enslave the rest of the Anglican communion, by insisting not only that Episcopalians in New Hampshire have a gay bishop, but that everyone else in the world has to deal with Episcopalians in New Hampshire having a gay bishop they elected. And in this way, we will force people in the rest of the world to read the internet and follow every thing Gene Robinson does. We will force people to approve of him at the altar of churches in New Hampshire, and when they visit, they will not be allowed to go to a Roman Catholic Church.
Brother Michael, thanks for sharing, but your categories are mixed up. Gay people can be adulterers, as can straight people. Both can be monogamous. You seem to forget that the central aspect of marriage is the nature of making a promise to someone else. I wonder why such an act is more trivial to reasserters than genital activity.
Sarah – I’m glad that you are sure of God’s wrath because the bible tells you so. Perhaps, someday, would will not finish reading at Romans 1:32 and continue to 2:5 and meditate upon them. You are guilty of the same things. Paul is quite a rhetorician there, leading us up, getting us all angry about other sexually immoral persons, and then saying – you are guilty also. You just didn’t know it. So stop being judgmental.
Fortunately, Jesus did not hate the Pharisees, but he did have a critique of them. Hm – and as far as truth for all time, I do believe in his truth for all time. But the gospel has shown me a reason not to be worried about my soul, nor about yours. Nor about +Gene’s.
Perhaps some day you will learn what this means: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”
Aside from the fact that you’ve just given the okay for Episcopalians to sleep with anyone they care to(that bit about “relationships” is an Episcopal pick-up line, for crying out loud), I have to admit that correcting an Apostle is pretty gutsy, Tom.
John, if you are allegedly a member of an international communion of churches, why should the rest of the world be held hostage to your polity? Particularly being “democratic” is not a theological argument. New Hampshire stuffed Gene Robinson down the throats of the Anglican Communion. Under the rules of the Anglican game, the old fraud became an Anglican bishop and no Anglican in this country or around the world was allowed to opt out. If the Anglican Communion breaks apart, it will be entirely the fault of the Episcopalians, spurious issues like “boundary crossing” notwithstanding.
Man up and deal with it.
John, not if adultery is an orientation. In which case an adulterer is not sinning if he or she is true to his or her orientation. An commitment is simply an unnatural imposition on their natural inclinations.
But seriously, John is the voice of liberal TEC. His is the voice that will carry GC 2009. John’s arguments and theology is representative of TEC. Do we really want to be in communion with this?
#33,
[blockquote]
Aside from the fact that you’ve just given the okay for Episcopalians to sleep with anyone they care to(that bit about “relationships†is an Episcopal pick-up line, for crying out loud), I have to admit that correcting an Apostle is pretty gutsy, Tom.
[/blockquote]
“sleep with anyone they care”:
Tom did not say that at all.
“Episcopal pick-up line”:
Could you explain what you mean? As far as I know, Tom is not yet a bishop. 🙂
John, even if (and I don’t agree that it is) the AC were a “democratic denomination,” then the Episcopal church’s failure to adhere to a “democratically” derived decision of its people (Lambeth 98) is an autonomous decision that spits in the face of and destroys the trust necessary for relationship with other members of the Communion; and so too does it destroy our vocation of witness. You cannot evangelize to those who don’t trust you.
How typically and arrogantly American to think that our decisions to break relationships of trust by our unilateral actions for the ‘good of all’ are in fact right and just. We do it in politics and world affairs and we have coopted that same mentality in our practice of faith. I say this having been born and currently living outside of the United States and observing how the world views our country.
We are a Communion first. That means our individual polity is limited by a discernment of the Word of God across our whole Church. Your “democratic” local action should not violate the movement of the whole Church. If you insist upon ordering yourself in such a manner, then simply declare that you no longer wish to be a part of the whole Church with which you don’t agree. I don’t believe this is the correct response; however, our lives are bound by a Scriptural discernment by the whole Church, not by particular groups within it. If you cannot accept this limitation on your particular discernment, then no one can force you to accept it: go then and the Lord be with you in your discernment of his grace, and of his laws.
Br. Michael (#36),
[blockquote]
not if adultery is an orientation.
[/blockquote]
Rather than being disingenuous, I suppose this is biting satire. I don’t see how it can possibly contribute to the unity of the Church (though I don’t know what church you come from).
[blockquote]Here he has reverted to a theology of body parts (who does what with which body parts) rather than a theology of relationships. What, Kendall, is immoral in these relationships? [/blockquote]
Unfortunately, Tom, what the Bible condemns has to do with body parts and, if you don’t mind me saying so, revisionists such as yourself are the ones obsessed with them. The vast majority of us mossbacks have no issue with gays’ sexual orientation or the winds that blow in their hearts. What we, and Scripture, find sinful is homosexual acts.
Where we part company, Tom, is where we say homosexuals can and must desist from engaging in them because of their sinfulness and where you say they cannot do so, thus reducing them to some level of rutting animals. Nay, you go even further in declaring that, because homosexuals cannot refrain from homosexual acts, these are thereby “natural” and therefore blessed by God and not sinful.
Stabill, and I return the compliment, I am using their own arguments. Unity built on lies is no unity. Scripture mandates sex between the genders. Commitment is secondary.
