Our inspectors ensure that episcopal garments are harvested only at the peak of ripeness.
please post your own suggested captions!
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Lambeth Caption Contest 8
(photo by Scott Gunn)
Candidates for the next Archbishop of Canterbury now being proposed. Times journalist nominates herself.
please post your own suggested captions!
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Wife-beating animists
Demonstrating the kind of "openness", "listening", "generosity" and "tolerance" to which Rowan Williams is calling the Anglican Communion -- and for which qualities the Episcopal church is so widely known -- New York's pro-gay bishopess Roskam (without evidence or apparent constructive purpose) accused Anglican bishops in certain countries of wife beating.
She said at the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury that men beat women "because they can." She said: "We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives... many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife."Comparisons are sure to be made to Spong's description of African bishops, at the last Lambeth Conference, to being little more than superstitious animists and witch-doctors, as well as to the ploy by homosexualist activist MacIyalla who claimed (with a similar lack of any evidence whatsoever) to have been attacked and beaten with the connivance of the Nigerian Church and bishop Akinola.
However, a little on-the-spot investigation by our virtual reporter on the scene at Lambeth, and we actually found one of these wife-beating bishops. He wished to remain anonymous for purposes of this interview.
Q: Bishop, you heard Ms. Roskham's accusation today that some bishops in your region beat their wives... would you care to comment?
A: Why certainly. In fact, wife-beating is a common orientation in my country, and we encourage it in our parishes. I myself beat my wife four or five times a day.
Q: Really?
A: Absolutely. We think this practice is essential to the Christian life and so are requiring study of "theories and theologies of wife-beating" in all our seminary curricula, replacing such useless subjects as patristic history or Christology. We have also just passed canon laws saying that no wife-beating postulant may be refused ordination just because he beats his wife, and we are working toward the day when out-of-the-closet wife-beaters will be represented at all levels of our church. After all, we all share the same baptism, therefore wife-beaters have a divine right to be recognized, celebrated and welcomed as deacons, priests and bishops.
Q: Some might suggest that wife-beating is contrary to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition. While Scripture is not explicit in its condemnation of wife-beating -- unlike its condemnation of homosexuality -- it does tell husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. The Scriptural requirements for ordination are clearly incompatible with wife-beating. And under the influence of the Church, wife-beating was actually made grounds for divorce in many late Antique societies (the Eastern Roman Empire, Ireland, etc).
A: Ah, well, the "wife-beating" implicitly or explicitly condemned in Scripture and Tradition is not the same "wife-beating" as we have today. We live in a very different time and culture, and have a deeper understanding of the relationships of wife-beating. So the prohibitions of past days don't apply to our wife-beating at all.
Q: Are you suggesting that the moral law changes over time?
A: Of course. Doesn't everyone know that? Besides, the very fact that there are passages condemning the practice go to show that people were beating their wives even during the patristic and medieval period -- and, since it was going on then, it must be okay now. That was the true church, as intended by Christ, that was beating their wives -- the suppression of the practice simply represents the conspiratorial efforts of an evil, matriarchal culture from which we are only now escaping so as to rediscover our ancient heritage. Wife-beating is an acceptable and wonderful life-style choice, and it is only close-minded bigots and sadophobes such as Ms. Roskam who suggest otherwise.
Q: And so you believe your society and culture has a clearer view of the issue now than the Church did in the past?
A: Absolutely. My contemporary modern culture better understands the practice, and approves it -- so, obviously, we have been given a clear prophetic mandate to reinterpret Scripture and Tradition and to spread Communion-wide this joyful good news of the inclusion and celebration of wife-beaters.
Q: From Roskam's comment, it is clear that this practice and advocacy of wife-beating is straining the bonds of affection within the Communion. Why, some Americans have said that it interferes with their own church's efforts at
evangelizationraising money and suing traditionalists, because of the impression that they are "that wife-beating church".A: Well, I'm sorry they feel that way, but we can hardly cease beating our wives without our wife-beaters being marginalized, and it would be unfair to sacrifice them to some impersonal agenda being imported from abroad. Besides, if we did, our wife-beaters' feelings would be hurt and they'd think that their gifts are being rejected. We have clearly seen the spirit at work in the lives and ministry of people who beat their wives, proving that they are blessed and approved by God. Thus we can see that God's plan calls for the inclusion (and ordination) of all people, regardless of race, gender... or whether or not they beat their wives.
Q: Some people might suggest that wife-beating is a behavior, not an identity, and so oughtn't be compared to race.
A: Ah, well, these people are obviously not current on the latest research on wife-beating. Studies have shown that it is possible that there is some genetic predisposition to violence. Therefore wife-beating is clearly a part of these people's "human nature" and ought not to be criticized or discriminated against. To forbid or condemn that behavior is tantamount to rejecting their identity and humanity... something Jesus would never do. Especially if it is true, as some studies suggest, that he was a wife-beater himself (in his relationship with Mary Magdalene) and ordained several wife-beaters among his first disciples. This is why I am proud to say that our church is fully supportive and inclusive of wife-beaters.
Q: Criticism has been expressed in recent years over how your church has sent members into America and elsewhere to establish chapters of Hitagirltry, the pro-wife-beating organization based in your country, headed by Crude Lou and Samson Tussle.
A: We feel it is our God-given mission to reach out and support our wife-beating brothers in all parts of the world, especially in those places where they are discriminated against by religious or secular forces. Why, in America it is actually possible to be put into prison for wife-beating! We need to let our wife-beating brothers in other parts of the world know that we hear their voices and share their pain. Part of that ministry is to have a presence on the ground to support and encourage them.
Q: Does it trouble you at all that wife-beating is contrary to the tradition of Christian faith and order, the teaching and practice of centuries of Anglicanism, the explicit statements of previous Lambeth meetings, and the consensus of the majority of the Anglican Communion?
A: Not at all. The spirit is clearly doing a "new thing" in helping us value and celebrate wife-beating. The Church has always been called to push the boundaries... so we need to leave behind the comfortable but dated assumptions and practices of the benightened pre-modern past in order to explore the new places to which God is calling us today. Our church is, in that tradition of radical liminality, encountering God by blazing a new way for others in the Communion to follow.
Q: Are you concerned by rumors that the draft Covenant may call for a moritorium on wife-beating?
A: Of course not. The final form of the Covenant is far from established, and there will be several years yet before a draft is proposed for our church to review. Moreover, the Covenant will, explicitly, have no provision either for enforcement or for penalties, so it's not as if anyone can stop our God-given pursuit of this "new thing". Besides, joining the Covenant sub-group within the Anglican Communion will, by all accounts, be a completely voluntary thing anyway. So, no, I'm not concerned that anything will come of these current resolutions: the Covenant isn't a threat to anyone.
I do think that it is disappointing, however, that so much time and energy is being wasted examining the issue of wife-beating when we ought to be focusing on AIDS and the MDGs. That, after all, is the real ministry and mission of the church -- not concerns over what married couples do in the privacy of their own homes.Q: Bishop, thanks for your time.
A: Thank you. It was a pleasure bea.. er, meeting you.
Ms. Roskam was unavailable for comment on this interview.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The REAL reason Gene wasn't invited?
The REAL reason Gene Robinson wasn't invited to Lambeth...
... only one queen is allowed at a palace Garden Party!
The Archbishop's new Address
Rowan Williams is at it again.But this time, at least, he's not addressing the glories of indaba or the dangers of rising sea levels or whatever. He's actually addressing the crisis in the Anglican Communion. Well... it's a start.
Once again, he insists that the only way the crisis can be addressed is by a Covenant:
I spoke about council and covenant as the shape of the way forward as I see it. And by this I meant, first, that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church.and insists that this is the only reasonable way forward;
We need to speak life to each other; and that means change. I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be — a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way). I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration.
But also, once again, the ABC hastens to assure us that this Covenant is not to be "legalistic", but rather something freely chosen by all parties:
good law is about guaranteeing consistence and fairness in a community; and also that in a community like the Anglican family, it can only work when there is free acceptance. Properly understood, a covenant is an expression of mutual generosity.And this means:
Mutual generosity : part of what this means is finding out what the other person or group really means and really needs. The process of this last ten days has been designed to help us to find out something of this — so that when we do address divisive issues, we have created enough of a community for an intelligent generosity to be born.
In other words, the Covenant requires -- and this Lambeth was supposed to help create -- a kind of "generous listening" which enable each side to hear the other and then -- by some magical alchemy -- move to that "deeper place" where they discover they really are really all the same: to
speak from the heart of our identity as Anglicans; and ultimately from that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ.
Apparently all the "listening" that has been going on for the last decade isn't enough. Apparently each side doesn't understand what the other side actually says, thinks and believes. Apparently we need more listening before we can actually hear each other.
It would seem that the ABC himself is a bit frustrated by how long this is taking, since he uses the majority of his address to speak for each side -- to say what he thinks they ought to be saying and hearing... since obviously they aren't getting the right answers themselves.
And it's a typically eloquent bit of rhetoric, and I'm sure it sounds great in an English accent. But does it make any sense?
