tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post1299027914598634915..comments2024-02-13T11:11:28.246+00:00Comments on Bishop Alan’s Blog: My fluttering PelagiometerBishop Alan Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-30141291162740520452010-11-25T01:31:32.206+00:002010-11-25T01:31:32.206+00:00Sarah:
It must be awfully hard to be you.Sarah:<br /><br />It must be awfully hard to be you.evensongjunkienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-71556729616847224422010-11-24T18:44:29.644+00:002010-11-24T18:44:29.644+00:00To me this is what taking up one's cross means...To me this is what taking up one's cross means -- seeing the world from Jesus' view from the cross, or leaning against Jesus' chest hearing the heartbeat of God and looking out into the world from there.Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287169546184325690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-35881040227096388542010-11-24T17:50:08.109+00:002010-11-24T17:50:08.109+00:00Dear Erika, I am entirely with you here. Every ti...Dear Erika, I am entirely with you here. Every time I hear the terminology of "Conservative" and "Liberal" I wince, because it seems to be defining who we are by a synthetic value scale which means nothing in terms of faith or our tradition (in a positive sense.) <br /><br />"The real dividing line is empathy" is a very powerful thought. It takes me to the parable of the good Samaritan, and the primacy of Love as a value.<br /><br />Your one-dimensional two-dimensional modes of seeing other people are really thought-provoking, and suddenly I can see them all around the teaching of Jesus — the woman in adultery, the gathering of wheat on the sabbath, the exaltation of the child, Doubting Thomas — all these seem to show three dimensional thinking breaking in on a two-dimensional assumption and opening the way to a fuller life = salvation!Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-48827222085353476982010-11-24T14:37:22.504+00:002010-11-24T14:37:22.504+00:00I often tell people that the church is like a car ...I often tell people that the church is like a car - it is supposed to take you places - it is not the place. However, it often needs a tune up and can be a wreck. When is purrs along the highways and byways - it can be so grand -- but it is still the vehicle.Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287169546184325690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-33406903687031560892010-11-24T09:10:25.721+00:002010-11-24T09:10:25.721+00:00Thanks Alan,
You say that in many respects you are...Thanks Alan,<br />You say that in many respects you are conservative and that got me thinking that, in a Christian context, Conservative and Liberal are not helpful labels. They may explain whether we tend towards the politically liberal or conservative on any given topic. But unlike politics faith is not about who wins and church is not about who has a majority in parliament.<br />I would say that people on all sides of the spectrum would say they take the Incarnation seriously, whichever way they may personally define it. And I am sure that everyone is certain they are trying to follow the Holy Spirit - whether they see him more in Scripture, moving in the universal church as a whole or in individual people’s lives.<br /><br />I’m beginning to think that the real dividing line is empathy and that it cuts across all other categories.<br /><br />Am I able to see the uniqueness, the otherness, the integrity of other people as people in their own right? Can I comprehend something about them even if I don’t share it? Do I truly recognise our common humanity?<br />Or do I see them only in terms of the impact they have on me, as two-dimensional, as representatives of theoretical issues and problems, as either obstacles or soldiers marching on “my” side?<br /><br />Not sure where I’m going with this yet….Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-59278898057442050002010-11-24T07:56:57.471+00:002010-11-24T07:56:57.471+00:00Sorry, Erica. I've let the conversation run be...Sorry, Erica. I've let the conversation run because I have to say it's been one of the most interestng I've ever seen, and far more incisive but charitable than pretty much any other. It was kind of Sarah to give us extended time and to try and respond to the points people were making, which seem to me the pertinent ones.<br /><br />Often her words reminded me of the Stalwart Victorian Anglo-Catholics I worked through as a research student, and although the inflation of language is a considerable factor that needs to be allowed for, I do rather admire people who just say it like it is for them, even if I disagree with them about much of what they say. Confronted by, for example, being imprisoned, they did not whine that they were being driven out of the Church, and the will to stick with their concept of the Church through thick and thin had a noble root.<br /><br />That said, I think I realise from this conversation how much I believe you have to see the Church as a delivery system for the Kingdom, full stop. Non-Conservatives have consciences too, and moral convictions, and passion, and energy. I work for equality because I believe in the sermon on the mount, not out of some kind of Liberal conspiracy. In some ways I am very conservative in outlook but God is far bigger than all this, and I glimpse that most clearly in points of view that allow for the existence of the Holy Spirit (seeking to discern rather than destroy development), the Incarnation (we need to be real in our context), and the overwhelming ove of God as our final hope and refuge, beyond our ability to speak or think about it.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-40163995681474821852010-11-24T07:37:27.674+00:002010-11-24T07:37:27.674+00:00Seems like we've left poor Alan speechless :-)...Seems like we've left poor Alan speechless :-)Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-53013236254653085792010-11-23T20:51:50.370+00:002010-11-23T20:51:50.370+00:00Wow.