It’s kind of like two murderes arguing about the most Christian way to kill their victim. The Christian would say that you don’t kill them, but they are past that. They want to do it humanily and without guilt.
The homosexuals are beyond the original sin of same sex sex. They want to do it a way that is pleasing to God. But there is no way.
John, and you I think you, promote this. You want to set aside God’s command and do the prohibited thing, in a Godly way. That does not compute.
Optimus Prime: You pick and choose Scripture by elevating Romans 1 (and that out of context) over Galatians 5, over Paul’s writings about Law and Grace (you are sticking with Law here) and Jesus’ own statements on what kinds of behavior represents the kingdom and the antithesis of the kingdom (Matthew 5, Matthew 25 – no reflection of Romans 1 there).
Second, Lambeth 1.10 was not “agreed upon by all.” It was a compromise and several bishops voted for it because the alternative available was much, much worse. Many repented of their votes after Lambeth. Also, in our polity the bishops, alone, do not have the authority to define doctrine — Lambeth 1.10 is only advisory and most “orthodox” have thumbed their nose at most of it anyway (they like to pick and choose).
Majority does not make right in the church. Remember “who would you release to me — Jesus or Barabbas?” Majority rule in the communion would not have allowed us to proclaim full partnership of men and women in marriage — do you want to go back?
In the Episcopal Church we move forward through discernment – and the discernment has not gone your way. That does not mean it is wrong.
Let me remind you all that arguing with John is like arguing with Susan. Since they start with the agenda as the conclusion, then all evidence must be oriented to lead to it. It is of little importance with the evidence can survive examination. It follows that debate is as unproductive as it is unsound. AS you can all see from the above, no arguement, however sound, can produce an effect contrary to the agenda. All True Believers are like this, whether of left or right. They are unshakable in their own certainties, so that it is best to leave them alone with them. A sound church is not for everyone; it is not inclusive in the TEC sense at all. There is of necessity a core doctrine from which all standards are derived. For us, the source is scripture. For them, it is the Agenda. Deng is quite right; we do not need them or want them because their presence falsifies scripture at is most basic level. LM
#37,
Tom did too. If “judgments about body parts” are wrong, as per the Apostle Tom, then then I can freely boink anyone’s body parts I care to. All I have to do is work in the one about how “spiritual” our “relationship” is and I’m in like Flynn.
I am disappointed by so much misrepresentation — of loyal Episcopalians, of canon law and of Scripture, itself!
Christopher, correcting Paul is no big deal. He does it himself. Contrast Romans 1 with his teaching about Law and Grace — and with his universalism in Colossians — and with his discussion in Galatians 5 about discerning the marks of the Holy Spirit in human behavior. “Orthodox” – 1 TEC – 3.
There are also those wonderful passages in Romans where Paul quickly reverses himself: “Shall we sin the more, that grace may abound?” followed by “me genoito” (I’ve got to be out of my gourd).
Further, NH didn’t impose Gene Robinson on anyone! Take a look at canon law. He was elected fairly. His election was certified and permission to consecrate him was granted by majorities of clergy, lay and bishops at General Convention after extensive prayer and debate. And. . . .in the Episcopal Church no bishop may perform any episcopal act in another diocese without that bishop’s express permission. Bishop Robinson cannot officiate at a wedding in Vermont without that bishop’s permission. Same for overseas. Would you say that Peter Akinola was imposed on the rest of the Anglican Communion? He is a far greater embarassment that Gene will ever be — encouraging violence against some of his diocese???
Br. Michael — you have a curious notion of communion. If you are only going to be in communion with those who agree with you, that is a far different notion than traditional Anglicanism and way, way different from the life of the early church. Have fun with yourself.
I think your notion of adultery as an “inclination” is kind of screwy. Episcopalians like me believe it is wrong for many reasons, including that it violates the Commandments against adultery and against stealing. If it is in our genes or is a natural inclination, it is something which we are to resist. Pin it on yourself if you want, but you may not pin it on loyal TEC people.
Optimus (38) You have it wrong. Within the Anglican Communion, provinces have had relative autonomy. We have not lectured the Southern Cone or the Nigerians because they are separate provinces. This jumping all over TEC is something new.
Jeffersonian: Please do not misrepresent me. I nowhere have said that homosexual people cannot help themselves from acting out sexually. I don’t know where you got that — not from me. If they find the kind of love Jesus and others in the New Testament have held up as holy and as blessed by the Holy Spirit, why should Paul’s words (brief as they are — and coming from a man who was certainly conflicted about sexual matters) trump Jesus?? and the author of the Johanine epistles??
And (41) “Scripture mandates sex between the genders?” Wow! I fear for the single people who are not involved sexually with anyone else. I do not know how you make the jump from Paul’s teaching to a commandment of God. Is that like Paul’s admonition to women to cover their heads in worship is a commandment of God? Who gives you permission to choose one and not the other?? Isn’t it better to interpret Paul through the teaching and witness of Jesus? Oh well.
Not only those of tender conscience, but equally or more importantly [i]future generations[/i], in other words children and those yet to be born, could be held hostage by the peculiar polity TEC claims and by its supposed ‘discernment’ of the Holy Spirit’s leading (heretofore still completely unsupported by any cogent theological or biblically based case made by them) regarding same gender relationships. Beyond the implications for people struggling to find their place and God’s ways in today’s world is the significance of the witness that will be made by them (us!) to all who will come after.