The "traditional believer" in Williams' dialog says:
What we seek to do in our context is faithfully to pass on what you passed on to us — Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline. But what are we to think when all these things seem to be questioned and even overturned? We want to be pastorally caring to all, to be “inclusive” as you like to say. We want to welcome everyone. Yet the gospel and the faith you passed on to us tell us that some kinds of behaviour and relationship are not blessed by God.The "not so traditional believer" replies:
What we seek to do in our context is to bring Jesus alive in the minds and hearts of the people of our culture. Trying to speak the language of the culture and relate honestly to where people really are doesn’t have to be a betrayal of Scripture and tradition. We know we’re pushing the boundaries — but don’t some Christians always have to do that? Doesn’t the Bible itself suggest that?
All very pretty. But look at how Williams casts this. The traditional believer says "we seek to do in our context" -- as if the Gospel the preach is true in some contexts but not in others. And this Gospel is not characterized, in William's depiction, as that which they received from the Lord and pass on... it is the characterized as the Gospel they received from the First World which now advocates the homosexualist heresy. As if that First World is "upstream" and so more authoritative. And this implicit relativism is even clearer in what Williams has these "traditionalists" say next:
Our love and our welcome are unreal if we don’t truthfully let others know what has shaped and directed our lives... what they are preaching is fundamentally centered in their experience -- "what has shaped and directed our lives" -- rather than in the revelation of Scripture.
The "not so traditional believer" likewise speaks in terms of cultural relativity and "experience", rather than of Scriptural authority. They also appeal to "context" -- "we seek to do in our context" -- to "speak the language of the culture and relate honestly to where people really are". And this is how the revisionist innovations are justified; for such boundary-pushing speak-where-you are behavior is what the Bible itself supposedly suggests and encourages... and not all such boundary-pushing doesn't necessarily "have to be a betrayal of Scripture and tradition". (The "not so traditional believer" doesn't actually prove that it is not such a betrayal, merely throws out the possibility that it might potentially not be.)
But doesn't this completely miss the essential point of the disagreement. The "traditional believers" understand what the "not so traditional believers" think. They understand that the liberals claim that homosexualism is compatible with Scripture. AND THEY DISAGREE. And not just with homosexualism, but with the whole relativistic, culturally-conditioned anti-Scriptural-authority mindset which goes along with that heresy. It's not enough to preach or practice any old thing, saying "oh, maybe this isn't heretical" or "oh, maybe this doesn't violate Scripture and Tradition." You have to prove it doesn't violate them before beginning to move forward (or, perhaps, backward) on the possibility can even be contemplated. And you especially shouldn't be implementing a teaching or policy which has been expressly condemned as contrary to Scripture and Tradition by the Communion as a whole. (Lambeth '98 resolution 1.10 anyone?)
And here is where Williams' "explain each side to the other" presentation is so disingenuous. Because he depicts the "traditional believers" as if they spoke this same culturally-conditioned language. They preach not the Gospel they receive in the Bible - the authoritative teaching of Scripture and Tradition... no, they preach the Gospel they got some years ago from the First World. (Presumably, if a different gospel were preached back then, they'd now be preaching that different gospel instead.) They don't speak an objective truth, given to the saints once for all and for all mankind, but they preach a message which is only for their "context".
To see this in action, look at how Williams characterizes their concern over the effects of First World homosexualism. Is it a concern over the abandonment of the Faith, the spreading of a false gospel and the damnation of souls? No -- it's concern over interfaith relations with Muslims and the ramifications it has in their particular "context":
Your decisions make a vast difference to us. In this world of instant communication, our neighbours know what you do, and they see us as sharing the responsibility... Imagine what it means when those neighbours are non-Christians, delighted to find a stick to beat us with. Imagine what it is to be known as the ‘gay church’ in a context where that spells real contempt and danger.And the "not so traditional believers" respond in kind -- to cease their aggressive revisionism on the homosexualist issue would be "a betrayal" of their gay and lesbian members, for it would mean rejecting their "gifts" and instead, by not supporting their sexual and civil rights through full inclusion in the sacramental life of the church (marriage & ordination) would be to put them at risk because "they’re still at risk in our society, still vulnerable to murderous violence."
The differences over the homosexualist heresy are presented not in terms of Scripture, not in terms of theology, not in terms of belief -- but in terms of "social justice" and "cultural context": the "traditional believers" have to reject homosexualism or they will be attacked by their neighbors (though how this is supposed to apply to traditionalist believers in all parts of the world -- including the U.S. -- where advocating homosexualism does not invite physical violence is not explained)... the "not so traditional believers" have to embrace homosexualism because otherwise the gays and lesbians in their culture will be "vulnerable to murderous violence" (though how the attitudes of a tiny and increasingly irrelevant minority religious denomination is going to make such a huge murder-preventing difference in a post-Christian Hollywood-acculturated secular culture as America is, also, not explained.)
Once again, the whole discussion is made "relative" and "cultural" and "experiential" -- nothing is said about how these reflect fundamentally different (and irreconcilable) attitudes toward God, Scripture, faith and the Church.
In other words, underlying this "instructional dialog" Williams gives us -- his instruction in how each side is supposed to speak to and hear each other -- is inherently flawed -- if not downright dishonest -- in how it presents the "traditional" voice.
Because this isn't the traditional voice, approach or perspective which Williams presents; this is the revisionist approach and perspective, simply speaking with a different set of assumptions and perspectives. It's a cultural and theological relativism depicted as defending a "traditional" point of view on certain issues, yes... but still a revisionist view toward the central questions of theology and Scriptural authority. For it is still a relativism which bases itself not on revelation, not on the Gospel, not on the clear teaching and mandate of Scripture and Tradition... but merely on on context, culture and experience.
This is why Williams' whole appeal to "consent" and "mutual generosity" and "listening" and "covenant" ultimately fails utterly. Because that whole process is based on the idea that there is a "deeper place" -- a "centre" -- where people can meet, listen, and speak "from the heart of our identity as Anglicans."
There is no such shared heart.
The ABC's whole approach only works if you agree on the fundamentals, the principles and the approach. Then you can "meet" at that common ground and discuss how to work forward together onto less essential matters, firmly grounded on the fundamentals you share.
But the two "sides" in the current Anglican crisis do not share the fundamentals. They do not share the same understanding of God, Scripture, or the Church. For one group, the revelation of Scripture has priority and authority; God does not change His will or His word; and the Church is to speak these eternal truths in whatever culture or context she finds herself in. For the other, culture and experience have authority; Scripture must be constantly reinterpreted and reedited to measure up to each generation's new "revelation"; God is constant changing His mind, His Spirit constantly doing some "new thing" or another which can completely contradict past revelation and teaching on even the most fundamental issues.
What we have in the Anglican Communion is NOT two sides which share the basics and disagree on secondary matters or application -- what we have is two sides which disagree on the fundamentals, and are joined together only by the secondary matters of a shared (or, at least, overlapping) liturgical and historical tradition.
In short, the ABC is asking the different sides to come together on a fundamental ground that they do not share in order work from a common identity out toward the points of disagreement. Which simply doesn't work if the requisite starting point of that process is one of the points of fundamental disagreement.
And this is why, in his little "thought experiment" of the two sides speaking to each other, Williams per force misrepresents one of the sides... he has to, if he's going to present a picture in which they're basing a conversation on a shared common ground which, in actual fact, they do not share. This is why his "conversation" is not actually between a "traditional" and a "not so traditional" Anglicanism, but merely between two factions of "not so traditional" Anglicanism, each speaking to a different context or culture... but neither basing its position on revelation, the authority of Scripture, or the unchanging will of God.
And where does Williams' heart lie? Well, it should be clear from his pre-ABC days of advocating for homosexual marriage and knowingly ordaining practicing homosexuals. And it should be clear from his choice of which "side"'s approach and assumptions from which to have both groups in his imaginary conversation.
And you can see this in how the liberals in his dialog "spin" the issues. For their complaint to their fellow disputants is:
We want to be generous, and we are hurt that some throw back in our faces both the experience and the resources we long to share. Can you try and see us as fellow-believers struggling to proclaim the same Christ, and to be patient with us?’But for traditional believers this isn't about "hurt feelings"... this isn't even about the violent cultural or religious consequences of certain beliefs. This is about the fact that the "Christ" being proclaimed by the revisionists is not the Christ of Scripture, but some modern relativist invention and fable. And so, no, they cannot "see [you] as fellow-believers struggling to proclaim the same Christ"... because you have made it abundantly clear, by your own statements, beliefs, and actions, that, whatever it is you are "struggling to proclaims", it is NOT the "same Christ."
Where Williams' heart lies is even clearer, here, in what he suggest each side risks:
For the first speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusation of compromise : you’ve been bought, you’ve been deceived by airy talk into tolerating unscriptural and unfaithful policies. For the second speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusations of sacrificing the needs of an oppressed group for the sake of a false or delusional unity, giving up a precious Anglican principle for the sake of a dangerous centralisation.We know from what the ABC has said and done before that he does not fear that differences over Scriptural interpretation or Church practices are fundamentally divisive or un-Anglican. But he does feel that to sacrifice the needs of an oppressed group is to make the whole thing hollow, self-serving and pointless; and that for Anglicanism to adopt any sort of "centralization" would be to abandon what is essentially Anglican and become something else. Meaning that such a compromise by the "not so traditional believers" is far more troubling and un-Anglican, from Williams' point of view anyway, than what is being asked of "traditional believers." So that, even in this already-distorted presentation of the "traditional" voice, his clear sympathies remain with the revisionists.
