But the forms and structures of the various provinces of the Anglican communion have diverged significantly, in ways that challenge those ancient ties to England and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those provinces are the result of evangelism tied to colonial structures, whether of Britain or her former colonies, and that colonial history has still to be unpacked and assessed. The present attempts to manage conflict in the communion through a renewed focus on structural ties to old or new authorities have generated significant resistance, both from provinces who largely absented themselves from Lambeth and from dissenting voices among the attending bishops.
The Anglican communion’s present reality reflects a struggle to grow into a new level of maturity, like that of adult siblings in a much-conflicted family. As we continue to wrestle, sufficient space and respect for the differing gifts of the siblings just might lead to greater maturity in relationship. This will require greater self-definition as well as decreased reactivity. Jesus’ own example in relationships with his opponents and with his disciples will be instructive.
“The Anglican communion’s present reality reflects a struggle to grow into a new level of maturity…”
Can you spell ‘condescending’?!?!? She wants all those benighted Africans (South Americans, North American conservatives, etc.) to grow up and be as modern and mature as she. Do you all remember Bp. Spong’s chicken dinner comment?
So much for the conversation. “Sit down, shut up and listen…”
This statement contains the seeds of its own falsification. She cites a “reliance on scripture,” as a common strength, but we know that she has manipulated scripture and contravened it in a variety of ways. There is no need to list them here. Because this proposition is false as far as TEC is concerned, the rest of this statement takes on a very different face. “Greater self definition” and “decreased reactivity”, sensible enough when taken by themselves, in her context now mean that TEC will build its own identity without regard for the established Anglican identity and that criticism of TEC’s agenda needs to be silenced. In short, the entire essay becomes a facade that masks an agenda which she intends to pursue ragardless of the opinions of others. LM
Ah – family systems theory again. It seems the preferred tool for analysis amongst the Episcopal Church’s leadership. But the Rev’d Dr Leander Harding – [url=http://www.leanderharding.com/blog/2008/05/28/misreading-family-systems-theory]on his blog[/url] has persuasively argued they often deeply misunderstand the implications of the theory.
This is rich:
“The Anglican communion’s present reality reflects a struggle to grow into a new level of maturity, like that of adult siblings in a much-conflicted family. As we continue to wrestle, sufficient space and respect for the differing gifts of the siblings just might lead to greater maturity in relationship. This will require greater self-definition as well as decreased reactivity. Jesus’ own example in relationships with his opponents and with his disciples will be instructive.”
Well let’s see if she really believes this. Truro and 10 other VA congregations faithful to Communion teaching sought to “differentiate” and how did Schori respond? I would suggest that multi-million dollar litigation is a particularly vulgar form of “reactivity” against those who are differentiating.
When GAFCON “differentiated” what did she call it?
I am all for differentiating from TEC as she differentiates from Apostolic faith, discipline and ethos.
This Organization doesn’t need Jesus. It needs Dr. Phil.
#5 Dan – this organization things Dr. Phil & Jesus are just different vehicles to the divine. Maybe Jesus can make himself more palatable to TEC leaders by asserting that his union of divine and human natures makes him a hybrid.
#3 thanks for getting us back to Dr. Harding’s article. I don’t think anything better has been written about the church’s misuse of what could be useful material.
Anyway, “You guys (orthodox) are so immature” kinda boomerangs – the PB name calls like a middle schooler.
Timothy F., #6 : “Maybe Jesus can make himself more palatable to TEC leaders by asserting that his union of divine and human natures makes him a hybrid.”
Priceless! Thanks for the chuckle. I needed that.
Wow…thanks # 3…somehow I missed Dr. Harding’s article.
This seems like another example of clergy bringing paradigms into the church from the secular world, paradigms that were developed to studiously avoid the Scriptural.
Psalms 107:17 Fools, because of their transgression, And because of their iniquities, were afflicted.
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge, [But] fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 3:35 The wise shall inherit glory, But shame shall be the legacy of fools.
Proverbs 12:23 A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims foolishness.
Proverbs 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent [is] to understand his way, But the folly of fools [is] deceit.
Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, But the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness.
Proverbs 15:14 The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on foolishness.
Proverbs 16:22 Understanding [is] a wellspring of life to him who has it. But the correction of fools [is] folly.
Romans 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
KJS is naught but a FOOL! She’s a victim of DECEIT. The consistently INCOHERANT nonsense she puts forth is the fruit of satan. No surprises here. I pray you will be wise and just ignore this nonsense and stick to what Scripture says!
As long as #9 is busy proof-texting, I’ll add Matthew 5:22.
