This elf is thinking we might need a scorecard soon to keep track of who has written what to whom… \ud83d\ude09 But all kidding aside, ACI has posted Dr. Turner’s rebuttal to Dr. Noll’s letter to him.<\/p>\n
A REPLY BY PHILIP TURNER TO STEPHEN NOLL\u2019S REPLY TO PHILIP TURNER
\nWritten by Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
\nMonday, 06 August 2007<\/p>\nDear Stephen,<\/p>\n
Thank you for your gracious reply to my response to your open letter calling for a “full and final separation” between those whom you term a “faithful remnant” and The Episcopal Church (TEC). Knowing you as I do I was certain there would be a reply, but I nonetheless hoped against hope that none would be forthcoming. I say this not because I am not open to theological exchange, but because the medium (blogs) now used for such exchanges encourages hasty and ill tempered response and counter response. I have no desire to be involved in such a back and forth and I presume you do not either.<\/p>\n
It is this observation that leads to my first response to your response. You and others have questioned my reluctance to use the word “heretic” to refer to those we jointly oppose. I have no desire to enter into an argument about the correct use of the terms “apostate” (which you did not use) and “heretic”(which you do). I believe that my observation that these terms are not being accurately applied is correct. However, my major concern was and is not their correct meaning. Rather, my concern is the way in which they are being used in our present conflict. Both terms are used (more often than not) in anger simply to dismiss those with whom one disagrees. My point concerns a culture of anger, condemnation, and dismissal that makes it unnecessary to address one’s opponent as a brother or sister who has gone astray or as a false teacher who needs correction. Rather, the terms are used to reduce one’s adversaries to a category-one that places them among “outsiders” about whom one’s spirit need not be in agony until Christ be adequately formed in them. So my first hope remains that you might join me in cautioning those who share our view of the sad state of TEC that we, the critics of TEC, stand in grave danger of misreading our circumstances because so many of us have been taken over by one of the seven deadly sins. We cannot possibly hope that God’s agents for reform and renewal will be those who themselves suffer from such a serious spiritual disease.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The full text is here.<\/a><\/p>\n
Here are the background links:<\/u>
\nNoll’s response to Turner<\/a> (posted Aug 3)
\nTurner’s response to Noll’s open letter<\/a> (posted Aug 2)
\nNoll’s Open Letter to Network bishops<\/a> (posted Jul 29)<\/p>\nFr. Matt Kennedy has weighed in to specifically address Turner’s comments about the use of the word “heretic” with his feature at Stand Firm: A Brief Note on the Use of the Word \u201cHeretic\u201d\u009d<\/a><\/p>\n
Also related to this debate, over at Stand Firm, Dr. Noll posted a response<\/a> to Sarah Hey’s recent essay<\/a> (which Kendall linked here<\/a>).<\/p>\n
And just so the links are handy, the long thread (270 comments) on Dr. Radner’s resignation from the Network is here<\/a>. (Stand Firm posted Dr. Radner’s T19 comment on the ensuing discussion as a separate thread here<\/a>. Note also Stand Firm’s post of Dean Munday’s response to Radner<\/a>, which I don’t believe Kendall posted here.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This elf is thinking we might need a scorecard soon to keep track of who has written what to whom… \ud83d\ude09 But all kidding aside, ACI has posted Dr. Turner’s rebuttal to Dr. Noll’s letter to him. A REPLY BY…<\/span><\/p>\n