Because, you see, the kind of "centralization" for lack of which the Anglican Communion (or, rather, the 5 million at its liberal fringes) are disintegrating is not a "papal" centralization of international law or archepiscopal authority. It is, rather, a common "center" around obedience to Scripture and Tradition -- to the clear teaching of 2000 years of Christian (including Anglican) thought and practice. It is precisely because the Anglican Communion doesn't have this kind of "centralization" (a centralization to which, it seems, Williams also objects) that it doesn't have that very "deeper centre" or "shared heart" from which Williams wants it to speak... and, without which, all Williams' theories and procedures collapse into nothing but impotent, meaningless verbiage.
After the past 10 years of conversations, listening, meetings, and committee after committee, you'd think Williams would have grasped that basic difference. Would have managed to realize that the essential issues under dispute mean that the very "common ground" to which he calls everyone to return for yet more "listening" and "conversation" and "generosity" is not, in fact, common ground... but the subject of the fundamental dispute.
Everyone else has figured this out by now. (Some, like those in the Continuing Church movement, figured it out decades ago!) You'd think Williams would have figured it out too.
But, judging from the archbishop's latest address... well, I guess not.
Lambeth Reflections -- "A Lambeth Happened"
The one "official" document being put out by Lambeth is not any of the WCG "lead trial balloons" circulated for discussion, but the "Lambeth Reflections" document which is expressly designed simply to report that open-ended unresolved discussions took place:
The first portion (6 sections of 15) simply says that a Lambeth Conference happened, thanks people for helping a Lambeth Conference to happen, and describes the schedule and processes by which it happened. In other words, Canterbury Anglicanism's usual approach of "progress by stating the status quo".
Then, having been told that a Lambeth occured at which things were discussed, we get a list of some of the things discussed. A number of these are simply stating the obvious. Another Anglican passtime.
Here are some additional highlights. If you aren't yet ashamed to be affiliated with a "church" group whose highest levels can't produce anything more substantive or Christian than this garbage, then you ought to be ashamed of yourself for not being ashamed of it.
On Scripture:
On Worship and Belief:
On Communion Relationships:
The proposed Covenant:
The mission of the Anglican Communion:
These "five marks of mission", by the way, have been circulating for decades now as part of official Anglican-speak. They are:
Of course, we've already seen that what the "Good News" actually is thought to be will - like the meaning of Scripture - differ wildly from place to place. Meaning, of course, that the religion (or lack thereof) into which new believers are being baptized and indoctrinated will also differ wildly from place to place. But that's okay -- we agree to disagree about what we agree on.
But the majority of the concern -- as is clear from the relative weight these points get in the draft Reflections -- is on the issues of social justice. (Environmentalism will come soon... they just haven't had those indabas yet.) Which is probably why the revisionists wish that the "five points" would speak more about globalism and political/secular issues and less about these piddling spiritual and theological things we disagree about anyway.
Evangelism: as part of its concern to live out this secular non-religious "mission", here are some of the concerns about "evangelism" which are raised:
One of the "best" suggestions for "evangelism" in this pathetic document is this one: "Reconciliation within faith communities through our common identity". Ah, that would be reconciliation between groups which don't have a common identity based on their common identity. I get it. Just like the Covenant and the authority of Scripture. Right.
The less said about the vision of what role the "Anglican Communion" is supposed to play in this "evangelism" and "mission" the better. Besides, you can sum it all up as "To facilitate communication and interaction between different groups doing social justice work, peace work, and preaching contradictory religions."
There is one thing which the Communion is supposed to be against, however, as part of its contribution to "evangelization" of this new Anglican "mission":
Section D, "Social Justice", gives a clear summary of Lambeth's Vision for what being an Anglican Christian means, what its "evangelical" message is, and how it is to live out the "mission" of bringing this new emptied-of-Christian-spiritual-content gospel to the world. But don't despair about the one obvious glaring omission in this statement... the Conference hasn't gotten to its indabas on environmentalism yet, so that's sure to get included as well in the final "Reflections" document.
Of course, none of these things are, themselves, un- or anti- Christian (though the way certain folks may chose to implement some of them -- e.g. PEcUSA's homosexualist heresy -- certainly are)... but neither are they the heart of the Christian message. The Good News of Christ's divinity, His resurrection from the dead, our redemption from sin, our salvation to eternal life, and the coming of the Kingdom of heaven are all totally absent from this "Canterbury Anglicanism", whose members cannot agree on any of these beliefs.
We have, instead, removed the root, trunk, and most of the branches of Christianity... and now eagerly focus on particular fruit on the remaining branch. Well, I can tell you what's going to happen now that you've removed the root and trunk... that branch is going to die and the fruit is going to rot. (Though, of course, rot is a good thing according to Dr. Schori...)
Welcome to the Brave New World of Lambeth-Anglican -- Lamblican -- "Christianity".
Indaba is open-ended conversation, which doesn't begin by looking for results or feedback. The final document must be faithful to the indaba process: it will therefore be descriptive of the totality of the engagement which the bishops have undertaken under God.And now the "first draft" -- sort of a brainstormed outline and list of statements, describing the discussions, to include -- has been released.
The first portion (6 sections of 15) simply says that a Lambeth Conference happened, thanks people for helping a Lambeth Conference to happen, and describes the schedule and processes by which it happened. In other words, Canterbury Anglicanism's usual approach of "progress by stating the status quo".
Then, having been told that a Lambeth occured at which things were discussed, we get a list of some of the things discussed. A number of these are simply stating the obvious. Another Anglican passtime.
Here are some additional highlights. If you aren't yet ashamed to be affiliated with a "church" group whose highest levels can't produce anything more substantive or Christian than this garbage, then you ought to be ashamed of yourself for not being ashamed of it.
On Scripture:
We believe the scriptures to be primary, but read them informed by tradition and reason and with regard for the cultural context. We find biblical scholarship a helpful tool to unpack the scriptures, but cannot avoid a divergence in interpretation, which leads to confusion.I.e. we agree that Scripture is primary, but disagree completely on how to read them, what assumptions to bring to that study, and what the Scriptures actually say. How typically modern Anglican: "we all agree to statements on the meaning of which we disagree, but that's okay because we've agreed to disagree about what exactly what we've agreed on means."
On Worship and Belief:
Anglican worship encourages local freedom and inculturation, but values common structure and common prayer across the Communion. We recognise the relationship between liturgy and doctrine - worship shapes belief.We agree to value a common structure as long as we can freely put completely different things within that structure. Those culturally-influenced differing contents, in turn, shape differing beliefs.
On Communion Relationships:
There is a strong desire to stay in communion with one another... There is a strong view that the way forward lies chiefly through deepening: person to person relationships, diocesan partnerships, a sense of belonging and mutual affection.We value our relationship, which is a relationship based on having a relationship.
The proposed Covenant:
There seems to be a general acceptance that we shall have a Covenant.Consistent with the above, I predict that this will mean having a Covenant that covenants people to having a Covenant. The interpretation or meaning of anything that Covenant actually says or suggests will, of course, differ wildly from place to place; but that's okay, since everyone agrees to disagree about what is actually meant by that to which they've agreed.
The mission of the Anglican Communion:
We value the “five marks of mission”, though we would wish to see greater emphasis on ecumenism, peace-making and global mutuality. We recognise that to speak out for social justice is a part of mission.So much for the Gospel.
These "five marks of mission", by the way, have been circulating for decades now as part of official Anglican-speak. They are:
- To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
- To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
- To respond to human need by loving service
- To seek to transform unjust structures of society
- To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth
But the majority of the concern -- as is clear from the relative weight these points get in the draft Reflections -- is on the issues of social justice. (Environmentalism will come soon... they just haven't had those indabas yet.) Which is probably why the revisionists wish that the "five points" would speak more about globalism and political/secular issues and less about these piddling spiritual and theological things we disagree about anyway.
Evangelism: as part of its concern to live out this secular non-religious "mission", here are some of the concerns about "evangelism" which are raised:
Reconciliation [there's that Episcopal buzz-word for their current trendy un-scriptural and bankrupt theological crap, which replaces spiritual concerns of sin, salvation, and relationship to God with social justice issues]... The Church needs to be watchful of the migration policies of governments... Demographics and economic decline were identified as factors in some situations. The need to welcome immigrants and those in the urban drift was expressed... The needs which confront the church are many but there is inadequate income for undertaking the mission of the church [yeah... especially those places like the Episcopal church, whose membership is declining faster than any other Christian group, which is driving out and suing members, and which is spending millions of dollars annually on the legal fees required for that self-immolation]... There must also be a compassionate community, the enabling of others by the leadership of the church, and the marginalized must be kept in focus [we all know who the "marginalized" in PEcUSA are... they're the ones who have been kept in focus for 30 years now while others (e.g. traditional and orthodox Anglicans) are driven out. This isn't about bringing the "Good News" to those on the margins, this is about making the abandonment of that Good News by certain marginal groups the central focus of the institution]... HIV and AIDS and other pandemics – The church needs to be involved in advocacy, awareness building, pastoral care, and the provision of health care facilities for those affected...You'll look in vain for any sense in this section of Evangelism as bringing a clear Gospel message of salvation and the Lord Jesus Christ to all the world. No, the "prophetic voice" of this particular mission is:
human rights, environment, migrant workers, HIV and AIDS, and others;
One of the "best" suggestions for "evangelism" in this pathetic document is this one: "Reconciliation within faith communities through our common identity". Ah, that would be reconciliation between groups which don't have a common identity based on their common identity. I get it. Just like the Covenant and the authority of Scripture. Right.
