I try hard to read from various points of view, and to follow that practice I sometimes follow Katie Sherrod’s blog. It is an acquired taste to be sure since she is so very angry at the diocese of Fort Worth in general and the diocesan Bishop, Jack Iker, in particular. Unsurprising, Ms. Sherrod was not at all happy with Lambeth 2008 in a number of ways, but she was encouraged that it was so different from Lambeth 1998 which she described as “brutal.” Why brutal? Listen to her own words:
[At Lambeth 1998 the leadership sought] to push for legislative solutions to hot button issues. It was a process that left deep wounds that even a decade later were still painful for many.
Got that? She doesn’t want “legislative solutions to hot button issues.” But of course the 2003 General Convention was exactly that. And the wounds there are deep, very deep indeed. So for Ms. Sherrod and other reappraisers legislative solutions to hot button issues are great when they are ones she agrees with, but “brutal” when she does not. The double standard simply screams out for recognition in the present fractious climate of TEC which is living with the fruit of precisely the process Ms. Sherrod deplores–KSH.
RE: “So for Ms. Sherrod and other reappraisers legislative solutions to hot button issues are great when they are ones she agrees with, but “brutal” when she does not.”
Right.
But Kendall — where is there a problem for Katie Sherrod? ; > )
I think you mean “[At Lambeth 1998]” not “2008”.
Thanks Simon, not enough coffee, apparently.
I think we have recognized the double standard for some time.
Preach it Kendall.
As Sarah points out this hypocritical behaviors is nothing new nor a problem for Katie Sherrod…..
Nothing new for this Post-Modern area when we embrace contradictory worldviews.
I’ve never met Sherrod or visited her site, so I can’t say what’s in her heart. However, all the quote you posted points out is the OUTCOME of a (flawed) process – nothing untrue or hypocritical about that. Maybe part of the issue is that Lambeth is not a body that has any legitimate authority to legislate anything at all in the first place (thus, the flaw in the process), whereas General Convention does have that authority. But if you care to be honest about it, where double standard exists, it exists on both sides.
No, GC does not have the authority. They do have the power. Sort of what is going on in Georgia right now.
These questions and observations on power, or governance, in the Church are only valid to those who think that power produces authority in the Church, which is untrue. If it were power that ruled we would still be under the thumb of a Roman emperor, but the early Church would not bow down and worship power and the emperor eventually fell.
No, it is not about power, it is about truth. The sheep hear His voice and they follow Him who is Truth. This makes those who want their own way very frustrated.
Don
GC does not have the authority to change the essence of the faith, but it does have authority to change polity (within certain parameters) and the governance of the faith.
The question comes down to what is the essence of the faith? It is limited to what is in the Nicene Creed or the Chicago-Lambeth Quadralateral? Is the moral teaching of the Church part of the essence of the faith or is it part of the expression of the faith and who is to say which it is?
I submit that the moral teaching can be both and it is up to the entire church to determine which it is. The Anglican Communion continues in the teaching that same sex activity is sinful and cannot be blessed. Therefore it is of the essence of the Church and GC does not have the authority to change it. That does not mean that GC cannot change it – witness 2003 and 2006. However, they make the change unlawfully. It is similar to when congress passes an unconstitutional law. They have the power to pass that law, but when it is determined to be unconstitutional the law is null and void.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Katie Sherrod, like most ex-Catholics, is a bitter soul. She needs her modernist stands, and she needs to suppress all dissent from her orthodoxy. For the record, she hated Bishop Pope before she hated Bishop Iker; one wonders how she would survive in a liberal diocese if she couldn’t rail against authority.
But Phil, isn’t the TEC trying to separate itself from the Anglican Communion anyway? I saw hints in this year’s bulletin inserts about Lambeth History that we in the States don’t have to listen to the rest of the “communion.” The “irregular” W.O. was used as an example of how forward thinking the American Church is. The implication is that there never was much of a “communion.”