So we can continue to demonize loving and faithful homosexual couples into the future? This is not good news for the Jesus who reached past the purity laws to embrace those the religious establishment had demonized. Probably the governing Biblical text for your sentiments, TACit, is “Jesus wept.”
Of course there are theological and Biblical justifications for the position TEC has taken. If you want to read them, look up the passages I have cited earlier or go to: http://www.episcopalmajority.blogspot.com and read “The Undermining of the Episcopal Church” in four parts. There is plenty of other quality stuff there. You may not agree with it, but it is well researched and probably the kind of theological and Biblical reflection you will like.
WBWSanteFe: First, Romans 1 read in conjunction and Mark 10. Furthermore, in Galatians 5, Paul is not addressing law and grace in general; rather he is speaking specifically about circumcision. You cannot simply use your argument from Galatians to abolish Romans 8:1-8 which is speaking in general terms about being set free from the power of sin that prevented one from following God’s law. In this case Paul is saying, the law is a good thing; he is vindicating the law as something that Christ has enabled us, through his death and resurrection, to follow. Law and grace are not an either/or. They must go hand-in-hand. I am not saying that we are justified [i]because[/i] we follow the law; rather I am saying we have been justified [i]in order that we might be able[/i] to follow the law. That is a rather important distinction. Yes Paul is in Galatians 5 making the point that we are not justified by following the law. “Circumcision nor uncircumcision have no value;” true enough it is by faith that we are justified through our acts of love that are summed up in the commandment that we should love our neighbor as ourself. Now what could that mean? That we should accept all? Yes, surely it does because God has. But then in acceptance, we are also called to giving up ourselves to God’s conformance of us by submitting ourselves to the whole of Scripture and through the discernment of that Word by the Church (His body). And this very notion is confirmed in the passage you refer to: v 13: You my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge in the sinful nature (which throughout Scripture would include – amongst other things of course – homosexual sex); rather serve one another in love (that is self giving for the sake of the other, and the whole other, not just a piece of the church which supports your particular ideology – see Jn 21:15-19.
So we should be restricted to using these two passages in our interpretation of God’s will? Does that mean we can throw the rest of Scripture out? Try reading Romans 1 with those passages.
You are correct, Lambeth does not have juridical power: we are not Rome. Rather it speaks to where the mind of the churches of our Communion, represented by those who are supposed to represent the faithful of their dioceses, is at in our discernment of Scripture. Disregarding where the ‘mind’ of the Communion is at has required us to develop a Covenant with more juridical force given that the autonomous local action of members of TEC has destroyed trust and relationship within the Communion, as well as pushing us further away from our ecumenical partners.
‘Conservatives’ have thumbed their nose at what exactly? The circumstances that have come out of mistrust and frustration at a resource rich, arrogant, self righteous few who claim to be ‘looking out’ for and proclaiming the real truth to the millions of ‘ignorant Anglicans’ in developing countries? I certainly don’t agree with their actions; but I do understand their pain and frustration.
No majority does not make right; what makes right is God. God’s shaping and forming of us, all of us, across time. The more we choose autonomous actions that alienate us from one another, the more we divide and the more we are cast into the darkness of our own idolatrous shadow. This goes for both the liberal and conservative wings of our Church. So to make a decision that declares local option and autonomy of choice, is to choose an option that both destroys the God given gift of his Church in its capacity for discernment through time of God’s Word.
Am I arguing for majority rules? Well perhaps. What is the alternative in our divided state? Is it possible that the Spirit is leading us all to different truths that happen to coincide with our latest cultural/social justice movements? I have argued this before in another context on this board and I will put it forward once again, in our division, it is perfectly possible that we are not being guided by the Spirit at all. That we have stepped so deeply into our own shadows that we cannot even see the light. So what shall we do? Well perhaps it begins with taking our own little chunk of Christianity that we live through the Anglican Communion, and stop making decisions to shred our chunk into individual strands. Does this mean majority rules? I don’t know. All I know is that at present I don’t see a lot of options; if majority doesn’t rule and we all go our own ways of truth, we’ll find neither it, nor the unity that is necessary to find it. God didn’t give his Spirit to the individual for their own purposes; he gave his Spirit to the Church and so to individuals who serve the whole Church, not just pieces of it.
In the Anglican Communion, of which you are apart, we move forward through discernment of Scripture – and the discernment of Scripture has not gone your way. That does not mean you can ‘do your own thing;’ nor does it mean the disernment is wrong.
Actually, I don’t believe I have it wrong. “Relative” autonomy means autonomy within the limits of Communion. Diversity within, not in place of unity. What is the point of our Communion if diversity, expressed as local autonomous actions on issues that affect all is the cornerstone of our Church?
For whom is “jumping all over TEC” new?
[blockquote]Jeffersonian: Please do not misrepresent me. I nowhere have said that homosexual people cannot help themselves from acting out sexually. I don’t know where you got that—not from me. If they find the kind of love Jesus and others in the New Testament have held up as holy and as blessed by the Holy Spirit, why should Paul’s words (brief as they are—and coming from a man who was certainly conflicted about sexual matters) trump Jesus?? and the author of the Johanine epistles?? [/blockquote]
Because the Pauline books are specific, the others more vague. If I tell my kids they can go to the pool and to have fun, but don’t push each other into the pool, they have no defense if they do push each other into the pool because it’s the fun I wished upon them.
