We should always be ears up when The Episcopal Church speaks of heresy. Here’s the presiding bishop of the TEC coming out swinging at the recent general convention.
The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.
Not being a confessional church, this sort of thing isn’t quite as surprising as it would be if a Baptist said it, but it still underlines why the rifts in the Anglican Communion are about truly significant issues. I can spin these words to where they are better or worse, but what’s actually being said here? Let me suggest it’s something like: “Those of you forming the ACNA are no longer real Anglicans. You’ve become fundamentalist revivalists.”
You can read the whole address here.
My lowest of the low ecclesiology has the following essentials: 1) Keep the truth about Jesus safe, especially from smart Christians. 2) Constantly encourage me to be a Jesus follower in my sphere, not your church. 3) Assist me in those aspects of following Jesus that can’t be done alone, like baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 4) Know your place in God’s missional playbook and don’t act like you’re the whole show. 5) Don’t make stuff up to justify what you’re doing, then carp at me for not buying it.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Just so we’re not all painted with the same brush, here are some of the responses to the PB’s statements:
{link}
We elect BS spouting blow hards to high church office, and then wonder why our denominations are so messed up.
My mother was active in local politics, so I was exposed to all manner of speeches and “talks” as she dragged me to various meetings. Early on I developed an undying hatred for speeches/talks/sermons that said absolutely nothing while desperately tryining to sound important.
It’s especially disgusting in the Church…
I’ll quit now before I wax profane and get moderated….
I wish I could remember the quote exactly, but Father John Neuhaus had a pithy comment in his Public Square column at first things. He pointed out the irony of Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church Jefferts-Schori taking the AMEA crowd to task for not being in orthodoxy while she turned her back to other issues of orthodoxy in the church. I really miss Father Neuhaus’ way of being able to use irony to illustrate his point.
Well there is the collective theology connected with the Body of Christ, the New Commandment, etc. to consider.
I wonder why iMonk feels competent to criticize liberal Episcopalians. After all, they do not seem to belong to the same branch of the religious spectrum (though their rivals, the U.S. Anglicans, may). Do Episcopalians take sides amidst Baptist controversies? Will iMonk pronounce on Mormon or Seventh Day Adventist issues next?
gammell:
“Reading the words of KJS often unsettles me and this is no different. She uses words I recognize and tied to truths I place value in like Jesus, gospel, reconciliation, sin, mission, and the like. But then she strings them together that I’m not comfortable with.”
Such clashes are inevitable whenever people from different religions, denominations, or points of view share some of the same traditions. Of course you needn’t agree with her, but neither should you expect that she agree with you.
I don’t think many of you truly grasp what motivates the liberal side. To many, women’s rights and gay rights are non-negotiable moral issues–to oppose these causes or compromise on them is evil. You perhaps feel the same way about the Bible as interpreted by your tradition.
I’ve read her speech several times now and find that it came clearer each time I read it. Really, the only paragraph that confuses me a bit is the one that mentions Mississippi and the great Western heresy. And I never heard of Ubuntu before, but wikipedia set me straight, after ruling out that she wasn’t talking about a computer operating system! I found on wikipedia: “An attempt at a longer definition has been made by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1999):“ A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.” I like that just fine. I like Tutu, from the bit I know about him.
I think there are some great things going on in the Episcopalian church, despite the problems it is having. Where else would some of its members go if not for there? Unitarianism?
(Someday I will have to do more research on the major differences between Anglican and Lutheran beliefs/practices.)
Kudos for those who have been able to find clarity after reading the good bishops address a few times. To me, it was murky, veiled, and I had the same feeling that some other posters had that the real message was between the lines. Ironically, the theme was “crisis”, which begs for simplicity, clarity, and a direct call to action. I found none of that, but maybe I don’t speak TEC.
As a rule, I tend not to trust that which I have to strain to decipher. Thanks I-Monk for the post, I think you are spot on about the heads up to warnings here of “heresy”.
Arthur Sido: great to hear from ya….(GERMIT here)
Blessings and peace this weekend to all
This sound bite from the Presiding Bishop’s speech has been getting a bit of press here and elsewhere. As someone who is an Episcopalian and 95% convinced of universal salvation, I was getting pretty excited until I actually read the entire address in context.
While it may be a veiled swipe at ACNA too, I think what the PB is really saying is that our understanding of the gospel goes beyond the individual and individual morality. The good news of God in Christ goes beyond praying the Sinner’s Prayer or believing certain propositions about God. It means working with God to bring about spiritual, environmental, social, economic, and racial reconciliation between God and all people; all people and each other.
This is not something that any individual Episcopalian/Christian can accomplish alone. It requires working together.