The less said about the vision of what role the "Anglican Communion" is supposed to play in this "evangelism" and "mission" the better. Besides, you can sum it all up as "To facilitate communication and interaction between different groups doing social justice work, peace work, and preaching contradictory religions."
There is one thing which the Communion is supposed to be against, however, as part of its contribution to "evangelization" of this new Anglican "mission":
Support those who are isolated in their dioceses by initiatives such as that by Gafcon(I guess this explains the ABC's new 'Global South' group designed to undermine GAFCon) and one positive statement of the substance to which the Communion is supposed to contribute:
Make support for the Millennium Development Goals and support for HIV and AIDS ministry a primary focus.
Section D, "Social Justice", gives a clear summary of Lambeth's Vision for what being an Anglican Christian means, what its "evangelical" message is, and how it is to live out the "mission" of bringing this new emptied-of-Christian-spiritual-content gospel to the world. But don't despair about the one obvious glaring omission in this statement... the Conference hasn't gotten to its indabas on environmentalism yet, so that's sure to get included as well in the final "Reflections" document.
The MDGs are seen as a very good framework for engaging with social justice issues across the Communion at Provincial, Diocesan and Parish level... Through education at every level (in the Diocese, Parish, Theological institutions and Schools), formally and informally, social justice issues should be addressed regularly and systematically. As Bishops, we must model and encourage others to live out their faith in Christ in a way which demonstrates our commitment to these issues. Taking due regard of local contexts, we commit ourselves to advocating and lobbying (government, agencies, business, ecumenical, inter-faith partners and any other appropriate agencies or bodies) on the many issues of social justice we find in our world. We commit ourselves to discerning and interpreting local needs in a way that leads to action, because this is being prophetic. The Bishops role in all of the above is to enable communities of faith to be agents of transformation and reconciliation.
Of course, none of these things are, themselves, un- or anti- Christian (though the way certain folks may chose to implement some of them -- e.g. PEcUSA's homosexualist heresy -- certainly are)... but neither are they the heart of the Christian message. The Good News of Christ's divinity, His resurrection from the dead, our redemption from sin, our salvation to eternal life, and the coming of the Kingdom of heaven are all totally absent from this "Canterbury Anglicanism", whose members cannot agree on any of these beliefs.
We have, instead, removed the root, trunk, and most of the branches of Christianity... and now eagerly focus on particular fruit on the remaining branch. Well, I can tell you what's going to happen now that you've removed the root and trunk... that branch is going to die and the fruit is going to rot. (Though, of course, rot is a good thing according to Dr. Schori...)
Welcome to the Brave New World of Lambeth-Anglican -- Lamblican -- "Christianity".
Monday, July 28, 2008
Who needs a Pastoral Forum?...
... just use a bucket of water. Hey, it worked for Dorothy!
You and your little dog too! EH heh heh heh heh heh heh.....
Deja vu all over again for yet another time
The dreaded Windsor Continuation Group has issued its much-awaited third discussion paper, preemptively decried among main stream media journalists, in the face of all the evidence, to be herald to a new Inquisition and a papal Anglican Communion. (Cue villain music.)
No doubt all the usual Anglican blogs will be analyzing this all day.
Meanwhile, I'd like to add to the discussion by examining what "new elements" this "memo for discussion" brings to the table. If any.
The memo starts up with a rather bland summary of the existing situation:
Then it goes on to give its "new proposals". It suggests that some interim authority or process needs to be put in place to hold everyone together until a Covenant can be produced. (Yeah, like the Covenant is going to fix anything, or the pansexualists will pay any attention to it). So the WCG observes:
The WCG wants to set up a new "Forum" to mediate disputes and oversee the "continued" implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report:
And the mission and mandate of the WCG's proposed new Forum?
In short, this much-dreaded WCG suggestion of a Pastoral Forum is nothing more than the Pastoral Council proposal all over again. Heck, they couldn't even come up with more than 50% of a new name for it!
And we all know how effective that was -- UTTERLY INEFFECTUAL.
Let's do a quick historical review, shall we?
And now the Windsor Continuation Group is saying that yet another committee ought to be formed 
to monitor the situation and, if things don't change, "offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the Communion" should result.
Wanna bet that, if PEcUSA (to the surprise of all) still doesn't change direction, the Forum might just recommend... the formation of another committee?!! Assuming, that is, that the WCG's proposed "Pastoral Forum" actual manages to do what the Primate's proposed "Pastoral Council" never managed to do... i.e. anything at all.
More than that, you'll recall that the Windsor Report clearly stated that the irregular boundary-crossings which had resulted from reactions to PEcUSA's apostasy were not as serious a problem as that apostasy itself. That the unilateral abandonment of Christian and Anglican standards by PEcUSA in gay ordinations and marriages was the chief cause of division, and these boundary-crossings simply a response to them. All three issues were cited as inappropriate, but the boundary-crossings issue was -- because it was caused by and a reaction to the former -- the least serious.
All sense of that perspective is lost in the WCG's report. It makes no difference of nature or degree in its call for
And you get an indication of just what sort of non-existent support to Episcopalians who wish to flee their organization's apostasy (assuming there are any such Episcopalians left, and it isn't now just institutionalists willing to sacrifice all fidelity to the faith for the sake of fidelity to the unfaithful organization) when the WCG's report says:
So, there you have it, folks. The earth-shattering suggestions of the Windsor Continuation Group. And they do, indeed, continue --
continue to offer simply more of the same: talk and no action, endless committees, and vague, substance-less, meaningless, impotent hand-waving at irrelevant and unenforceable "consequences". Committees forming committees forming committees...
Congratulations people.
The Anglican Communion has finally gone completely fractal. Or, to put it more bluntly: FRACT UP
And it turned out to be a real tempest after all!
No doubt all the usual Anglican blogs will be analyzing this all day.
- Those who still retain a grasp on the bare minimum of sanity, logic, and historical awareness will recognized this statement -- which, I remind you, is merely a "talking points" memo issued by a non-legislative committee for purposes of discussion -- for what it is: yet more nothing.
- The "look for any excuse to justify not doing anything" institutionalists, who desperately need more and more justification for their ingrained habit of rejecting the faith for the sake of staying in the organization, will - yet again - clutch at straws by telling us what a hopeful, positive sign this is, with many excellent new elements and possibilities, and that we should all continue to do nothing rash for another decade or so to see how it plays out this time.
- The revisionists, heretics and apostates will run about shrieking how this is a terribly invasive idea, smacks of un-Anglican popery, and anyway, only General Convention (or each diocese, or the HoB... or whichever group looks least likely to approve it and has its next meeting scheduled as far in the future as possible) can really respond to it anyway. They've already started too.
Meanwhile, I'd like to add to the discussion by examining what "new elements" this "memo for discussion" brings to the table. If any.
The memo starts up with a rather bland summary of the existing situation:
The failure to respond presents us with a situation where if the three moratoria are not observed, the Communion is likely to fracture. The patterns of action currently embraced with the continued blessings of same-sex unions and of interventions could lead to irreparable damage.No, REALLY? I never would have guessed.
BREAKING: Windsor Continuation Group announced that the sun rose today. Reporters shocked; liberals scandalized.
Then it goes on to give its "new proposals". It suggests that some interim authority or process needs to be put in place to hold everyone together until a Covenant can be produced. (Yeah, like the Covenant is going to fix anything, or the pansexualists will pay any attention to it). So the WCG observes:
In the period leading up to the establishment of a covenant, however, there are urgent issues which need addressing if we are going to be able to get to the point where such a renewal of trust even becomes possible.Golly, where I have I heard that before? Oh yeah -- the primates at Dar Es Salaam a year and a half ago.
The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant.
The WCG wants to set up a new "Forum" to mediate disputes and oversee the "continued" implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report:
the swift formation of a 'Pastoral Forum' at Communion level to engage theologically and practically with situations of controversy as they arise or divisive actions that may be taken around the Communion.Hang on, this also sounds familiar.
The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church.The WCG's Forum must have members appointed by the ABC and represent points of view representing the "breadth" of the Communion as a whole. (I.e. it must have incorporated into its structure precisely the same incoherence and incompatibility which has paralyzed the Communion... so that by representing everyone it can be sure to accomplish nothing.)
The President of such a Forum would be the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would also appoint its episcopal chair, and its members. The membership of the Forum must include members from the Instruments of Communion and be representative of the breadth of the life of the Communion as a whole.That, too, sounds rather familiar.
This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.
And the mission and mandate of the WCG's proposed new Forum?
The Pastoral Forum should be empowered to act in the Anglican Communion in a rapid manner to emerging threats to its life, especially through the ministry of its Chair, who should work alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury in the exercise of his ministry. The Forum would be responsible for addressing those anomalies of pastoral care arising in the Communion against the recommendations of the Windsor Report. It could also offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the Communion might be appropriate where any of the three moratoria are broken.Now that sure sounds a lot like:
negotiate the necessary structures for pastoral care which would meet the requests of the Windsor Report (TWR, §147–155) and the Primates’ requests in the Lambeth Statement of October 2003... authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme, including the criteria for participation of bishops, dioceses and congregations in the scheme... monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report... consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report §157 [Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented] should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal Church and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion... take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this scheme and report to the Primates.