And if you (read: revisionists) believe that those predisposed to homosexual urges can restrain themselves from acting on such urges, why doesn’t someone tell the partnered homosexuals seeking ordination and/or consecration that they must do so as a condition for acquiring and maintaining such status?
#42: “Majority does not make right in the church.”
#45: “Further, NH didn’t impose Gene Robinson on anyone! Take a look at canon law. He was elected fairly.”
You just can’t make this stuff up.
optimus prime, welcome, You can preach covenant all day. But TEC is going to do what it wants and tell you to stuff it. So what are you going to do about it? See 45 above.
And TBWSantaFe, I’ll be perfectly happy without you.
Br. Michael, thank you for the welcome. First, I am going to pray for them. Then I am going to say, as I have been saying all along (see post 38 in particular of this thread), the Covenant offers a way forward that limits our autonomy. If one can not abide by that, it is their decision and peace be with them in their choice. I don’t believe we should seek our own truths and I think that dividing is detrimental to our faith and witness; but there are limitations of truth and ecclesial discernment by which we must abide and if one determines they cannot live within these limits, I will pray for them. This goes for liberals and conservatives. I have not changed my thinking or my theological argument; I have stood here all along.
If TEC wishes to act autonomously and not to enter into the relationship called for by the Covenant – then so be it. But the step of division should be their own to make. I do not believe that we ‘conservatives’ act with faith in choosing to walk apart from this call to relationship. Again, as I have said all along, I do not expect the far left (many members of TEC) or the far right, to sign onto the Covenant.
Br. Michael, I know people in the liberal camp anger you; in many of the statements they make, and the way in which they make them, they anger me too. But we are all sinners called to care for and love our enemies (and those with whom we disagree theologically). To rejoice in division (or hoped division) is not an act of faith; it is an act of fear and cowardice. You seem a man who seeks to live in faith; then live as you were called to by Christ with an open heart and mind. Yes, do indeed engage in vigorous debate, but do so with love, charity, patience; engage in actually living your faith please.
Br. Michael in our encounters thus far, your posts have been full of anger, aggression and fear. I am sorry that your pursuit of a truthful expression of your faith has led you to this sort of witness.
I think we stand on the same side of the fence; but I do wish that you would listen with ears to hear, with charity and with compassion. It might make our exchanges and perhaps the learning opportunities for others, more fruitful. Christianity is not a game to be won; it is a life that we must live together until Christ comes again. We will be shaped until then by God through time and through the Church regardless of our paltry efforts; we do not have to cling so tightly that it causes us and others to stumble. I will continue to pray for you Br. Michael.
I think if I were to adopt the kind of hermeneutic on display from the progressives in this thread then my first conclusion would be that Scripture is pervasively unreliable. My second thought would be, if it is unreliable in just this way, perhaps it is wrong about Jesus, or about God’s relation to creation. In other words, the very leeway one gains to dismember Scripture on human sexuality would lead me to lose faith.
driver8, you make a good point. That is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through some of the posts. 19th-21st century biblical criticism leading to mass exodus from the Church repeated once again. Hmm… or perhaps just continued with some post-modern all truth is relative twists?
optimus prime (#28),
[blockquote]
Then where is the biblical affirmation, or where is the pattern of biblical and so theological affirmation of homosexual relationship? I don’t wish to be fundamentalist or to be propositional in my reading of Scripture; but I would like to know how a case might be made other than the standard – affirmation and acceptance of all – for these ideas must be qualified by an argument from Scripture, not simply general, relative, social and political constructs.
[/blockquote]
If you wish to view me as an advocate, then view me as an advocate for the position of TEC but not as an advocate for various caricatures of positions it has actually taken. Bear in mind that I do not see, as I indicated at #24, that its institutional position is sufficiently formed to support positions advocated by many of its stellar leaders.
Of course, there is no biblical affirmation. I shall repeat what I said in an earlier thread.
The Anglican method of theology, going back to Richard Hooker, is Scripture, reason, and tradition in that order. Even the Roman Church, since the time under Pope John Paul II when the encyclical [i]Fides et Ratio[/i] was issued, understands that there is unity of God’s truth as discerned in the Holy Scriptures and scientific truth, correctly perceived.
The reappraiser position, to the extent that it has merit, as I understand it, is grounded only in reason. The idea of ss preference as innate is absolutely off the road map of Scripture. Whereas ss behavior as a matter of choice is addressed at various points in Scripture, ss behavior as a response to innate ss orientation is simply not addressed in Scripture.
If it develops that the Church in its councils comes to understand that ss preference is innate for some, then the Church must rely on reason rather than Scripture or tradition to chart its response for the future. Granted that, the future course does not strike me as obvious.
This is what I understand as the Anglican way.
#44 – as far as “boinking” other people’s body parts…. I’ve heard that people in heterosexual, married, relationships might just to other kinds of “playing” than the missionary position. I mean… not every… *ahem*… pleasurable act between two people is procreative. But I’ve also heard that women get turned on when men do chores around the house.
So I’ve heard.