Matthew 5:22 “But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
Padre, aren’t you proof texting yourself? KJS has all the marks of a “fool” according to Scripture. That’s why I quoted Scripture. It’s our responsibility to be alert to the “fools” around us and to make sure we don’t heed what they say. KJS’s article was “foolishness” and cannot be supported by Scripture. That’s my point.
In deed it will be impossible — not worth the effort — to have any real communion with Africans and Asians gven “divergences that look interplanetary in degree and scale.” We have nothing in common with these alien life forms — or with England, which is obviously compromised by the weight of colonialism, which confuses us still.
Interplanetary differences? My, my. Who in their right mind would try to be in communion with Martians? One has to do a great deal of exploration of the unknown before one considers a Star Wars covenant, if one considers that at all.
I am with the PB on this — Americans have no understanding and no interest unless they are in charge. So let them go their way — but please hurry because this nonesense, while entertaining to atheists, is just too pitiful to continue.
“As we continue to wrestle, sufficient space and respect for the differing gifts of the siblings just might lead to greater maturity in relationship.”
I thought that this sounded like a rebellious teen trying to find some more “space”.
I’m sure that GAFCON leaders are attempting to give her and The Episcopal Club as much space as they can.
Don
As long as #10 is busy proof-texting, one might suggest reading the whole passage, Matt 5:13-48.
It’s also good to take a look at the original languages.
The vocative of the Greek moros means Fool! Stupid! Moron! Yes, it’s a name-calling insult in that context. In Proverbs, the Hebrew kesil can be translated fool, but it refers to an obstinate person who tends to make the wrong choices (TWOT).
“greater self-definition as well as decreased reactivity”
The Christian life is exactly the opposite. Self is defined by being in Christ. That is where we discover our true selves. And when it comes to interactions with others, both regenerate and non-regenerate souls, we need increased reactivity and supersensitivity.
To develop their greater self-definition, TEC is engaging in the ‘narrative process’:
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~mganz/practice.htm
(scroll down to ‘Faith Based: Projects’)
“Jesus’ own example in relationships with his opponents and with his disciples will be instructive.”
Like when he drove the money changers from the Temple? Or when he told Peter “Get behind me Satan”?
She heard from Bishops worldwide who had REAL challenges. Hopefully she did not articulate her comparable feeling of oppression in their presence: “Western bishops spoke of the church’s pastoral role in seeking to provide sacred support for same-sex couples living in monogamous, life-long relationships.”
“Maturity” — i.e., the Africans need to grow into our level of maturity. Don’t these folks have the slightest sense of how statements like this are heard? Maybe they don’t care. The arrogance is amazing, the underlying racism that informs a statement like this is appalling.
It is a good thing Jesus didn’t spend all his time “contemplating the deeper realities of his contexts.” Or maybe he did in an unaffirming way…
Follow the yellow brick road – we’re off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of TEC.
P.S. Does this mean Lambeth is Muncikinland?
Children often have the mistaken opinion that they know more than adults. These children of the 60’s, though they have aged, have failed to grow up and gain maturity. It is doubtful they ever will as they were the ME generation. Perhaps when they come near the end of their lives they may finally see how blind they really are. I really hope they do, even at the last if they repent and ask forgivness there is hope, otherwise they will face the last judgement unforgiven, a fate it is horrible to contemplate.
#17, her statement which you highlighted regarding the church’s “pastoral role” is very ambiguous. Her statement is empty as it was given. She doesn’t state clearly what she means by “pastoral role” in this statement. She mentions “sacred support” and I’m not quite sure what she means by that. For me, the word “support” generally means to stand behind, under, or with. To help stand up or keep standing up. To add to. Etc. For me “sacred support” would mean to stand with Scripture and use that to help those in need. Her meaning of the word “support” is also very ambiguous in her statement here. We all know what her meaning is here in the US, but the bishops from other countries which are non-western may not fully understand her well-known stance here in America. The word “pastoral” means to minister to; as Christ did in His travels during His ministry here on earth. Her meaning is totally different. She wants to condone what the LGBT want to have in the church which is acceptance of their behavior as not being sinful. To be “pastoral” to those suffering from homosexual urges is to pray for them. To call upon Jesus for healing for them. To help them understand what Scripture TRULY says about homosexual activity and help those dealing with it to overcome their lack of knowledge and learn to put their faith in Jesus, instead of the world. It’s NOT to condone their behavior.
I’m led to believe that her statement was purposely ambiguous, but I could be wrong. She may truly be so confused that she just cannot express herself clearly when it comes to the role of the church. A lot of her well publicized statements support that position. For example, “Jesus is a vehicle to the divine”. That statement is totally convoluted and for me is actually a blasphemy against Christ. We have to remember that she is a product of a quite liberal seminary. I cringe at what may be taught to those attending those seminaries.