In short, this much-dreaded WCG suggestion of a Pastoral Forum is nothing more than the Pastoral Council proposal all over again. Heck, they couldn't even come up with more than 50% of a new name for it!
And we all know how effective that was -- UTTERLY INEFFECTUAL.
Let's do a quick historical review, shall we?
- PEcUSA was warned that, if they continued their advocacy of the homsexualist heresy by ordaining an openly gay bishop (despite the fact that this is no more a violation of Scripture and Tradition than the ordination of such individuals to the deaconate and priesthood as well) there would be consequences. They ordained Gene Robinson anyway.
- Then there was a whole flurry of meetings and consultations which resulted in the Windsor Report, saying (section 157) that if PEcUSA didn't stop with the homosexual ordinations and "union" blessings, there would be consequences. They kept up with them anyway.
- Then there was the Primates meeting at Dar Es Salaam which issued a statement -- with which Dr. Schori agreed at least until she was safely back in the U.S. and could say that she had no power to agree and never actually agreed anyway -- saying that if they didn't change their course, there would be consequences. They stayed on the same course anyway.
- Then various people suggested that if PEcUSA didn't make adequate response by fall of 2007 they wouldn't be invited to Lambeth. They didn't make adequate response. Williams invited them to Lambeth anyway.
to monitor the situation and, if things don't change, "offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the Communion" should result.Wanna bet that, if PEcUSA (to the surprise of all) still doesn't change direction, the Forum might just recommend... the formation of another committee?!! Assuming, that is, that the WCG's proposed "Pastoral Forum" actual manages to do what the Primate's proposed "Pastoral Council" never managed to do... i.e. anything at all.
More than that, you'll recall that the Windsor Report clearly stated that the irregular boundary-crossings which had resulted from reactions to PEcUSA's apostasy were not as serious a problem as that apostasy itself. That the unilateral abandonment of Christian and Anglican standards by PEcUSA in gay ordinations and marriages was the chief cause of division, and these boundary-crossings simply a response to them. All three issues were cited as inappropriate, but the boundary-crossings issue was -- because it was caused by and a reaction to the former -- the least serious.
All sense of that perspective is lost in the WCG's report. It makes no difference of nature or degree in its call for
the complete cessation of a) the celebration of blessings for same-sex unions, b) consecrations of those living in openly gay relationships, and c) all cross border interventions and inter-provincial claims of jurisdiction.And its threats of "discipline" (even if they amount to nothing more than proposing a discussion about the possibility of forming another committee to discuss the possibility of discipline) apply equally as well:
It could also offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the Communion might be appropriate where any of the three moratoria are broken.
And you get an indication of just what sort of non-existent support to Episcopalians who wish to flee their organization's apostasy (assuming there are any such Episcopalians left, and it isn't now just institutionalists willing to sacrifice all fidelity to the faith for the sake of fidelity to the unfaithful organization) when the WCG's report says:
We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in the Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own Province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion.I've already pointed out, by examining the details of PEcUSA's CPP program and membership, just what an empty, meaningless shell it is -- nothing more than a celebrated version of existing policy. Yet such emptiness is, apparently, exactly what the WCG is praising and encouraging.
So, there you have it, folks. The earth-shattering suggestions of the Windsor Continuation Group. And they do, indeed, continue --
continue to offer simply more of the same: talk and no action, endless committees, and vague, substance-less, meaningless, impotent hand-waving at irrelevant and unenforceable "consequences". Committees forming committees forming committees...Congratulations people.
The Anglican Communion has finally gone completely fractal. Or, to put it more bluntly: FRACT UP
Now go away, or we shall committee you a second time!
Sunday, July 27, 2008
But what's for dinner?
Looks like Rowan Williams has jumped on another Schori bandwagon. Nothing like a worthwhile secular cause to help distract from the primary spiritual, theological, moral and ecclesiastical crises facing the Anglican Communion Lambeth Anglican Fellowship.
Okay, archbishop... but if anyone has served or eaten beef at the Lambeth Conference, I'm afraid we won't be able to take your concern as genuine. After all, your buddy Dr. Schori already warned us in her theologically profound Easter sermon this year:
Last Monday, at the Lambeth Conference, Bishop Winston Halapua from Polynesia spoke about a meeting of churches from various Pacific islands where the subject for discussion had been neither social justice nor personal ethics, but the bare fact of rising ocean levels. Within a very few years, the likelihood is that several small islands will simply become uninhabitable.
Nothing could have brought home more directly the issue that the conference discusses this Saturday – the church's responsibility for the environment. While scepticism about climate change is still given astonishing prominence in some western media, the day-to-day reality of rising water levels is not a matter of debate for our colleagues in the Pacific. Part of the importance of the Lambeth Conference to us all in the Anglican Church is that it lets us hear these things in first hand detail.
Okay, archbishop... but if anyone has served or eaten beef at the Lambeth Conference, I'm afraid we won't be able to take your concern as genuine. After all, your buddy Dr. Schori already warned us in her theologically profound Easter sermon this year:When atmospheric warming, due in part to the methane output of the millions of cows we raise each year to produce hamburger, begins to slowly drown the island homes of our neighbors in the South Pacific, are we truly sharing good news?
First cast out the beef out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the steak out of thy brother's eye.
Bible Study, Episcopal style
Dr. Schori helps us understand the real meaning of Jesus' parables:
Apparently that's a good sign.
Welcome to Dr. Schori's vision of the Kingdom of Heaven.
So fear not, keep looking, and give thanks that when you find a glimpse of the kingdom of heaven, it is around us, even if it smells pretty fishy or whether it sounds like a riot in the wee hours of the morning.The Episcopal church smells of death and decay, rocking with the shrill sounds of conflict and dissension.
Apparently that's a good sign.
Welcome to Dr. Schori's vision of the Kingdom of Heaven.The true cost of apostasy
For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts. Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honourable,
he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. Isaiah 9
he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. Isaiah 9The apostate leaders of the Episcopal church continue to lead their sheep-like congregations into heresy and damnation. For every one parishoner who has the intelligence and courage to leave the hell-bent organization, there are ten who will stay put, sliding slowly into apostasy, for lack of courage, or awareness, or care. Not the ones who seek out the apostasy of their free choice... the ones who blindly trust their faithless clergy, are caused to err, and are destroyed. And for this, I believe, those leaders shall be held accountable when they appear before the Throne.
But there are those who leave for whom they shall also be held accountable. For by profaning of the Church and of Scripture, these leaders have caused some to despair of those things as well... to throw out the good and the true because of the stink of the evil.
Make no mistake, our Lord Jesus Christ intended for His people to be a sacramental people, episcopally led, corporately worshiping. This is the clear model the apostles themselves spread as part of the initial deposit of the faith. For Christ sent them out into the world not just to bring a covenant, but also to bring a community. The Word made Flesh gave to His Bride the Church not just His words in Scripture but also His Flesh in Sacrament... and saved and redeemed and gave her, as well, her own body; a body brought together under the headship of His apostles and, from that source, of His bishops, the inheritors of that apostolic authority.
This is Christ's will for how His people, His Church, should live and for how they are to receive His greatest gift, His very flesh: given to His Church, in His sanctuaries, by His bishops. This is how His grace and favor are most intimately given to His people, according to His own promise.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6
And yet, reacting to the corruption and apostasy and spiritual evil that has infected the Episcopal House of Bishops, who have rejected that faith and that apostolic succession, many of the faithful are abandoning not just the apostasy but also the episcopacy and the sacraments. They are choosing, because the Episcopal church has abandoned His Word, to flee by abandoning His Flesh and His Bride as well. Because the Episcopal church has followed moral and ethical apostasy, they react against it by pursuing sacramental and ecclesiastical apostasy. They are wise to leave an organization which has abandoned Christ and so ceased to be the Church... but foolish to also abandon the Church in an effort to return to Christ.
Sadly, all too often, one reads of reactions like the following -- reads of those who, fleeing from a false church which has abandoned (along with forsaking Scripture) the apostolic succession, valid sacraments, and the true life of the Church to which Christ calls His people... flee to another place which has abandoned those things as well.
I have waited long enough and if something of massive global proportions does not happen in the very immediate future, then I will have lost faith in our conservative leadership once more and I will leave my very conservative TEC diocese for a non-denominational church or perhaps I’ll even quit going to church all together.
For these souls as well shall the apostate and the complicit leaders of the Episcopal church be held accountable.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in... Woe unto you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves... Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.... Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matthew 23
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves... Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.... Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matthew 23A Mirror-Mirror Schori?
Ever since she came into supreme executive power, Dr. Schori has been leading the charge of persecution and deposition against traditionalist Episcopal priests and bishops. Of course, this had already been quietly going on for years through misuse of the Title IV canons, a little legal trick started by the lovely bishop Bennison.
But Schori really ramped things up. In her brief tenure to date, she's already made a habit of charing into dioceses -- as she did in Virginia -- and forcing them to sue departing parishes, even if they had, internally, worked out and agreed upon an amicable protocol. When the diocese of San Joaquin voted by an overwhelming majority, all in accordance with its canons and proper procedures, to reaffiliate, she violated PEcUSA's own procedures, laws, and voting protocols to illegally attempt to depose San Joaquin's bishop and illegally install her own puppet diocese in its place. She has threatened to depose bishop Duncan because she does not like the views he has expressed or the way his own diocese has been voting.