I don’t have much use for the word “heresy,” in the PB’s speech or elsewhere. In her speech I see it as a rhetorical flourish, code for “that which I strongly disagree with and dislike.” I don’t see it as meaning much more than that in any other context either.
i’ve read and re-read pb js’s opening address to TEC’s GC… and the scan of the Latin breviary I have on my computer makes more sense to me than what she went on about… like others, i somehow detect just a whiff of a between the lines message there aimed squarely at ACNA and those other Anglican churches in the Anglican Communion that are backing ACNA.
i think i’ll try reading that address again… and if worse comes to worse, i’m having some whisky to help knock me out after the headache arrives from trying to make sense of KJS’s opening address…
“I can spin these words to where they are better or worse, but what’s actually being said here? Let me suggest it’s something like: ‘Those of you forming the ACNA are no longer real Anglicans. You’ve become fundamentalist revivalists.’ ”
= = = =
As a fellow who grew up liberal-Episcopalian but didn’t find the Real Presence of Christ until running into an Assemblies of God campus group in college, I can only WISH that that more Anglicans (especially those still holding to the mouldering corpse of TEC) became like fundamentalist revivalists. Maybe I would have given my life to Jesus a lot earlier and missed quite a bit of heartache.
Not that Mme. Jefferts-Schori cares about my individual soul — or, apparently, anyone else’s.
I find this all fascinating. Gene Robinson is the new Pope of TEC. If you haven’t figured that out, please wake up. The PB is irrelevant at this point unless she wants to do something other than what’s about to happen: watch TEC go over the cliff into same sex marriages, blessings, etc etc that will forever give the finger to the rest of the Anglican Communion.
Ray A., we come from exact opposite points of the spectrum. I grew up fundamentalist revivalist but didn’t find the Real Presence of Christ until I rejected biblical literalism and narrow formulas for salvation. I too spent some time in an Assemblies of God campus group in college. Maybe we passed each other; each headed in the opposite direction.
Nowadays I find my home in the Episcopal Church, which feeds me spiritually and gives me the tools to help me on my spiritual journey. Part of that journey is individualistic, but I have been enriched by the community also and would not be where I am today without it.
Brandon F, whiskey definitely helps.
Episcopal bishop’s statements are always opaque and rambling. You can make as much out of what isn’t said as what is.
I wonder if the subsequent acts of this General Convention will shed any light on the PB’s address, and offer any interesting speculation on why she phrased things that way, which is admittedly more provocative than needed to make her point.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the disagreement within the Episcopal church can be summed up thusly:
Episcopal Church: Hey, we don’t all feel comfortable with all this supernatural mumbo-jumbo about Christianity but we all do agree that there are serious social justice issues to be dealt with, and social justice is the REAL work of the church anyway. So can we just focus on that?
Conservative Anglicans: Bollocks. The real work of the church is the salvation of souls. Social justice is fine, but there is no Christianity without the supernatural mumbo-jumbo that you want to dispense with.
Episcopal Church: Oh yeah? Well…..HERETIC!
It makes perfect sense to me what she is saying to conservative Anglicans who are separating from the Episcopal church for theological and moral reasons – “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus!”
Hello from General Convention! I’m actually here, though sitting in the exhibit hall so I didn’t hear the PB’s address; I just read it as you did.
A couple of things come to mind. First of all, I think the notion of ubuntu which is the theme of the convention is one of the things at play in this snippet. JoanieD posted a definition from Wikipedia, but I think a few broader issues are at work, here.
One is that this notion of ubuntu, where “I am because you are” or “I in you and you in me” or however you translate it really isn’t part of our mindset. I tend to feel that this is the theme of GC in part because of the coolness factor; that whole, “Oh how wonderful that we can appropriate this wonderful concept from the Africans” when we don’t really understand it is a bit on the patronizing/colonial side.
I worry a bit that a group of people is going to think they “get” ubuntu and look down on others who “just don’t get it,” when I tend to think none of us here can enter into this mindset that, as I understand it, holds that we are not ourselves as individuals except when we have one another.
I wonder if this might have been different if it had come from Desmond Tutu or some other African church leader for whom ubuntu is a reality and not just a cool concept. I do think we can learn from this, but it does seem to convey, intentionally or not, a rejection of a lot of spirituality that has sustained much of the church for a very long time.
The thing that bothers me is the use of the word “heresy.” I think on all sides of the Episcopal Church, we are waaay too quick off the mark to bandy about the word heresy in a way that cuts us off from one another. It’s a loaded word and I wish she hadn’t used it. But overall, I liked the address. It spoke to me.
dkmonroe, I think you may have described some of the louder voices in the conversation, but most of the Episcopalians I know integrate spirituality and social justice as a seamless whole.
“I find this all fascinating. Gene Robinson is the new Pope of TEC. If you haven’t figured that out, please wake up. The PB is irrelevant at this point unless she wants to do something other than what’s about to happen: watch TEC go over the cliff into same sex marriages, blessings, etc etc that will forever give the finger to the rest of the Anglican Communion.”