Yes, she does make some good statements about what the provinces in the Global South are facing in their reality. However, she stops there. She offers no truly Scriptural support to those provinces. She also neglects to mention that her very own province has added to their problems at home. What they really needed to hear from the western provinces is that they are sorry for the harm they have done in their own iniquity to God’s Word. The Global South provinces need to hear and see true repentance from KJS. That didn’t come forth, and never will. That’s why everything she says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It’s unfortunate, but she’s set herself up for that reaction by all the nonsensical, convoluted, incoherent stuff she has poured forth in her ministry.
#20, Harry, you’re actually pretty close-not Munchkinland really, but the “Merry old land of Oz. ” Read the lyrics. http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/hills/6396/merrland.htm
The Road goes TO OZ, but FROM Munchkinland, thus my misspelled comment.
Anyone else struck by her list of all of the real and serious problems Christians in other countries face and then she brings in the same-sex union bit as if it’s of equal concern? Puh-lease.
Well, Mugsie and Ralph, I must commend you on avoiding saying “I’m rubber, you’re glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!”
Proof texting is not very Anglican. What really amazes me is how you orthodox so-called are lacking in a sense of irony.
Quennie Schori writes like she is doing an application for a federal grant to study some obscue invertabrate. Doesn’t she realize that people in the real world read this drivel and know her for what she is, an undereducated theologian with a bureaucrat like mind? It would be laughable if she didn’t occupy a position supposedly leading so many innocent people. May she and Rowan can form the Church of What’s NOT Happeni’ Now.
[blockquote]Doesn’t she realize that people in the real world read this drivel and know her for what she is, an undereducated theologian with a bureaucrat like mind?[/blockquote]
She may or may not, Drummie, but I think that she’s actually writing for those oh-so-enlightened, postrationalist folks with too much education and not enough common sense, who in an earlier day might have said, “Wow, that’s heavy, man!”
She speaks a lot, but never says much!
The more I read pronouncements by the PB, the more it seems like a passive/aggressive personality is speaking. It could be the office of PB itself which is p/a, I don’t know. Once the ‘other’ (such as African bishops or traditional Anglicans) is characterized in some demeaning or condescending manner, then the ‘other’s’ deep need for relationship with liberal TEC as well as the rest of the AC is rhapsodized. There seems to be little more coherence expressed than ‘can’t live with you, can’t live without you’ – as if it’s a co-dependency that TEC is in with the rest of the AC, and hence all the verbiage about wrestling with the difficulties, the struggle, etc. etc. ad nauseum. If this were a person, one might be justified in recommending a psych or encouraging some form of therapy. Where would this p/a approach get one in international diplomacy?
Yes, teatime #25, that struck me too. She lists all the reported challenges Christians face in following Scriptural and Church teachings in lands where the law or culture make it more difficult (getting legal permission to baptize converts, preventing forced remarriage of widows into plural marriage, etc.) and slips support for same-sex couples into the list when this is an item against Scripture.
Then she says, “Jesus’ own example in relationships with his opponents and with his disciples will be instructive,” without giving us any examples. She’d have to omit the “woe to you” list and Jesus’s clear calls to repentance.
Does KJS ever read and truly contemplate what she has written?When she recites some of the significant problems that are the focus of other members of the Anglican Communion (as noted in #17), does she not realize how petty it makes TEC look with its focus on the gospel of sexual satisfaction for all?
Does she not realize that a family is inextricably linked by blood. But what we have in common is rooted in choice. By adopting an hermeneutic that renders the Bible essentially meaningless as a source of common, agreed authority, does she not realize that TEC has destroyed the common root that brought us together in the first place? Common worship results FROM common belief. Without common belief there can be no common worship (except as stage acting).
If KJS would just reflect on her own writing, she might understand why TEC’s actions are destroying the Anglican Communion. But that forces us to confront a more basic question: Does she really care?
The PB claims “[i]A reliance on sacred scripture, in common with tradition and reason, also characteristic of roots in British Christianity.[/i]” Once again, we have the fiction of “Hooker’s three-legged stool,” where Scripture is supposedly an equal partner with tradition and reason.
Though revisionists love to trot this out, their own arguments hold
Reason/Experience to be supreme, Scripture a sometimes useful source of nice quotations, and Tradition utterly irrelevant, except when diocesan boundaries are to be protected.
Today’s revisionist arguments are incapable of holding water. Schleiermacher, Bultmann, et al must be rolling over in their graves with all this, well, stuff. Even the word stuff has more substance than these inanities being passed off as arguments.
#23. #24 Guys, Guys,
You’ve got the wrong road. TEC is headed down the wider one. You know, the one to the lake. It may be too hot for fishing when they get there!