VG here.
I'm sure, as one raised in the...Wow. <br />VG here.<br /><br />I'm sure, as one raised in the Ecusa, that their leadership has scored a lot of own goals. But I'm afraid that this has been part of the decline of discourse in the USA, anyway.<br /><br />When I contrast people feeling affronted with people living under a "Christian" fatwah for their sexuality, as in Uganda,I know where my sympathies lie. Being affronted is not Gospel living.<br /><br />My lovely little great aunt once drew herself up to her full height of 4'10" and putting on an air said in her best Sandringham accent, "Katherine, there is * one thing * I will NOT take !"<br /><br />I replied, naturally, "What is that, Great-Aunt?"<br /><br />and quick as a flash, she replied "Offence!"<br /><br />just because a leadership offers offence doesn't mean it needs to be taken. Just because other people's private and committed sexual practices aren't what you'd choose brcause they're offensive to you doesn't entitle you to take offence at their existence or their spirituality. <br /><br />I could take offence at misogyny, too, as it affects me every day. I could take offence at heterosexuality. I can take offence at most things and find a quote to support myself.<br /><br />But it isn't Gospel living.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-20265744458163916492010-11-23T17:14:43.452+00:002010-11-23T17:14:43.452+00:00I'm trying to post a comment but grappling wit...I'm trying to post a comment but grappling with a slow connection this morning (maybe our -27ºC weather here in Edmonton has something to do with it! (as you can see Sarah I'm not actually a member of the Church of England!)<br /><br />I will not reply to Sarah's concerns as she says the discussion is over. Fair enough.<br /><br />Erika, I agree that if you genuinely feel it is not a sin then it would be hypocritical to pretend to repent of it. Hopefully all of us (myself included) are continually trying to listen to the Holy Spirit to clarify our view of what is and is not pleasing to our loving heavenly Father.<br /><br />About the prayer of humble access having more to do with healing than with who may or may not come to the table - well, i'd like to think so, but I fear not. Don't forget that the rubrics to the 1662 Communion service direct that if a person intends to receive communion, they're supposed to let the minister know of their intentions the night before, and it's at this point that the minister is supposed to warn the offenders I mentioned before not to presume to come to the Lord's Table until they amend their lives.<br /><br />I think my own view would be closer to yours, but I'm not talking about my own view here - I'm talking about being honest about what Cranmer actually wrote. What we do with it in 2010 is another issue altogether - and Savi is probably correct to say that within living memory the default position has been a lot more open than Cranmer envisaged.Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-19813808975402145712010-11-23T16:37:03.444+00:002010-11-23T16:37:03.444+00:00[Final comment -- blessedly for all!]
I think I&#...[Final comment -- blessedly for all!]<br /><br />I think I've responded as best I can to the questions and comments, and I've monopolized this thread long enough, which is on a blog, after all, dealing with the COE and that Province's issues. Bishop Alan Wilson has been very gracious to allow this to go on as long as he has, and using his bandwidth at that.<br /><br />If any of you are interested -- solely for cultural interest and not intended to persuade -- in the larger theological issues that Christians over here in TEC are concerned with, you can't do any better than to listen to Kendall Harmon's "Iceberg" talk. Kendall has a DPhil from Oxford, and is the Canon Theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina. The Iceberg talk well articulates our concerns and I think reveals why the divide between the two gospels will only grow, rather than shrink. It's around 45 minutes long, and you can find the audio files in order at the following urls:<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/26<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/28<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/30<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/31<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/32<br /><br />Again -- I post the links to the audio version [they're in around 10 minute chunks] above not to try to convince you of our theology or gospel, but merely to allow you to understand why these issues are never going to be swept away or glossed over on our part, and to explain why the chasm is so deep and broad between the two groups.<br /><br />I'll toddle away now to deal with some plaintive clients and their work.<br /><br />But I've very much enjoyed the exchanges here and wish you all the very best, and the rich blessing of Jesus Christ. <br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-12731713838834961852010-11-23T16:11:25.400+00:002010-11-23T16:11:25.400+00:00[Final comment -- blessedly for all!]