It all comes down to the gays, doesn’t it? And people wonder why gay people are hurt and angry about the church and won’t trust you all with us or our families.
No, it doesn’t all come down to gays.
If that card is “Everyone in the church give us what we want now, no matter what you believe scripture teaches about sexuality” or else we’re going to say you hate us, then it’s been played more than a few times.
The divisions in the mainlines over sexuality are because two very different ways of relating to the gay community are on the table. The choices involve deep emotion and real integrity.
I can’t demand that you change, OK Jon. Never. Ever. That’s between you and God.
But you can’t demand that I change either. And you can’t say that the middle is your position, not mine.
The middle is where we both compromise and we’re both less than perfectly happy.
The failure in the Anglican communion is a failure to achieve it’s own middle way. It’s Robinson saying that with his ordination GOD decided that his side won.
I don’t doubt that someone hates you. But the assumption that people who value the integrity of their own reading of scripture automatically hate you is a ploy.
Not playing. I respect you and would go to the wall for you to be who you believe God has made you to be. But I expect you to let those who aren’t on your team have the integrity to differ without being denounced as haters.
ms
“What do gays and lesbians hear when they listen to evangelicals?”
Lots of stuff like this:
I find this all fascinating. Gene Robinson is the new Pope of TEC. If you haven’t figured that out, please wake up.
The new Pope? Hardly. He is respected & listened to in the TEC, though.
Let me decode this:
Robinson makes pronouncements with a papal quality all the time. He routinely and regularly says that his ordination means that God is doing a new thing, etc.
KJS is hardly respected in the TEC. Robinson has enormous clout and it’s only going to increase with the exodus of ACNA, etc.
Robinson’s pronouncments have INFORMAL authority that goes far beyond anyone else in the TEC.
Who did Obama invite to the inauguration? Rick Warren and Gene Robinson. Hello.
I said nothing about haters.
You go back and forth here talking about messages that gay people hear from the church and inferring that this is a bad thing and then you make statements like the one that I pulled.
What message do you think that we’re hearing (or, in this case, reading)? What should I come away with from that quote? What involvement should gay poeple and gay families have in the church? Or should we be involved?
I guess I just don’t get it.
Jon:
If “haters” doesn’t describe your version of those who don’t agree with you, then my apologies for rhetorical escalation.
I’m not quite seeing the offense in what amounts to a journalistic observation:
1) Robinson is imo the most powerful person in TEC
2) I expect TEC to move quickly toward recognizing gay marriage, provide same sex blessings, etc.
3) This will further alienate TEC from the worldwide Anglican communion, and they’ve been personally told this plainly.
Since this is the situation on the ground, and since I never said anything negative about gay persons, I’m missing your offense. All I can see is that you are offended that someone doesn’t agree with you. To me, that’s the largest part of the problem. I’ve experienced it personally. I deplore anti-gay rhetoric. You can come to my church anytime and I’ll give you my seat and embrace you openly, but we’re going to disagree on some matters.
The idea that when people of integrity disagree there is uh…..hostility, etc. just totally precludes any kind of compromise. And that’s the situation. I don’t like it. Thousands of people don’t like it. But it’s the situation.
I’ll repeat this: My belief that Robinson and the TEC are going to further alienate American Anglicanism from the Anglican communion is a description of the situation as anyone can see it.
It has nothing to do with how I feel about you. But I’ll mention integrity again. DO WE BOTH GET IT? Or do one of us have to say “I read scripture saying one thing, but I’m going to confess and practice the contrary?”
You’ve got two choices: Mutual respect and DISAGREEMENT or Unconditional surrender by one side or the other. There is no other way. I’ll give you the first any day any time
ms
Oh. *sigh* I hated reading that speech.
I have found such a sweet home in the little Episcopal church in my area. The liturgy, all of it, so very deep and rich. As a former evangelical who became too disallusioned to ever go back, for a time I wondered if I would ever find a church to engage with. The Episcopal service was, almost uncannily, exactly what I’d been wishing for, and the people there were so warm and kind, helping my children and I feel right at home.
Because of that, I always wince when I see what is going on at the top levels. It’s just so different from my experience here. (Er, did anyone else think of Wither from “That Hideous Strength” while reading the speech, or was it just me)?
Thanks for decoding. That’s sincere. Without explanation, it can easily sound that folks are watching very carefully to make sure GLBTs in the church know their place, and come down on any that would presume to think they might hold a position of leadership and respect, or any denomination that would actually allow that to happen. Criticism of GR, KJS, and the TEC can of course be beneficial. But given the situation, I think negative statements about them should be spelled out carefully or they can easily give the wrong idea.
I myself wouldn’t describe KJS as “irrelevant” of “hardly respected” in the TEC — but that may just be a reflection of the particular Episc. circles I move in. I also wouldn’t have described Robinson as being papal, though that kind of thing is very much in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. But, yes, he does have a good deal of clout. I don’t mean to deny that.