In other words, she apparently has no reservations at all about storming into Episcopal dioceses to enforce her agenda on its people, leadership and policies -- even if it requires violating PEcUSA's own canons and procedures to do so.
And yet, when asked recently whether she would ask Gene Robinson to step down -- an individual whose ordination has done more to destroy international Anglican relations that anything that the bishops she has been suing and deposing have... and whose ordination represents, indeed, a rejection of the Christian and Anglican norms to which those other bishops have been attempting to be faithful -- she responded:
Could it be that this woman is a two-faced double-dealing dishonest conniving bald-faced liar? Why... that would be such an uncharitable conclusion! No, I think there's a much "nicer" explanation... which must therefore, logically, be the true one. Star Trek fans will remember what the real explanation turned out to be when Mr. Spock was discovered acting out of character, right?
You got it... a Spock from a parallel dimension!
Obviously, this must be the case with Dr. Schori. One Schori, who is a stickler for PEcUSA's canons and protocols -- and so refuses, on principle, to take any disciplinary action or interfere in the administration or choices of another diocese -- and the other, the mirror-mirror Schori who steamrolls over all laws, canons, protocols and procedures to impose her apostate policies, regardless of what the local people, congregations, priests or bishops want.
I mean, we all know what a good, honest, straight-forward leader -- one who always acts with respect, integrity, legality, and care for her people -- Schori is, right? So it must be a parallel-dimension twin who is doing all that other stuff, right?
Yeah. That's it.
But Schori really ramped things up. In her brief tenure to date, she's already made a habit of charing into dioceses -- as she did in Virginia -- and forcing them to sue departing parishes, even if they had, internally, worked out and agreed upon an amicable protocol. When the diocese of San Joaquin voted by an overwhelming majority, all in accordance with its canons and proper procedures, to reaffiliate, she violated PEcUSA's own procedures, laws, and voting protocols to illegally attempt to depose San Joaquin's bishop and illegally install her own puppet diocese in its place. She has threatened to depose bishop Duncan because she does not like the views he has expressed or the way his own diocese has been voting.
In other words, she apparently has no reservations at all about storming into Episcopal dioceses to enforce her agenda on its people, leadership and policies -- even if it requires violating PEcUSA's own canons and procedures to do so.
And yet, when asked recently whether she would ask Gene Robinson to step down -- an individual whose ordination has done more to destroy international Anglican relations that anything that the bishops she has been suing and deposing have... and whose ordination represents, indeed, a rejection of the Christian and Anglican norms to which those other bishops have been attempting to be faithful -- she responded:
That’s certainly not within my purview. He’s (Bishop Robinson) the bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire and such a response would be a matter between him and his diocese and certainly not anything I would expect.How about dem apples, eh? When a diocese does something she doesn't like -- such as upholding traditional Christian belief, or even failing to aggressively persecute those who do -- she's happy to storm in and start shoving people around. But when it's a fellow relativist and apostate (and particularly one who embodies PEcUSA's homosexualist heresy)... ah, all of a sudden she's a hands-off administrator and stickler for protocol.
Could it be that this woman is a two-faced double-dealing dishonest conniving bald-faced liar? Why... that would be such an uncharitable conclusion! No, I think there's a much "nicer" explanation... which must therefore, logically, be the true one. Star Trek fans will remember what the real explanation turned out to be when Mr. Spock was discovered acting out of character, right?
 Good Mr. Spock |
|
Obviously, this must be the case with Dr. Schori. One Schori, who is a stickler for PEcUSA's canons and protocols -- and so refuses, on principle, to take any disciplinary action or interfere in the administration or choices of another diocese -- and the other, the mirror-mirror Schori who steamrolls over all laws, canons, protocols and procedures to impose her apostate policies, regardless of what the local people, congregations, priests or bishops want.
I mean, we all know what a good, honest, straight-forward leader -- one who always acts with respect, integrity, legality, and care for her people -- Schori is, right? So it must be a parallel-dimension twin who is doing all that other stuff, right?
 Evil Dr. Schori |  Eviler Dr. Schori |
Yeah. That's it.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Windsor Continuation Grope, part 3 - more of the same
Once again, the liberal press is reporting rumors to us about what's going to be coming up at Lambeth:
Here's a reminder of its mission; it was commissioned
And here's what it's apparently going to be telling the bishops at Lambeth in two days:Sound familiar? It should. The Windsor Continuation Group is, after nearly four years of deep study and reflection, suggesting that everybody really ought to do what the Windsor Report said they should do in the first place. (I'm glad we had yet another committee, and more time and money spent, to bring us such a stunning insight.) And I'm sure PEcUSA and Canada will assure us, yet again, that they are complying... and the ABC will set up yet another commission to assure us that, yes, they are indeed complying.
And the penalty if they don't comply -- or, I should say, if something is actually done about their non-compliance for a change? Why... wait for it ... they might not get invited back to Lambeth in 10 years! The horror!
A little correction for the Telegraph's reporter though: Lambeth (and other international Anglican committees) are not "councils that are central to the governance of the Church". Haven't you been paying any attention? Why, just this week, Williams reminded everyone that
Anyway, come on now, how serious could this threat really be? I mean, this decade's Lambeth already represents only about one-third of the practicing "Lambeth-recognized" Anglicans in the world. (Some estimates suggest only about 11% of such Anglicans are represented there.) And the American and Canadian bishops (from their parishoner-thin top-heavy jurisdictions) -- though representing only about 2% of the world's practicing "Lambeth" Anglicans -- make up over 25% of the attendees. Stop inviting them, and the next Lambeth not only won't represent a majority of such Anglicans, it won't even have a majority of the Lambeth-recognized bishops at it either!
Actually, come to think of it, that would be a great way for Williams (or whomever) to achieve his much-desired "consensus" without requiring a central authority, any enforceable norms, or any coercive or punitive measures... just don't invite anyone else next time! Have a Lambeth Conference which consists of only the ABC, hold all the meetings, convene all the indabas, and pass all the resolutions you want... and you're still guaranteed a 100% consensus. Heck, he could hold it in his own living room and keep the thing from going 4 million dollars into debt again!
But, to return to the subject in hand -- just as these continued rumors about a restrictive Anglican Covenant, or a dreadful Anglican "Inquisition" or a draconian "Anglican Code of Law" run completely contrary to the actual facts as we currently know them, so too does this hyperventilating over the Windsor Continuation Group's upcoming report. Which, apparently, will consist of it saying "gee, it's been nearly four years now, we really ought to start to listen to the Windsor Report for a change... hello?.... guys?.... hello?.... can anyone hear me?.... hello?"
All this will, of course, accomplish no more than it did last time -- i.e. nothing at all. And, face it, even if something were to be implemented and enforced, the "penalty" for continuing to ignore the suggestions amounts to, basically, nothing. Nothing, that is, except for giving everyone a chance to reassure everyone back home that something is being accomplished. "See, we're making progress. Stop worrying and keep sending in the money!"
And, of course, all these people, who trust it when their bishops promise something is being done, will doubtless be stunned
and shocked and hurt yet again, when after another four years of more vague talking, ignored resolutions, and blatantly dishonest claims of compliance... nothing continues to happen.
But sure, in the meantime, issue the Windor Report all over again. Go on. It will work this time. Really. I promise.
Update (7/28): And here it is, in their own words
Liberals will be warned that they face being expelled from the heart of Anglicanism unless they respect the ban, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.This is the third and last installment of the dreaded Windsor Continuation Group, which we've mentioned before.
Here's a reminder of its mission; it was commissioned
to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process;... it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies... it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another.Not nearly as scary when you see what it's actually doing, is it -- it's yet another Anglican committee commissioned to examine the status quo.
And here's what it's apparently going to be telling the bishops at Lambeth in two days:
Until a consensus is reached, the American and Canadian churches must refrain from consecrating more homosexual bishops and carrying out blessing services for same-sex couples, the paper says. If they do not, they will face being pushed to the margins of the communion and find themselves excluded from the councils that are central to the governance of the Church. The African churches, which oppose having practising homosexuals in the clergy, will be told that they must stop intervening in the affairs of other churches as their actions are deepening the rift.
Sound familiar? It should. The Windsor Continuation Group is, after nearly four years of deep study and reflection, suggesting that everybody really ought to do what the Windsor Report said they should do in the first place. (I'm glad we had yet another committee, and more time and money spent, to bring us such a stunning insight.) And I'm sure PEcUSA and Canada will assure us, yet again, that they are complying... and the ABC will set up yet another commission to assure us that, yes, they are indeed complying.And the penalty if they don't comply -- or, I should say, if something is actually done about their non-compliance for a change? Why... wait for it ... they might not get invited back to Lambeth in 10 years! The horror!
A little correction for the Telegraph's reporter though: Lambeth (and other international Anglican committees) are not "councils that are central to the governance of the Church". Haven't you been paying any attention? Why, just this week, Williams reminded everyone that
The Conference has never been a lawmaking body in the strict sense and it wasn't designed to be one: every local Anglican province around the world has its own independent system of church law and there is no supreme court.These aren't councils central to the governance of each jurisdiction -- each jurisdiction can do whatever the smeg it wants, without reference to these "central" councils and conferences. Heck, in the case of PEcUSA, they've spent over 30 years doing whatever the smeg they want without reference to their own councils and canons! So it's not like there's any substance to this threatened penalty.