Brother Michael, I admit, if adultery is an orientation – which is very imaginative – then I probably have to rethink my view and you are right. I’ve not seen adulterers join as a group, or identify themselves as such… but I suppose they would be part of the set that … gets divorced. I continue to admit some bewilderment at the idea that homosexuals are of the same set as murderers that most of you seem to indicate. Granted, it is possible that I have not met the same homosexuals that you have. And if they are like murderers, then not only should we ban it, we should jail them. I’m just a bit more skeptical than you are. Perhaps there was a gay person who tried to murder you in the past.
I would also say that Paul seemed not to like sex at all.
I also admire that you’ve created another new category: beyond the original sin of same-sex sex. I admit, I’m not clear what activities you are speaking of for I’m unfamiliar with what gay sex is. I don’t have such an active fantasy life. I imagine that it might be like what straight people do, but between two men. Unless you reduce a relationship to its Pr0n.
Larry, I don’t get a lot of argument. I get “the bible says homosexual sex is a sin and that’s that. You liberals don’t believe in sin.” I think that such a view of scripture is a lot like saying the earth is flat. Or that the sun revolves around the earth. Or that it was created in six days. In the end, you have to ask – is it true that gay people are disordered or not? If so, how do we determine it?
#38 – actually I don’t think that the AC is a democratic denomination. I never said it was. I think that the TEC is a democratic province. This is why we are where we are.
Lambeth isn’t a democratic policy making institution. It has no authority except as a general consensus. 1.10 over stepped its bounds and was appropriately ignored.
If TEC was busy sending gay missionaries to Nigeria, then I’d be a bit more sympathetic. As it is, it just seems to me that people are getting offended over a bunch of hooey, like old schoolmarms confronted with a little nakedness. And nakedness isn’t a good thing according to the bible.
RE: “Sarah – I’m glad that you are sure of God’s wrath because the bible tells you so.”
Why thank you JW — nice to give you such joy! ; > )
RE: “You are guilty of the same things.”
Yes, indeed, I am. What that has particularly to do with anything at all I don’t know, but I certainly am.
Pointing out that all are sinners, of course, has little to do with being clear about just what the New Testament points out is actually sinful behavior — and it’s quite clear about what’s sinful behavior, including the sinful behavior that TEC desires so fervently to bless and proclaim holy.
RE: “So stop being judgmental.”
Oh dear — shouldn’t you stop being judgemental by calling me judgemental? ; > )
RE: “Perhaps some day you will learn what this means: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.—
It certainly won’t be what you think it means, JW — we don’t, after all, share the same gospel enough to define those words in anything but mutually opposing ways.
Stabil
Actually going back to Richard Hooker, Scripture, tradition and reason are not in an “order” to be ranked with Scripture standing first. Hooker in fact saw a moving dynamic between the three ‘leg stools.’ Had he prioritized Scripture and maintained a static view of their ordering, he would not have been able to make the arguments he did. Hooker was not a modern, nor a post modern; given his understanding of God’s law, natural law, human law etc, he didn’t view our means of understanding God’s will as something that could be divided into three separate parts.
You can’t separate out human history from being within God’s purview. I understand what you are saying, the science wasn’t there yet, but the problem with that line of reasoning is that it simply turns Scripture into a history book incapable of addressing anything other than its own period of history. I would suggest that to address this issue, one needs to dig down beyond the idea that there is somehow ‘a new issue’ that is not somehow addressed by God in the Scriptures in which he has communicated himself and his will. There are human developments to be sure, however, we must strip away the ‘newness’ of them to understand their core. In this case, sexual relationship between human beings.
The way you are asking us to look at the issue, creation dictates our reality – ah, we have a new understanding of the world, then we must find a way to reinterpret Scripture that fits with our new situation. That is rather unfaithful and idolatrous. It makes us the authors of our own living faith. God asked us to put him first. That means his will, which is found in its entirity in the Scriptures, dictates how we live. There is nothing that God has left unaccounted for in his Scriptures; it is the task of our Church to discern them so that we might be formed not by our own selves, but by him.
See above. First, this statement represents a misunderstanding of how we are ordered, both in the case of Richard Hooker’s thinking, and in terms of 1700 years of Church history. As I mentioned above, if our rationality can at points stand alone from Scripture, then we have moved beyond God: impossible.
John: perhaps I was replying to Stabil re the democracy, my apologies if in fact that is the case.
So in order to exercise our decision-making so that we don’t continue to splinter off into smaller and smaller pieces that don’t share communion with one another, are you suggesting that it would require something with actual juridical force? Perhaps you’re right. If you do not wish to be bound to interrelationship with other members of the Communion, perhaps you should leave the Communion. While there may currently be no juridical force that binds us, it should be enough that we are bound to a discernment of our whole Church (of which a few members have dissented). If you would prefer to be structured so that each diocese has its own say in the matter of living out its faith, then really, you are correct, no one can stop you and really, there is not a point in being part of the Anglican Communion. Please, in fact, leave the interdependence in discernment and decision-making up to the rest of the Church that would like to bind their lives to one another as per God’s will. This is already in the works with the Anglican Covenant Agreement, that will in fact have more juridical force than I’m guessing you would be willing to accept. The option will be there to sign onto it and alternative oversight will be provided for those who wish to remain a part of the Communion, so TEC could really wash its hands of any mutual bonds of commitment.