Keith:
I don’t mean to insult Robinson- though I have to admit his brazen attitude towards African bishops amazes me- but don’t you find the frequent recourse of a person in his position to the reasoning that “God has spoken” to be…..papal? His church does have a process for this sort of thing.
We have these characters in evangelicalism and I don’t hesitate to skewer them as Papal.
Thanks for your remarks. I don’t want to be needlessly offensive. Just as much as required to keep ‘em reading
ms
“dkmonroe, I think you may have described some of the louder voices in the conversation, but most of the Episcopalians I know integrate spirituality and social justice as a seamless whole.”
I understand that, and I thought I alluded to that in my little dumbed-down dialogue. But I believe I have heared at least a few Episcopal voices insisting that the traditional teachings of Christianity are at best doubtful and at worst barbaric, and that the best thing that the church can do in light of this is to function as an engine of social justice. Spong, of course, is one of these voices – he basically dismisses everything about traditional Christian beliefs as offensive nonsense, but sees his mission as one of social justice.
But your point is well-taken, and I did not intend to set up an either/or dichotomy between authentic Christianity and the politics of social justice.
“It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus.”
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but two things bother me about this sort of statement. First, presumably the people she’s referring to (in my ignorance of things Episcopalian I don’t know if she means inside her communion or outside, but I don’t think it matters) would never put their beliefs this way; so in fact *she* is caricaturing others. I have never met a Christian who would say, if asked about salvation, “Your salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. Doesn’t matter what’s in your heart, or if you mean it, or anything else.”
Second, just the tenor of this comment. A year or so ago, she famously said “Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.” I didn’t find that so much insulting as puzzling: why would the leader of an important church communion make snarky comments aimed at others? I read the Pope’s latest encyclical, and try to imagine him saying something snarky and caricaturing about other’s faith, and can’t imagine it. This isn’t “my team is better”; I can’t imagine the Dalai Lama doing it, either.
Where’s the dignity of Schori’s office? If she has negative opinions about other Christians’ faith, whether inside or outside her communion, can’t she find some non-contemptuous way to express it (or just refrain from expressing it at all)? She’s a significant church leader, not some internet blogger (no offense Michael
).
I think I agree with Dave N. Whatever connection with the internal conflicts within American Anglicanism is implied, there is a lot to the statement that reducing faith to an individual experience is “heresy”, or at least a an peculiar, American flavor of religion. The roots of it are found in the reformation. It deepened within German pietism. Revivalism and it’s emphasis on personal decisions strengthened it. The Christian marketing of the 60′s and 70′s which created slogans like, “I found it” turned it into the standard to live by. Words like “common” fell out of the church vocabulary. Churches became theaters with personal seating rather than shared pews. Church, pastors, and religion as a whole became a means to ones own happiness and self-actualization. The Faith-Prosperity gospel was a natural result. Everything – including God – became an object, a means to an end. As a result, we turned ourselves into objects. The church disappeared under the mire of the dehumanizing secularism it claimed to rise above.
I appreciate her allusion to Buber; but if she is using his writings to brandish a sword against dissenters, she is way out of line.
It saddens me to see where the PB and the leaders of this great church have taken this. And those watching from the outside quickly follow suit. To me Jesus gave us many wonderful guidlines but 2 are louder than the rest.
First is to love all others as you love yourself. I don’t see any Mother Teresas emerging from the TEC leadership because they are all focused on their own agenda. Where is the willingness to sacrifice ones own personal needs to help others. Where is the humility and love? Only missionaries and evangels are performing these duties while we live in style and hang out at conventions. Only God’s grace and love and a disciplined restraint of human pride can effectively grow Christ’s Bride as intended by our lord. The message is a winning message. We have to remove our personal and likely sinful agendas from it.
The second lasting message is Jesus’s warning of how the Jewish religious elite had gotten way off message. It became more about who was right, following procederes and protecting ones own interest than loving God and serving God. Is that not what we look like today. All dressed up for pomp and circumstance. How silly and petty would it be to watch a debate over the individual versus community in front of Jesus. I think he would shake his head and say it reminded him of the “great” defenders of Judism that sentenced him to death.
The best thing happening in TEC is Cursillo. It’s a shame that this can’t be what the chuch is using to set it’s atandards for the rest of the community
On this –
This will further alienate TEC from the worldwide Anglican communion, and they’ve been personally told this plainly.
– Yes, I agree. But largely agreeing with your thoughts from last week’s podcast (#146: thanks for those!), I think it’s best not to seek unity at all costs. Perhaps these two sides need to come apart. Rather than install a cement ceiling on the role GLBTs can play in the church to preserve what passes for unity with other Anglicans, I think the TEC should go where they think God is leading them on this issue, and be open to whatever kind of relations are still possible with other Anglicans, realizing that those other Anglicans, or at least many of them, will in that case want nothing to do with the TEC. This can be done humbly (which isn’t to say it has been done humbly!), in which case it wouldn’t be “giving the finger to the rest of the Anglican Communion.” Like: “We know that you disagree with us about this, and we realize you will break ties with us if we do this the way we believe we should. We’re sorry about that, and remain open to whatever connections you might wish to maintain, despite this disagreement.”