Anyway, come on now, how serious could this threat really be? I mean, this decade's Lambeth already represents only about one-third of the practicing "Lambeth-recognized" Anglicans in the world. (Some estimates suggest only about 11% of such Anglicans are represented there.) And the American and Canadian bishops (from their parishoner-thin top-heavy jurisdictions) -- though representing only about 2% of the world's practicing "Lambeth" Anglicans -- make up over 25% of the attendees. Stop inviting them, and the next Lambeth not only won't represent a majority of such Anglicans, it won't even have a majority of the Lambeth-recognized bishops at it either!
Actually, come to think of it, that would be a great way for Williams (or whomever) to achieve his much-desired "consensus" without requiring a central authority, any enforceable norms, or any coercive or punitive measures... just don't invite anyone else next time! Have a Lambeth Conference which consists of only the ABC, hold all the meetings, convene all the indabas, and pass all the resolutions you want... and you're still guaranteed a 100% consensus. Heck, he could hold it in his own living room and keep the thing from going 4 million dollars into debt again!
But, to return to the subject in hand -- just as these continued rumors about a restrictive Anglican Covenant, or a dreadful Anglican "Inquisition" or a draconian "Anglican Code of Law" run completely contrary to the actual facts as we currently know them, so too does this hyperventilating over the Windsor Continuation Group's upcoming report. Which, apparently, will consist of it saying "gee, it's been nearly four years now, we really ought to start to listen to the Windsor Report for a change... hello?.... guys?.... hello?.... can anyone hear me?.... hello?"
All this will, of course, accomplish no more than it did last time -- i.e. nothing at all. And, face it, even if something were to be implemented and enforced, the "penalty" for continuing to ignore the suggestions amounts to, basically, nothing. Nothing, that is, except for giving everyone a chance to reassure everyone back home that something is being accomplished. "See, we're making progress. Stop worrying and keep sending in the money!"And, of course, all these people, who trust it when their bishops promise something is being done, will doubtless be stunned
and shocked and hurt yet again, when after another four years of more vague talking, ignored resolutions, and blatantly dishonest claims of compliance... nothing continues to happen.But sure, in the meantime, issue the Windor Report all over again. Go on. It will work this time. Really. I promise.
Update (7/28): And here it is, in their own words
We observe here that there have been calls for moratoria with regard to blessings of same sex relationships, consecration of non-celibate homosexuals and the extra-jurisdictional interventions. And we renew these calls.Come on Charlie Brown, I'll hold it in place this time. Really I will.
Yet more Anglican Windowdressed Nothings (YAWN)
The buzz about the dreaded "Anglican Inquisition" continues. The terrible specter of a "Fifth Element" of the Communion. Fear and trembling over an body to enforce normative doctrine. Speculation that 'Berlin Walls' will be going up inside the communion.
Come on people; doesn't anyone CHECK THE FACTS around here?!
First off, what we are dealing with here is the Anglican Communion's "Legal Advisers Network". They were set up in 2002 -- before the current crisis (okay, the current phase of the ongoing decades-long crisis) -- in order
And in response to the reporters' questions, which continue to be based on unresearched misconceptions, poor canon lawyer Canon Lawyer John Rees (that's the correct spelling of his name, judging from the LAN's website, which others are reporting incorrectly as "Reece") had to keep emphasizing that this draft is, in addition to being only a draft, merely descriptive:
So can we PLEASE try to get some perspective about this DRAFT here?
This is NOT a code of canon law, but an academic exercise.
This is NOT an enforceable system of law, but just a DESCRIPTION of EXISTING law.
This has NO LEGAL FORCE, save as one possible description of a reasonable "assumption" ('persuasive authority') where the actual laws are silent or ambiguous.
This does NOT REPLACE any jurisdiction's existing law.
This description is NOT "above" any jurisdictions' laws but BELOW -- those laws are not limited or based upon it, rather it is a description based upon them. And so as they change, it will change.
And this paper apparently isn't even going to be set up as any sort of normative description, but simply used as a way to inform other committees -- like the Covenant development committees -- as they work on developing their own statements and recommendations. Maybe those subsequent committees might decide to show some teeth or spine by picking parts of this academic description to be enforced (don't hold your breath for that one though!), but that's not what we have here.
And that's not what we are supposed to have here. No one should go blaming the LAN itself for this. They're doing exactly what they were asked to do, and it sounds like a tremendous amount of work... and I can't help but sympathize with Rev. Rees' frustration with all the reporters and commentators who just don't get it... and continue not to get it. This is not supposed to be a "Code of Canon Law". Never was.
So what we have here s a "Code of Canon Law" that is neither a code nor canonical nor law.
I guess -- given that we have an "Anglican Communion" that is neither Anglican nor a Communion; a Conference designed (at significant expense) to produce a statement announcing that everyone agreed a Conference had happened; and the on-going development of a Covenant which won't be a Covenant (but just a voluntary non-binding association) -- that having a "Code of Canon Law" that isn't a code and isn't law actually makes perfect Anglican sense.
Nothing to get excited about here though, regardless of what the "INQUISITION"-hollering anti-catholics would have you believe. Move along, folks... nothing to see here... move along.
Come on people; doesn't anyone CHECK THE FACTS around here?!
First off, what we are dealing with here is the Anglican Communion's "Legal Advisers Network". They were set up in 2002 -- before the current crisis (okay, the current phase of the ongoing decades-long crisis) -- in order
to produce a statement of the principles of canon law common to the churches, and to examine shared problems and possible solutions.This mission is based on the notion that (as was said in 2002)
- there are principles of canon law common to the Churches within the Anglican Communion
- their existence can be factually established
- each Anglican Province or Church contributes through its own legal system to the principles of canon law common within the Anglican Communion
- these principles have a strong persuasive authority and are fundamental to the self-understanding of each of the Churches in the Communion
- these principles have a living force, and contain in themselves the possibility for further development
- and the existence of these principles both demonstrates unity and promotes unity within the Anglican Communion
And in response to the reporters' questions, which continue to be based on unresearched misconceptions, poor canon lawyer Canon Lawyer John Rees (that's the correct spelling of his name, judging from the LAN's website, which others are reporting incorrectly as "Reece") had to keep emphasizing that this draft is, in addition to being only a draft, merely descriptive:
- These are principles of law we have deduced but you cannot just read it off if you are involved in litigation.
- It is not, then, prescriptive or enforceable. We are not saying this is how the law should be we are saying this is how the law generally is.
- A ‘principle of canon law’... is induced from the similarities of the legal systems of churches.
- Q: Are the churches going to be encouraged to bring their own canon law into conformity with this book?
A: As I said in the beginning, this is not prescriptive. You are suggesting a prescriptive use. It is merely a descriptive use. - Q: The bishops would be asked to affirm the code of practice? Is it your mind that the provinces would make a promise to follow these principles?
A: This is, again, a descriptive exercise. - what these principles are intended to do is that it is on one level an academic exercise
- It is exploring what we can deduce about our life together as we look at the way the material presents law around the word. This is not the covenant... It will be illustrative of some of the material that will be encapsulated in other ways in the covenant but the covenant process and this one are two distinct processes.
- Yes I speak about this having “persuasive authority” which is a legal concept. And very often you would do that when something is not written in a particular code or constitution. You must understand that the laws, the COE laws, are thick. The US TEC law is of a significant size. There are provinces where very little is written and you have bear bones. Part of this is to help provinces like that.
So can we PLEASE try to get some perspective about this DRAFT here?
This is NOT a code of canon law, but an academic exercise.
This is NOT an enforceable system of law, but just a DESCRIPTION of EXISTING law.
This has NO LEGAL FORCE, save as one possible description of a reasonable "assumption" ('persuasive authority') where the actual laws are silent or ambiguous.
This does NOT REPLACE any jurisdiction's existing law.
This description is NOT "above" any jurisdictions' laws but BELOW -- those laws are not limited or based upon it, rather it is a description based upon them. And so as they change, it will change.
And this paper apparently isn't even going to be set up as any sort of normative description, but simply used as a way to inform other committees -- like the Covenant development committees -- as they work on developing their own statements and recommendations. Maybe those subsequent committees might decide to show some teeth or spine by picking parts of this academic description to be enforced (don't hold your breath for that one though!), but that's not what we have here.
And that's not what we are supposed to have here. No one should go blaming the LAN itself for this. They're doing exactly what they were asked to do, and it sounds like a tremendous amount of work... and I can't help but sympathize with Rev. Rees' frustration with all the reporters and commentators who just don't get it... and continue not to get it. This is not supposed to be a "Code of Canon Law". Never was.
So what we have here s a "Code of Canon Law" that is neither a code nor canonical nor law.
I guess -- given that we have an "Anglican Communion" that is neither Anglican nor a Communion; a Conference designed (at significant expense) to produce a statement announcing that everyone agreed a Conference had happened; and the on-going development of a Covenant which won't be a Covenant (but just a voluntary non-binding association) -- that having a "Code of Canon Law" that isn't a code and isn't law actually makes perfect Anglican sense.Nothing to get excited about here though, regardless of what the "INQUISITION"-hollering anti-catholics would have you believe. Move along, folks... nothing to see here... move along.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Important voices being ignored...