I think I&#...[Final comment -- blessedly for all!]<br /><br />I think I've responded as best I can to the questions and comments, and I've monopolized this thread long enough, which is on a blog, after all, dealing with the COE and that Province's issues. Bishop Alan Wilson has been very gracious to allow this to go on as long as he has, and using his bandwidth at that.<br /><br />If any of you are interested -- solely for cultural interest and not intended to persuade -- in the larger theological issues that Christians over here in TEC are concerned with, you can't do any better than to listen to Kendall Harmon's "Iceberg" talk. Kendall has a DPhil from Oxford, and is the Canon Theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina. The Iceberg talk well articulates our concerns and I think reveals why the divide between the two gospels will only grow, rather than shrink. It's around 45 minutes long, and you can find the audio files in order at the following urls:<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/26<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/28<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/30<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/31<br />http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/32<br /><br />Again -- I post the links to the audio version [they're in around 10 minute chunks] above not to try to convince you of our theology or gospel, but merely to allow you to understand why these issues are never going to be swept away or glossed over on our part, and to explain why the chasm is so deep and broad between the two groups.<br /><br />I'll toddle away now to deal with some plaintive clients and their work.<br /><br />But I've very much enjoyed the exchanges here and wish you all the very best, and the rich blessing of Jesus Christ. <br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-60941117152466680582010-11-23T16:03:22.181+00:002010-11-23T16:03:22.181+00:00It's been a long series of exchanges. I think...It's been a long series of exchanges. I think I've spelled out fairly clearly the beliefs of a good chunk of Anglicans over here in TECusa and vastly larger chunks of Anglicans in other Provinces regarding the need for order and discipline, the consequences to the Communion when that order and discipline does not occur, and why some people are hopeful for the Covenant and others are not. My intention is not to try to convince others that same-gender sexual relations -- or any of the other theology that goes along with approval of such activity -- is a bad thing. I recognize that it's not possible for us to agree, since the foundational differences are so deep and broad.<br /><br />All of that being the case . . . I'll continue on over here on my side of the pond, a member of TEC, full of joy and peace at where God has placed me, as long as He calls me to stay . . . it's a tough place, but it's the right place. And I'll continue at the same time to be very clear about what the stakes are, and what sorts of leaders are currently in charge of this church, and the differences between those leaders and those who believe the Gospel -- something which has, incidentally, been hugely unifying over here in TECusa for all of my friends and fellow believers over here. Nothing like running into something that isn't the real thing, to get all the other squabbling over the more minor issues out of the way amongst Christians. Believe me -- there are thousands of people just like me over here in TEC -- I just got off the phone with one of them just now. We're staying, and we'll continue to differentiate ourselves from the current leaders of TECusa, and resist their work, and publicly declaim against their gospel. We'll continue to ally ourselves with those in other Provinces who also share the same Gospel. And we'll distance ourselves as much as is possible from the current revisionist activist leaders of TECusa and their gospel -- it's the only thing that traditional Christians within TECusa can honorably do, other than leave, and remain people of integrity. That will necessarily mean intense and unceasing conflict and division -- for when two mutually opposing gospels are in one organization, that is what happens.<br /><br />All of us over here [on the traditional side] recognize that TECusa as an organization is lost. That's why you'll see more and more deputies to General Convention from traditional dioceses simply no longer attending -- watch for that escalating trend in the coming years. In my own "moderate" diocese, out of the 8 deputies who are elected, there were two traditionalists who actually ran -- none of us wish to go to General Convention, and that is a trend now in *moderate* dioceses, not simply in conservative diocese. We recognize that the institution is lost now and that it is best to focus on places where some good can be done. There are plenty of us -- *plenty* to a majority -- of traditional Episcopalians in my diocese. But we aren't going to General Convention any more. As a result, all of you over in the COE will have the fascinating ability to observe the runaway train that is driven by the TECusa revisionist activists go much faster down the track at ensuing General Conventions. It should be interesting to observe, in kind of a sick and horrible way.<br /><br />We're still in TEC and we will continue on. And we will cheer on any work that the Anglican Communion does to establish its boundaries, discipline, and good order.<br /><br />Ten years from now, I am quite confident that many of you on this very thread will recall this exchange -- and having the benefit of further years to observe -- will recognize the truth of my description of TECusa's leaders. You can think of me -- in a church that is about 20 years "ahead" [if you want to call it that] on the hurtling train of theological insanity and incoherence -- as "the Ghost of Christmas Future." ; > )<br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-16079688020841004392010-11-23T15:58:06.687+00:002010-11-23T15:58:06.687+00:00“Can you imagine -- really conceive of -- what tho...“Can you imagine -- really conceive of -- what those three criteria actually lets in to an organization of any sort, whether secular or religious?”