You’re quite right John, no one can force you to make a decision. Lambeth does not currently have that power; nor should it have to. If TEC would like to break off from the commitments of trust and mutual responsibility for decision-making that must be shared in a Communion, then I think they should break off. God bless and good luck.
.
Lambeth isn’t a democratic policy making institution. It has no authority except as a general consensus. 1.10 over stepped its bounds and was appropriately ignored.
If TEC was busy sending gay missionaries to Nigeria, then I’d be a bit more sympathetic. As it is, it just seems to me that people are getting offended over a bunch of hooey, like old schoolmarms confronted with a little nakedness. And nakedness isn’t a good thing according to the bible.
Optimus, I will pray for you to and the success of the Covenant. I still don’t think it will work and I think it will be overtaken by events as the AC comes apart. There as been too much delay, too much dishonesty and too much process without end.
Br. Michael. Thank you. Look at the post above. See I think the Covenant will be successful; but it will be successful because TEC won’t sign onto it. The Covenant provides (even though it is minimal as it should be in order to maintain divine integrity) some juridical force; TEC won’t go for that.
This is why I am pleading with conservatives to be patient and to just stay on board and to offer critique and suggestions. If we are going to maintain our Communion, we need to consider how we might better and faithfully structure ourselves. This is most evident from our own current and some historical disintegration, but also, and quite importantly, it becomes evident when one examines ecumenical documents like those between the Anglican and RC Churches.
The Covenant, as former Bishop of Saskatchewan and now rector of a big Church in Dallas said this morning, offers us hope in doing this. The book is still open on it though; it is still to be revised. So rather than simply walking away, or trying to join GAFCON (which has no plans nor ideas, nor human or physical infrastructure for creating structure), we need to stay on board with this. TEC will never accept such an ‘imposition’ on their autonomy. That is fine and they can walk away. That just means developing the trust necessary to enter into relationship with one another in order to make the life laid out by the Covenant possible, will be that much easier.
How about discerning the LGBTs for their quality and accomplishments alone. Take the sexuality out of the argument because that’s what they want. Robinson, et al want favoritism because of some mysterious innate quality that LGBTs possess, and then they protest when people don’t step aside for that. Just stick to their abilities and accomplishments for now, and one can see that many of these dear people were political tools given special place – not because of ability, but because of volume. Dr. Cynthia Black, Bishop Gene Robinson, etc., etc. should have to answer up for their accomplishments and not their viewpoints.
THEN, let’s talk about what a loss the Church would have.
But Optimus don’t you see that if TEC does not sign on to the covenant that leaves us in TEC stranded and, to all intents and purposes abandoned by the AC. GAFCON is our only life boat. And it is this reality that makes me testy.
As far as “breaking off” I think what we will see is individual dioceses pairing up with each other. TEC will still have visitors from New Zealand, Australia, Tanzania, South Africa and from different denominations. They will challenge us, but we’ll still be connected, covenant or not. They will want to still be in relationship to us. It will be less formal, but still present. The Anglican women will still meet; we’ll meet in supporting Anglicans in the Middle East, and I’ll still send money to Tanzania, South Africa or Honduras. The Korean Bishop will still write me notes encouraging me to visit.
Bishops won’t get along – but they are a prideful bunch. Sarah and I might not ever agree, but there will be parishes in the South that will gladly take TEC’s spiritual and financial support and challenge us about our spirituality. I trust they will do God’s work.
Optimus prime: I appreciate your tone. thank you.
I disagree that we need to reduce it to a “history book” but I do think that reappraisers are a bit more creative than reasserters. My view is that scripture points us to God’s work, but it is not the only place we meet God. It is a light with which we see. Personally, I think parts of scripture are precisely what has illumined the idea that our personal feelings about God’s wrath are placed upon the cross: and Jesus now comes to us through love. And he continues to do so. I also think that a better word in this day is “like” because “love” now gives us permission to beat each other up. “I love you, now be like the way I want you – I mean how God wants you – to be.”
I see the entire process as a reactive response to macro changes especially evinced by the internet.
What reasserters risk doing is creating a stumbling block that they are unaware of. Personally, I think reappraisers, by letting Anglicans have their covenant, put themselves in a stronger position: Other Anglicans will still want to be in relationship with TEC, and smaller dioceses who think differently than their provinces will then take the initiative to be in relationship with us. And it will happen. Big provinces might then try to discipline those churches who want to be in relationship with TEC, but they will be demonstrating that they care more about their theology than about people who need help.
Br. Michael – there are several efforts at work to ensure that we are not ‘left behind’ by the AC (see the work of ACI – Communion Partners – and more recent statements by the ABC as to alternative means of ensuring we will be able to remain in the Anglican Communion).
I know this is a frightening time as a conservative voice in what can seem a very liberal wilderness. But stay strong, and by that I mean patient, charitable, and giving of self; move with faith seeking understanding. We do not have to earn our salvation; Christ has won that for us. We do not have to choose correctly, this is an erroneous and Pelagian misconception about how we are to live our faith. Debate vigorously, but charitably and remain in a posture of receipt so that it is God’s will that directs us and not our own. God has promised us that if we stay the course with him, we will be resurrected like him.