I think that you are right on the future of the American communions, but the relation to the larger world wide communion is a different issue. TEC was told, in fact, “put the brakes on.” I hope they do, because that can only help. But reading the discussions going on at the general convention, it appears the brakes are off and the mood is “they’re gone, we can now do all the things we hesitated to do.”
It’s the worldwide communion where the greater problem exists.
But in all seriousness, I think TEC is about to have rough 20 years. I fully expect ACNA to surpass them in my lifetime.
ms
TEC has some real challenges before it in terms of demographics and outreach. But ACNA is also not without its problems and divisions.
Having been raised in a splinter group that splintered off from a splinter group that splintered from Lutheranism, it’ll be interesting to see if ACNA can hold it together or start splitting further.
On a “Here’s an Anglican who knows his sh**”, Rowan Williams (once his British understatement is translated to American levels) sermon is deeply Trinitarian (as his always are) and straightforward.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2487
“My belief that Robinson and the TEC are going to further alienate American Anglicanism from the Anglican communion is a description of the situation as anyone can see it.”
Imonk, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. By a sovereign move of God, it appears that the worldwide Anglican communion broadly appears to be returning to biblical orthodoxy, and this can only lead to the TEC becoming increasingly isolated.
I don’t know what the situation is in the states, but apparently here in the UK nearly 40% of Anglican churches identify as evangelical (and goodness knows how many are orthodox Anglo-Catholic), and 50% of candidates for the ordained ministry are from evangelical churches (compared to an estimated 10% of ordinands in the 1950s). This has major consequences for the church in the UK as it is the evangelicals who are providing the bulk of the money for missions and sustainability, and are the churches who are growing and releasing men and women into full time ministry. On a practical level at least, this seriously diminishes the power and influence of liberal Anglicanism, as evangelicalism must start to spill over away from its traditional enclaves, and take on a more central role in the Communion. I hope and pray that this sees many more exposed to the Gospel, and quietens the heretics in the Anglican Communion who always seem to get the attention.
I think many of us do get that and it troubles us. Not that social causes aren’t important but the sequence of reasoning is fundamentally at odds with the broader church. What I often see from liberal Episcopalians is the primacy of modern social causes and the adjusting of Jesus to suit. It seems inadequate to suggest that the cart is before the horse.
Regarding the ACNA, what gives me hope is that the ACNA is a coming together of many splinter groups with a genuine desire to be in relationship with the broader church. There will be many trials for them because of their heritage, but the ACNA seems to be a better example of Christian unity than TEC at the moment.
Can I add just two thoughts.
I admire the heck out of the leaders of the ACNA, many of them have given up lively hoods, secure jobs, pensions, and prestige to do what is right. They have this baptist’s admiration and respect.
Second, I just can’t figure out what local TEC’rs think of all of this. I mean in my three county area there are four episcopal churches. Do the folks there just shrug and say “O Well, that is the national folks who are liberal and not us?” Are do they have to have some sort of local fidelity to the national leaders? I mean can the local rector get up on Sunday and condemn what is happening on a national level? Is that allowed? I”m really ignorant of how this all works? Is the TEC literature say like Sunday sChool literature for baptist all liberal too?
Anyway, my second point, while on vacation this week in Jekyll Island I got up and deciced to go to church on Sunday. There were four churches on the Island, I chose the Episcopal one because there I had a pretty good ideal of what I would be getting. A local found out I was a baptist pastor and looked puzzled, He asked why I would come there? I said “If you go in 20 different baptist churches you might get 20 different things, I come here because I know I will get scripture, prayer, songs, and sacrament. Turned out I got three out of four, they were doing morning prayer b/c the rector was on vacation. Nice folks. I wondered while sitting there what they all thought about the national crisis.
adhunt, thanks for the link to the sermon that Rowan Williams gave at the convention yesterday:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2487
I like what he says very much, especially when he talks about following Jesus, he says, “To follow him is to risk stepping into life by recognising that something in us must die – so that everlasting and true life may live.”
In reading some of the comments above, I was struck by how some Episcopalians are sad about what Bishop Jefferts-Schori had to say because they are happy in their own loving, local church. I find that within the Catholic Church too. A lot of us may not agree with some of what the official “line” is, but we are supported and forgiven in the little churches we attend. There was a time when the Catholic priests(I don’t know if it was everywhere or just regionalized) were told not to let altar girls serve. Only altar boys were to serve. Well, my local priest just kept on allowing the girls to serve. I am married to a divorced man so if we say that once married, always married, then I would be committing adultery, but my former priest gave me “special dispensation.” I am guessing this happens a lot. If we start telling all the folks who have done things wrong that they cannot participate in Communion, then Communion would get smaller and smaller and sadder and sadder, in my opinion.