Isn’t this the same phenomenon we see here with revisionists wailing and rending their garments over “mob rule” from Lambeth (in the form of democratically-passed resolutions), while politely applauding uncanonical depositions of pious bishops on voice votes as legitimate exercises of “polity?”
It’s all about outcome. Any process that gets them where they want to be at the moment is legit, any that impedes their juggernaut is bogus. You can get a glimpse of the Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China and Pol Pot’s Kampuchea in these moral cretins.
Sorry, Kendall. While I recognize that your argument has some appeal, it’s essentially “apples and oranges.”
The American Episcopal Church — like it or lump it — has a historic, democratic polity of making decisions for the whole church BY the whole church through the working of its General Convention. You can certainly argure that it’s a flawed process, but it IS our historic process.
The Lambeth Conference, on the other hand, was never intended to be a legislative body with the power to allow bishops (only!) of other autonomous churches in the Anglican Communion to dictate to others. The effort to reinvent historic Anglicanism is the real resivionism going on here … and God bless Katie Sherrod and others who continue to blow the whistle on it.
Typically, the tendency already here is taking a kernel of conversation and stretching it down a path beyond reason and having nothing to do with what was originally said. How ever much you don’t want GC to have authority, that does not mean it doesn’t. It’s debateable (obviously) about whether GC has legislated away the faith – I think that is about as absurd a claim as there can be, but typical. The whole point of the original post and of my own response in #5 is nothing more than pointing out that double standard/hypocricy exists on BOTH sides and it is disingenuous (if not downright hypocritical, itself) to suggest or imply that it is only on the side of those with whom you disagree. There is no other point here than that.
Susan,
If Lambeth directed any [b]change[/b] in faith or practice, then I would agree with you that Lambeth was legislating. All Lambeth ’98 did was recognize the teaching of the Church since its beginning. TECUSA is changing the faith and practice of the Church and forcing the change down the Anglican Communion’s throat.
Again, taking this as a power vs authority issue. The problem is that the Anglican Communion does not yet have the means to say that anything one province does is beyond that province’s authority. For example, does GC have the authority to change the doctrine of the Resurrection or the Trinity or the Incarnation or the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as God’s only begotten son? Does GC have the authority to change the creeds?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote]The Lambeth Conference, on the other hand, was never intended to be a legislative body with the power to allow bishops (only!) of other autonomous churches in the Anglican Communion to dictate to others. The effort to reinvent historic Anglicanism is the real resivionism going on here … and God bless Katie Sherrod and others who continue to blow the whistle on it. [/blockquote]
So why all of the bending over backwards to make sure nothing at all was voted on in resolutions?
It would seem that Susan is in absolute lockstep with Nigeria, et alia on one thing: Lambeth is a useless, high-priced jamboree.
Does anyone doubt that if Lambeth had legislated “full inclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters”, Russell would be all for it? Has Russell – and Sherrod, if memory serves – not complained about the Nigerians acting within their canonical process?
It’s all about outcome not process. The ends of full inclusion justify any means. It’s about power, not charity.
It is all about outcome…as long as it’s MY WAY, all is fine and we followed the process (ie: New Hampshire). God forbid that it comes out against my way, what does it matter if THEY followed the process (N. Carolina). Katie & Susan, et al, want what they want and don’t care one bit about the rest of us.
Oops–that should have been S. Carolina in #17 above.
If:
does this mean your side will quit whining about Resolution 1.10, particularly since your side crammed Gene Robinson down the throats of the rest of the Communion and unilaterally changed 2,000 years of Christian teaching regardless of what the rest of the Communion thought about it?
I mean, it’s not like you made an actual case(and if you’re thinking of To Set Our Hope On Christ, just don’t; that thing was a sick joke and most serious people know it). So if you want to declare Kate the focus of the Anglican world because the rest of the people with whom you’re forced to share a tradition are too Neanderthal, come out say so.