John – You are welcome, and thank you for yours as well.
I suspect you are largely correct in what might happen with our structure; we will have a diminished Communion in which there are perhaps projects that we will come together to work on. I do not think this is the full visible unity called for by God, but at some point (seemingly the near future), we shall have to make decisions about how we will structure ourselves and that may exclude our desired unity. It will be for God to heal our divisions as I believe he has started to do. This will take centuries I suspect; let us hope and pray we can be faithful cogs in His wheel.
I think we will have to simply agree to disagree regarding Scripture. You are correct, love should be self-giving, not self affirming. This is a complicated matter ecclesially and requires much more than blog space to do the argument justice; thus I will refrain from making the argument. I would perhaps simply direct people to Dr. Ephraim Radner’s writings.
Perhaps you are correct in your assessment of those who will seek to join TEC. I might suggest however, that there is a good chance that TEC, and those who take a ‘reappraiser’ position will be unable to retain the numbers within the pews to maintain their structures except in large urban centers. The ‘liberal’ Anglican parishes here in Canada are dying; within 15 years as the majority of their congregation dies, so too will these parishes. The problem, quite obviously, is that young people are not coming into the church. Why? Well I believe it is for much the same reason that I and my friends (under 30) would not attend a liberal parish, nor seek refuge with TEC. What is at your core? If Jesus Christ and the Scriptures that proclaim him are not at your center, what differentiates your church from any social organization? Liberal churches are just another choice on the market of things we can do. And the problem is, churches that are not centered in Christ and Scripture really are not very good at what they do; they are not authentic, not genuine, they’re music is bad, their social justice initiatives pail in comparison to secular organizations, and they really are not good places to meet people of our own ages. In short, eventually I suspect that as with most liberal church movements, people fall away because making a choice between two social engagements is not all that important (particularly when no one wants to be bound by any type of relationship that might restrict their free choice).
I came into the Church a very broken individual; moreso than I care to share. I came in as me and I was accepted. But I was not left as I was. I was shaped and formed by a community that demanded that I be transformed from what I thought I was into God’s servant. My faith communities, though pastoral about it, did not allow me to remain self focused. They made me realize the necessity of being responsible to and for and and to being bound to another. Through Scripture, prayer, and giving of myself, I am continually becoming God’s servant rather than a cultural servant. I am being transformed according to God’s purposes for the world; not my own and not the world’s. I came in as I was; but I stayed because I was not allowed to continue being narcissistic. I was instead called to give up my life for the sake of God and so for the sake of his people in his Church. This is what it means to be free, to have life, to have purpose. This is the realization that many people in my generation are seeking, are starving for.
We are tired of the relative truths and realities that are empty of meaning and purpose that have been shoved down our throats by media and corporations; we’re also tired of ‘poseur’ organizations that try to capitalize on social trends to attract our attention; we quickly tire (within 2-5 years) of churches that try to piggyback on social trends. When the Church realizes that it must do what it is called to – preach the gospel, and live the gospel – then, and only then, will young people get ‘stuck-in.’ Until then, we’ll find other organizations that do ‘social work’ better than the church, to get stuck into.
So John, I do pray for you. I understand many of the points you make. I am quite pastorally aware of the agony of very particular situations around SSB; so believe me, I speak out of faith seeking understanding and endurance God given, not out of personal feeling or rote theological argument.
I know it may seem odd to pray for a ‘Transformer,’ (Optimus Prime) but I would appreciate your prayers for the ministry I am undertaking – that it might be fruitful for the building up of God’s Church. And I will pray for yours. Peace.
I have no trouble praying for you. I think the gospel of Christ, even conservative, does more to bring liberation than the religions of the free-market or even the religion of “liberalism.” Those who truly read scripture will find it liberating and finally in the direction of joy. I believe that.
Personally, as someone who is studying organizational development, I think that the decline of the modern mainline church has little to do with theology but everything to do with leadership. It may be that the sorts of leaders attracted to liberal theology are the sorts who cannot build a church. I think there is some correlation between a therapeutic style of ministry – a liberal view – and church decline. Conservative churches tend to be more comfortable with aggressive, visionary leaders – and good for them. I also think that liberal parishes are fundamentalist when it comes to style of worship and using church buildings. They don’t inculturate themselves the way conservative parishes do when it comes to technology. My vestry wanted nothing to do with a webpage or a you-tube video until I showed them that every new member over the last 2 years has come for those exact reasons.
I think we are all victims of the market. If you look at the way megachurches work, they use market studies. They hire business school graduates (Willow Creek has two Harvard MBA grads on staff!).
I would also challenge you to consider the consequences of the Unchristian study written by the Barna Group. I think you’ll find that one reason young people are uninterested in church is because it has the reputation for being anti-gay. In the end, the conservative church will have to confront the fact that already bigoted people will use scripture to justify their hatred (and not just be a doctrine we have to avoid God’s wrath) and seek out conservative choices where their anti-gay views will be justified. Those sorts of people are not good for any Christian group. It’s one thing to follow the doctrine; its another to give cover for hatred. And blessings for conservative leaders who try to distinguish between the two. I hope they can avoid the poison. You see this in most mega churches. They formally are conservative; but they avoid the negative subjects like the plague. I have unitarian friends who love both Joel Osteen and Rick Warren!