So, am I saying that “anything goes?” No…if you are not loving your neighbor as yourself and or not loving God with all that is within you, then you need people to help point that out to you or guide you or model the loving way to be, and in the meantime, perhaps participating in Communion will HELP the people to see the error of their ways and make changes. People around Jesus changed because when they were with him, they WANTED to be better. His love rubbed off on them. We need his love to continue to rub off on us, through Communion, so that we can then go and bring that love to the world.
Liberal Anglicans have become very good at parroting very correct sounding phrases while not actually believing them as they are written. The words are redefined as necessary or caveats are quietly put in place so that the obvious meaning of the phrase is contradicted by the caveat.
It is like the President (current and former) issuing a signing statement with a law that basically says that he is signing the law but has no intention of following it.
As an Evangelical and part of an ACNA church — the first of nine churches to leave the San Diego Diocese — that has now become a Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), I was surprised but not shocked by Jefferts’ statement. I wrote about it on my own blog, if anyone is interested:
http://meditativemeanderings.blogspot.com/2009/07/h-word.html
Susanne
Southern California
South African perspective:
Ubuntu is our thing, not a general African thing. The West/East African bishops who’ve cosied up to American dioceses don’t necessarily appropriate the concept. Some, Archbishop Akinola for instance, appear to be part of wealthy, powerful local elites who behave more like Big Chiefs than Bishops.
I don’t, personally, see the American fascination with Ubuntu as colonial but I do wonder if Americans fully appreciate that this has to be a theological place-to-stand, supported by Scripture. If we’re just considering it (idealising it) as a cultural thing, then there’s also a huge down side to take into consideration: corruption, nepotism, passivity, statism and tolerance of elites who pay only lip service to the needs of the poor.
My friends and list-mates from the US who are Episcopalians seem as bemused by the PB’s speech as many correspondents here, but one thing I did pick up: people from Mississippi can relax. That comment is not a dig at ordinary working class people – some Bishops of that Diocese are, in fact, related to one another. Moreover, in that part of the US, Episcopalians are often Old Money types and they really do tend to address each other as Cousin.
o.h.
” I read the Pope’s latest encyclical, and try to imagine him saying something snarky and caricaturing about other’s faith, and can’t imagine it.”
The previous pope’s “Crossing the Threshhold of Hope” was received this way by some. (It had chapter titles like “Buddhism…?”)
Sad Episcopalian:
“Where is the willingness to sacrifice ones own personal needs to help others. Where is the humility and love?”
I visited St. Gregory’s in San Francisco, which is definitely on the liberal side, and found them promoting several charity-type activities. While this would not guarantee the correctness of their theology (and I’m sure their conservative opponents do the same), it at least puts them in a more favorable light.
iMonk:
“Who did Obama invite to the inauguration? Rick Warren and Gene Robinson. Hello.”
He invited Warren because he’s famous, and then–after complaints from the gay community (about Warren)–he invited Robinson because he’s gay.
iMonk:
“Who did Obama invite to the inauguration? Rick Warren and Gene Robinson. Hello.â€
Werther:
“He invited Warren because he’s famous, and then–after complaints from the gay community (about Warren)–he invited Robinson because he’s gay.”
And then they cut Bishop Robinson out of the live broadcast.
How good it is to read JoanieD’s understanding and insightful comments on the meaning of our local churches, as opposed to battles at the top levels of the hierarchy. She speaks as a Catholic, and I speak as a liberal Episcopalian, but both of us find a great deal more than pro- and anti-gay arguments in our everyday church lives.
Let me try, from my very small perspective in the pews of a very small Episcopalian church in Ohio, to answer Austin’s questions as best I can: “I just can’t figure out what local TEC’rs think of all of this. I mean in my three county area there are four Episcopal churches. Do the folks there just shrug and say “O well, that is the national folks who are liberal and not us?†Are do they have to have some sort of local fidelity to the national leaders? I mean can the local rector get up on Sunday and condemn what is happening on a national level? Is that allowed? I’m really ignorant of how this all works? Is the TEC literature say like Sunday School literature for Baptists all liberal too?â€
Let’s start with the last question – and any Episcopal clergy on this board, feel free to jump in at any lonesome second when I make a mistake here: Our TEC “literature†is the Book of Common Prayer. That plus the Bible are what we all agree on. There are lots of other reading materials you can access, many of them on the Internet, but they are individual opinion, like the Internet Monk blog is.
Working the questions backward: I suppose the local rector *could* get up on Sunday and condemn what is happening at the national level. These who have done this may hear from their bishop, who is the rector’s boss. (Priests promise to “obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work.â€) If the bishop is liberal, he may tell the rector to stop preaching like that, and then things can get unpleasant; some congregations rally around a conservative priest and leave TEC.