In all the media frenzy over Lambeth, I have yet to hear anyone address what I think is among the most pressing questions raised by the Conference...
Rabbit outside the Templeman Library, University of Kent
Rabbits examining an ACNS photographer... what do all the rabbits think about this invasion of foreign bishops into their natural habitat?
And if rabbit has been on the menu (you know, like in those fancy banquets they have after doing an anti-poverty & hunger march), some seriously punitive measures may have to be arranged, without regard for nationality, creed, or sexual orientation.
If anyone at Lambeth is reading this, PLEASE let us know... what do the rabbits think?!!
Rabbit outside the Templeman Library, University of KentRabbits examining an ACNS photographerAnd if rabbit has been on the menu (you know, like in those fancy banquets they have after doing an anti-poverty & hunger march), some seriously punitive measures may have to be arranged, without regard for nationality, creed, or sexual orientation.
If anyone at Lambeth is reading this, PLEASE let us know... what do the rabbits think?!!
Listening -- Episcopal Style
Back before Lambeth started, I examined the stages of the indaba process, including the observation:1. Meet in indaba groups for conversation and "listening".lis·ten (lĭs'ən) intr.v.
a. Conservative - attending to another point of view in an effort to understand
b. Liberal - outward passivity during a period of time in which you think about what to say next, ignoring any noise which might distract you.
Remember those indaba groups -- how they're supposed to be about listening to other perspectives, to aid in coming to a better understanding and achieving an informed consensus? Seems the Americans have already decided what that consensus is, even before arriving. Observers at Lambeth report the following from a press conference:
Q: How is your indaba group?So much for "unity in diversity"... in PEcUSA we don't have diversity. Or, where we do, we're crushing, inhibiting, deposing and suing it. And not only do we enforce the party line, we give you a memo to read off so you can inflict it on others in a coordinated attack! Gotta keep everyone on message. All the more effective when your party (representing perhaps 2% of the world's Lambeth-recognized Anglicans, and dropping) comprises 25% of the attendees.
A:“Well, the funny thing is,” began one bishop, “The Americans here have this cheat sheet that they use in our group. It has statements on it that justify their decisions in the last two conventions that led to the consecration of Gene Robinson and same-sex marriage. It is a prioritized list of talking points and the one in our group reads off this thing every day.”
I'm not making this stuff up. I swear. Here's a link to a copy of the "cheat sheet" itself. The attached memo says:
Enclosed you will find two sample narratives that were initiated during our March meeting 2008 session with Macky Alston of Auburn Seminary. The suggestions made by the House of Bishops were collected, and Bishops Ed Little, Michael Curry, Neil Alexander, Mike Smith, Cate Waynick, and I [Clay Matthews] worked with Neva Rae Fox to create the two narratives that you will find in this section.The idea is that you have a "core message" which has three "supporting ideas", each of which has three "supporting points". This way, all your points underline one of three ideas which, in turn, communicate the core message.
The PEcUSA memo gives two "core messages":
1. At the Lambeth Conference, the bishops of the Anglican Communion renew our deep unity in Christ.Sounds well and good... until you look at the details. Then you find (as the ACI's Rev. Turner points out) that
2. When Anglicans work together through the power of the Holy Spirit, we change the world.
The TEC memo is in fact proposing a post modern, de-centered church joined not by mutual recognition of belief and practice but by allegiance to a common mission.... The implication is that the mission of the church has nothing to do with the matters that now so divide the Communion—that we can do mission while in fundamental disagreement about the content of the Christian gospel... Those of us who look to our bishops to speak truthfully about our real circumstances can only hope and pray that the incoherence of what TEC is proposing will be pointed out in no uncertain terms.
One example of that incoherence is the talking-points' inclusion, yet again, of this typical PEcUSA (I'm sorry, there's no other word for it) crap about "reconciliation". This has been the going buzz-word in Shorian circles for years now, despite the fact that it is used in complete contradiction to what Scripture means by the term. But I've already analyzed that bankrupt theology here.
I'm sure more blogs and news sources will run various examinations of this PEcUSA memo. For my purposes, I'd like to do something a little different, by taking a look back at those two "talking points". Do they sound at all familiar? They should. Here's what the ABC said at the opening of the Conference:
The Conference this year has two key points of focus: strengthening the sense of a shared Anglican identity among the bishops from around the world, and helping to equip bishops for the role they increasingly have as leaders in mission.This got me wondering... just who beside the Episcopal bishops may be using these talking points? We certainly heard about "unity in diversity" in Lambeth's opening sermon.
So, as a case study, I looked back over Williams' presidential address and compared it to the first talking point in PEcUSA's set "consensus". Here's what the PEcUSA memo says, and here are comments by the ABC:
Core Message: At the Lambeth Conference, the bishops of the Anglican Communion renew our deep unity in Christ.
Idea One:A Church that celebrates both unity and diversity.
Supporting points:
- God made a diverse creation which reveals many gifts but the same Spirit.
- Jesus calls a diverse community into being and sent them in witness.
- we have it in us to be a Church that can manage to respond generously and flexibly to diverse cultural situations
- St. Paul called a diverse church to unity in Christ.
- How do we genuinely think together about diverse local challenges? If we can find ways of answering this, we shall have discovered an Anglicanism... in belonging to a fellowship that is more than local. The entire Church is present in every local church assembled around the Lord's table. Yet the local church alone is never the entire Church. We are called to see this... as an invitation to be more and more lovingly engaged with each other.
Supporting points:
- The Anglican Communion is a network of relationships across cultural, political and economic boundaries.
- God works through the specifics of the community that is called in Christ's name -- the Church. And the Church is known in diverse forms and traditions.
- Baptism in Christ demands that we always welcome each other in our journey in faith.
- That's why a Covenant should not be thought of as a means for excluding the difficult or rebellious but as an intensification... of relations that already exist. And those who in conscience could not make those intensified commitments are not thereby shut off from all fellowship.
- Bear in mind that in this Conference we are committed to common prayer and mutual care so that the hard encounters can be endured and made fruitful.
- Tell a story to illustrate.
Supporting Points:
- In Christ, we seek justice, love mercy, heal creation, and end poverty. And this is hard work.
- If our efforts at finding greater coherence for our Communion don't result in more transforming love for the needy, in greater awareness and compassion for those whose humanity is abused or denied, then this coherence is a hollow, self-serving thing.
- we seek for clarity about what we must do in a suffering world because we are surely at one in knowing what the Incarnate Lord requires of us -- and so at one in acknowledging his supreme and divine authority.
- all those existing bonds are already being richly used by God for the service of his world.
- Jesus did not call us to agree but to love as he loves. And this is hard work.
- The indaba process is meant to clarify what the real questions and concerns are, so that everyone comes to have some sort of shared perspective on things, even if they don't yet agree.
- It means giving attendance at these groups an absolute priority during our time together. It means being willing to contribute, to share what's on your mind and heart. It means being ready to listen to what someone else is saying and not leap to hostile or suspicious conclusions.
- Remember that learning is just that -- not necessarily agreeing, but making sure that you have done all that is humanly possible in order to understand.
- Tell a story to illustrate.
Now, I don't mean by this to suggest that the ABC is working off that same PEcUSA "talking points" memo. Maybe he is; maybe he isn't. Maybe PEcUSA got the themes ahead of time from the conference planners; maybe they took suggestions from them. Maybe they're both drawing on a common source. Maybe it is a bizarre coincidence. But, whatever the cause, there's obviously a significant congruence.
Which highlights why there's one passage of Rev. Turner's analysis with which I disagree. For he suggests that the existence of this memo -- the arrival at Lambeth by PEcUSA bishops not prepared to listen or change their minds, but to demand that others do -- means that it
signals a hardened position on the part of TEC’s Episcopal leadership that runs counter to the spirit the Archbishop of Canterbury has asked to guide the bishops in their deliberations—a spirit of mutual subjection in Christ that is open to correction.Certainly there is no -- and never has been -- attitude of "mutual subjection in Christ" or any "open[ness] to correction" among PEcUSA's heretical and apostate leadership and bishops. But I don't think this represents "counter to the spirit the Archbishop of Canterbury has asked to guide the bishops."
For I think the ABC is on the same page as PEcUSA's apostates -- he's simply subtler about it. (And not so foolish as to openly bring such a memo to indaba groups). For the spirit he has called for is not one of theological or ecclesiological agreement... but one of "mutual listening" and "focus on the material world" and "unity in process" and so forth. And, because this means you get to be an "official Anglican" without actually having to believe in Scriptural, Creedal Christianity or give up heretical practices and beliefs... PEcUSA is right on board with him on that one.
And if you take a look at the majority of the majority of the "self-select sessions" being offered at Lambeth (click on the "bishops" section on a day, and then on the "self-select" item most days offer) you'll suspect that at least some of Lambeth's designers and planners had these same notions in mind as well.
Leaving one to wonder if, perhaps, the ABC and his much-touted indaba groups haven't been designed to distract and deflect, as much as possible, the Conference's time, attention, work and actions from focusing on the the genuinely pressing theological and ecclesiological issues and crisis every bit as much as the PEcUSA memo is designed to aid those bishops in accomplishing that same distraction and deflection in the indaba groups themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