The other challenge you will face is that most young people just don’t have time to join churches that have views on sex that seem antiquated. You are absolutely right that the liberal church does not have a core. Yet this is not a necessary aspect of liberal churches – it is an element of poor leadership. But when a progressive church does have a core, people seek it out.
My own liberal church has a very good relationship with the very conservative Lutheran church down the street. It helps that we are both team players; we both want our churches to thrive. He’s one of those conservatives who thinks like you… but he never preaches on sexuality. For him, preaching that Jesus lives is where he has to start. And since we both love traditional music, we have shared services on feast days.
I hope you understand I don’t fear the conservative witness. I think there is room for both progressives and conservatives (the tares and the wheat, perhaps). God says, do not be afraid. Perhaps he also means we should not be afraid of each other.
John, very much wisdom in your post. No I don’t think you fear the conservative witness; you have posted with calmness and care – that’s a rare witness these days. I don’t agree with everything you have said; but I suppose that is par for the course.
I think there must be room for both progressive and conservatives if we are to have a faithful witness. But we must have limits on our diversity. I think God says do not be afraid because our efforts, our lives, our successes at faith and our failures, will be made right in time by him. And the wheat and tares will be harvested and ‘judged’ according only to him.
Thank goodness for that. The pulpit is not the place to preach agenda; it is the place to preach Jesus Christ.
As someone who studies Church history and who once studied and worked in organizational change and development, I would concur that theology has very little to do with our disputes. And I think leadership has played a particular role in that decline; I would argue for different reasons than you have, but I think we have some general agreement here.
Again though, we need to be careful that we are not attempting to sell ourselves by shaving down the ‘sharp edges’ of Scripture and of our Church’s witness. I have no doubt that there are many young people who don’t come into the Church because they perceive it as being anti-gay. Many also think it is anti relevant, anti interesting, anti entertainment, anti everything their current social network says is dope. These are the people who ‘shop’ for meaning in their lives; we are still to preach and live the gospel and that requires sacrifice that one needs to be willing to commit to if they are going to open themselves to God’s transformation.
Anyway, I am in the process of planting a church so prayers for those efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks John and God Bless.
Optimus and John,
I appreciate your dialogue. Thanks for it. I think you’ve pretty well covered things.
I tried to post about 5 paragraphs around 9 hours ago, but it failed to make it through. At this point I think it unnecessary. As optimus pointed out, it is not correct to think that the Church can proceed based on reason alone, and I did not mean to leave that impression at #56. It would have been better if I had said that the reappraiser case cannot lean only on Scripture and tradition.
Optimus,
At #65 you write:
[blockquote]
The problem, quite obviously, is that young people are not coming into the church. Why? Well I believe it is for much the same reason that I and my friends (under 30) would not attend a liberal parish, nor seek refuge with TEC. What is at your core? If Jesus Christ and the Scriptures that proclaim him are not at your center, what differentiates your church from any social organization?
[/blockquote]
I am concerned about the aging of those attending our churches.
But I’m hard pressed to think of an example of an Episcopal or A. C. of C. church where Jesus Christ and the Scriptures are not at the center. Could you provide guidance as to where I should look? For example, the name of a particular church in a particular place.
What else keeps young people away from church?
Thanks.
Hi Stabil,
You’re welcome. The other day I think I spent about an hour and a half replying to someone and when I went to post it, they said my message was too long and everything was just gone. So I feel your pain – sorry about that! Point taken re your first reply.
Given my present situation, I cannot give a specific example of a church. I really wish I could because I have them to give and it would certainly help to illustrate and support my point; but that needs to remain a conversation not held on a blog for a number of reasons. Thus I can only really speak in generalities given my experience and observation in five dioceses, one in western Canada and four in Ontario.
I think the reason many young people stay away from the Church is simply because they don’t think it’s relevant and they have other things – trying to establish a career to pay of massive debt, establish a group of friends their own age, trying to start a family – that just take precedence. Scripture as I so often hear it preached in many of the parishes I have been to, turns into a form of ‘doing social good.’ It becomes a self help guide. There is rarely discussion of sin, repentance, the struggle of faith and adhering to God’s calling and so people don’t understand why we need a savior. Christ is just someone, man or God, to follow because he was a good guy. So for most young people who are Scripture and faith illiterate because our society and their parents were Scripture and faith illiterate – Christ and Scripture have no relevance.
We really don’t need to do anything other than preach and live the gospel. I just had a mission team come up to the parish I am attempting to plant and one of the group members my age gave a testimony of her journey back to the Church after leaving when a young teen. Her story was quite close to mine which I shared above. Accepted where we were – that’s what got us in the door. But what made us stay was the demand to die to sinful selves, to let go of our self deceptions and to be brought by God into the freedom of his Spirit and so to the service of others. Without this recognition of our sins, the necessity for confession, repentance, humility, charity and most particularly the giving of our own selves for the sake of the members of our churches, neither of us would have stayed for long. And this seems to be true of the young people I know who are coming back into the Church and staying.
All of humanity, all of history, time and space is God’s and he will shape us according to his plan. Our numbers won’t always be great; but that’s ok. We just need to keep on living and preaching his Word across time and space (this does require we have a structure with limits to discern his Word). He will bring all things to himself (young people too). Peace.