My own priest has never spoken against what is happening at the national level – that is, against gay ordination and marriage. One reason is that (I believe) he supports them; another may be the presence in our congregations of several gay people. But he has also never spoken from the pulpit for or against the Iraq war, which he has said to me in private conversations that he hates. He won’t speak against it, because, as he says, he wants all members of the congregation, including those with relatives in the military, to feel safe to come to church and find a welcome here.
Do we local folks just shrug over the national battles? Some do, I’m sure, but many more of us are troubled by them. Some in my congregation are strongly for gay ordination and marriage; others are strongly opposed. Me, I’m confused on the issue; I really am unable to discern God’s will in this, and, like a true Episcopalian, I’m at peace with my confusion right about now. I believe that in God’s time, I’ll come to see what His will is. The issue is not a deal-breaker for me; I’m not going to leave the church if, as looks likely, gay ordination and marriage are affirmed by the national church.
As for Jefferts-Schori, I have no real opinion on her. I read her opening statement, and found it opaque. Very opaque. Annoyingly opaque. And as for Gene Robinson, by IM’s calculations our “Pope,†I’ve never read or heard a single speech of his, nor do I much care to. I know he’s gay and a bishop, period.
This local TEC-er, however, spends most of her time *not* pondering the statements of bishops, liberal or conservative, but in trying to get on with my life in Christ. I believe most of us in small congregations do that. I didn’t join TEC to pursue any particular social agenda, but to serve and pray with other believers. For service, I try, like others, to do “what I can, where I am, with what I have.†Back in 2003, for instance, I traveled with the Christian Peacemaker Teams to Iraq just before the invasion, to show opposition to the war. My priest and congregation supported me with prayers and love, though many were quite on the opposite side politically. People in my congregation send cards and treats to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, work as tutors in the local homeless center, work on Kairos prison teams, and also do all the ordinary administrative stuff that a church requires, from ironing the linens to providing food for the weekly coffee hour to heading the prayer chain. As for prayer, I love and deeply feel the “common prayers†from the BCP. I never thought I would care for “rote, memorized†prayers, but I find they speak more and more deeply to me with each repetition. “Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid. Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love you and worthily magnify your holy name, through Christ our Lord. Amenâ€
H. Lee/ Austin: I don’t know what the situation is in the US, but here in the C of E, we have what’s known as “parson’s freehold”, whereby the incumbent minister in an Anglican parish can only be removed by death, resignation, failure to uphold canon law or serious breach of conduct. It supposes gives the priest the freedom to pursue his ministry freely and without fear of persecution. If the TEC gives clergy a similar freedom, then I don’t really think that there’s anything to stop a priest speaking out over growing liberalism. To not be allowed to do so seems worryingly repressive. In any case Article 22 defines the church’s authority as thus:
“XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.”
Condoning homosexuality or any other pet liberal shibboleths clearly seems to be in breach of this.
Will and H. Lee
Thanks for the input.
I really liked your responses H. Lee. I think too often folks on my side of things view TEC and all its members as having some secret agenda. It is nice to read that you have the same desire to live out Christ as I do.
I suspect that we would disagree on much politicaly and theologicaly, yet I sense a kindred spirit.
Will,
the Parsons’ freehold sounds a lot like tenure that we as teachers in most states get, a great idea, and a way to protect folks from politics
as far as the 39 articles, I find them one of the most agreeable and succinct statements of faith I have ever read with my nagging reluctance on believers baptism excluded
Thanks, Austin. It’s no wonder that people outside of the Episcopal Church have very strange ideas about it, if all they know is what they read on the internet or see in snippets on TV news. (That’s not you, but it’s a great many people.)I think the same is true for all sides of religious issues. If you read on a liberal blog some statements about conservative Christians, you may not recognize yourself — accordig to some liberal writers, you conservatives hate gay people, want to keep women oppressed and pregnant, think evolution is a satanic plot and the earth is 4,000 years old, and have at most an 8th-grade education.
Will, I’m sure that to you, “condoning homosexuality” seems clearly to be in breach of the Scriptures. What about condoning divorce, or usury? Both are also in clear breach of the Scriptures, but somehow almost every church, including mine, has managed to ignore or rationalize these prohibitions when they became inconvenient or out-moded.
Or what about “Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you?” Is there a church in the world, except maybe the Quakers, which insists that its members pay any attention to that command when a war arises?
It’s just not that simple.
H. Lee…I appreciate your responses and particularly liked, “Me, I’m confused on the issue; I really am unable to discern God’s will in this, and, like a true Episcopalian, I’m at peace with my confusion right about now. I believe that in God’s time, I’ll come to see what His will is. The issue is not a deal-breaker for me;”
I think that is honest and to the point. We DO have to live with confusion on some issues, because we are not perfect and we do not understand perfectly. Neither do we love perfectly.
I thank God for some of the great theologians from your tradition…C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright come immediately to mind. I LOVE those guys! (I know they are Anglican and you are Episcopalian.)
H. Lee- I’m not trying to pretend that issues are easy to resolve; clearly Christians can be faithful and Bible- believing and come to differing conclusions. To take one example, that of women clergy, I personally interpret Scripture to say that women shouldn’t serve as ordained clergy, yet the parish where I am currently based has just appointed a woman as the associate minister. Those involved in the decision are faithful Christians, but we differ in interpretation.
My concern with many liberal clerics is twofold. Firstly, there must be concerns that they are at best unfaithful, and at worst unregenerate, judging by some of the pronunciations made. Neither is acceptable for those in Christian leadership, who should be examples to the brethren. Secondly, stemming from this, I have deep concerns over their refusal to accept the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God- it’s always taken, and then altered to fit whatever world view or philosophy is particularly fashionable, buttressed by dubious exegesis and obtruse phrasing. Whilst this is deeply unhelpful for establishing ethics, it becomes absolutely critical when we seek to establish what gospel we preach. If we don’t accept Scripture as truth and applicable to our own lives, then we will not accept what it tells us of our sin and a need for a Saviour, and then we have “a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all.” (Gal.1: 6) I apologise if I was a little flippant in the last post, but this is really no place to be going wobbly- the consequences are dire, as history will attest.
Every blessing
You know, I’m not an Episcopalian, but it appears to me that when individual salvation is pronounced to be heresy, it does so much damage to the credibility of the speaker as well as the Christian world as a collective whole.
While I can agree that a rigid, prescription prayer does not produce a “magical” relationship with Jesus or God, I am also aware that the longer a person works to scrutinize and change themselves, the relationship certainly DOES develop. For example: Get the LOG out of our own eye and quit worrying about our neighbor’s eye. That’s pretty individual to me.
Having read most of the responses which offered possibilities of what Ms. Schlori meant, I have to say that the message must have been skewed by her choice of sentence structure–I can think of no other reason for it to sound so anti “relationship with God”. Surely this is not what she meant?
If, as many of you say, politics are important to her, it would seem prudent to provide a decoded version written to the 8th grade level so that the bulk of us could understand what the heck she meant.
I’m Episcopalian and I just cringe at this. The disconnect between Church leadership and the rank-and-file is so profound. The Church wants radical change (I’m theologically pretty liberal) so I’m not against where TEC is moving, quite frankly. However, the speed in which this is and has happened in breathtakingly unprecedented. Changes to church theology are generally evolutionary over generations. TEC looks very different then it did even 20 years ago – when it was a pretty “progressive” church, theologically. The unwillingness of TEC’s leadership to be more accommodating is tragic and is leading to schism.
Will,
You say, and I agree, that “If we don’t accept Scripture as truth and applicable to our own lives, then we will not accept what it tells us of our sin and a need for a Saviour, and then we have “a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all.â€
But could you respond, from your own church’s perspective, tothe questions I asked in my last response:
“What about condoning divorce, or usury? Both are also in clear breach of the Scriptures, but somehow almost every church, including mine, has managed to ignore or rationalize these prohibitions when they became inconvenient or out-moded.”
“Or what about “Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you?†Is there a church in the world, except maybe the Quakers, which insists that its members pay any attention to that command when a war arises?”
Now, for me, the issue of “full inclusion” of gay people in the church hurts my brain, in part because I’m torn between two Scriptural commands, both of them “the authoritative Word of God.” Paul’s blunt and clear rejection of homosexual activity is one of them. The other is Jesus’, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” When the smart-alec clerics of His day asked “Who is my neighbor?” He told them, and He chose for His example the most despised group of people in His time and place: the Samaritans. OK, I ask myself, who is MY neighbor? Isn’t it the gay person, whom the church leaders despise and reject?
Beats me, my friend.
After reading this whole thread, the PB’s address, and mulling it over for awhile, at the end of the day what I find unfortunate about her comments is that they serve no real purpose that I can discern. It seems as if you could omit that whole paragraph and not change the meaning in the slightest. If that’s true, then why make such a provocative and potentially alienating comment? Politics? A base play to some constituency within TEC that might be disappointed by subsequent actions by the Convention? I have no idea.
As one who has gone from opposition, to ambivalence, to support for full inclusion of gay people in the church, I can say that there is a theological rationale. It has been puzzling to me for a long time that General Convention, the PB (this one, and the previous one) do not lead front and center with their theological reasoning.
As for me, my own evolution in thinking about this topic comes from 1) knowing godly gay people in real life situations, 2) reading scholarship that takes a close look at the verses in scripture that are alleged to condemn homosexuality and deconstructs some of the assumptions we bring to those verses, and 3) making the choice about which is more important if it comes down to it, the Communion or full inclusion?