<br /><br />Yes, Sarah, I can.<br />It’s the Communion we used to have. <br />The one where people believing in the sanctity of life under all circumstances and people supporting the death penalty can live side by side. If the sanctity of life isn’t a gospel value, I don’t know what is. And yet, we are coping with very differentiated views on the death penalty, on war, on abortion, on euthanasia, on contraception.<br /><br />It’s the Communion where people had different views on the gospel truth of slavery. Where people had different views on the gospel truth of black equality.<br />And make no mistake. At the time these battles were fought, people were just as passionate about them as you are about same sex relationships. Two sides claiming gospel truth for themselves, both sides believing the other to be immoral and acting against gospel values.<br /><br />It’s also the Communion that can tolerate a Bishop Orombi who would introduce the death penalty for people regardless of their “lifestyle” simply for who they are. Celibate gay people, Sarah. Who do not even go against your definition of what is acceptable.<br />But I and those like me have managed to live side by side with those people. We have called them brothers in Christ although it has been excruciatingly hard at times and has cost us dear. It has cost our lgbt brothers and sisters in Africa even dearer.<br /><br />I am not expecting any sacrifice from you that I’m not making myself.<br />I know it is possible to live with those you passionately disagree with. Not easy, I grant you. But possible.<br /><br />As for my side having “won”. Just because I’m alright doesn’t mean everything is alright. As long as people commit suicide because they’re gay, as long as there is homophobic bullying, as long as people’s lives and freedom are threatened by the laws of their land, no-one has won and all of humanity is shamed and diminished.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-69276867418528060932010-11-23T15:38:30.721+00:002010-11-23T15:38:30.721+00:00[Continued response to Erika]
We can hardly blame...[Continued response to Erika]<br /><br />We can hardly blame people who are protesting quite loudly -- and will, believe me, continue to protest quite loudly for many many many years to come -- if this is something that is *very very important to them*.<br /><br />Obviously, it is not important to you -- or rather, it is important, but your side actually won in TEC, so there is no need to protest on your part! But now stating that those on the other side should cease speaking and be quiet is rather . . . convenient for the other side, surely you would agree!<br /><br />RE: "I can’t see that he is a problem for anyone in other diocese and particularly not in any other province at the other side of the globe."<br /><br />I guess we don't share the same views on the nature of the episcopate. <br /><br />Let me put it another way. If a bishop were elected who proudly proclaimed, say, the glories of open marriage, would this bother you? Or only the strange conservatives in New Hampshire should be bothered, but no one else?<br /><br />I thought that all Anglicans were agreed that bishops are *universal* for our church -- the Anglican Communion. They stand as defenders of the faith and teachers of the Gospel -- for the whole church. They celebrate and administer the sacraments -- for the whole church. <br /><br />But not any more. Numerous bishops from TECusa are now not allowed to administer the sacraments in other Provinces of the Anglican Communion or teach their gospel, so great is the theological chasm.<br /><br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-89446465540801851502010-11-23T15:32:09.253+00:002010-11-23T15:32:09.253+00:00[Continued response to Erika]
RE: "But since...[Continued response to Erika]<br /><br />RE: "But since then, he has really wanted to be known just as a normal bishop."<br /><br />No -- I'm afraid not. He has traveled the world over promoting his own theology and promoting the idea that sex between same genders is actually holy and blessed and the church should happily affirm it. He has been -- by his own post-consecration actions -- "the gay bishop" non-stop and unceasingly and quite quite loudly.<br /><br />Obviously, for someone who believes that it is sinful, scandalous, and harmful behavior, that is not acceptable. It is, in fact, exactly what was planned to happen and what we all knew would happen. He never was "just a bishop" -- he was and was meant to be an icon of the liberal activists' gospel and a revisionist political activist, which he has been with bells on.<br /><br />RE: "And from the example of Mary Glasspool we can see that there isn’t necessarily a huge amount of noise coming from the shoot skeeters."<br /><br />I'm not sure what you are meaning by this. There was a formal protest at her consecration, which in itself was a ghastly display [have you seen the video of it?], and more and more Provinces are now backing away and distancing themselves from TEC as a result, since they had mistakenly though that TECusa had committed to a moratorium on further non-celibate gay bishops, but which in fact we all told them for years that TECusa had no intention of ultimately honoring. As usual, we were right. And being demonstrated to be right over and over and over does end up having an affect on Provinces who had -- until the past seven years -- been very unaware of what actually the current leaders of TECusa believe about a whole host of theological issues.<br /><br />Now granted -- for those for whom this theology is a good thing, all is well! But isn't that a bit rich? I mean -- *obviously* people who agree with this theology are going to say "see -- wasn't that great"? <br /><br />RE" "Isn’t it the tennis players who have made sure that the noise doesn’t die down and that it gets louder and louder so that everyone now has no choice but to get involved in the debate?"<br /><br />But Erika -- what *did* you expect the tennis players to do at the tennis club, when the skeet shooters began blasting away? I mean -- obviously, the revisionist activists in TEC claimed that "it was no big deal, nobody over here in TEC is really opposed, those who do are just a very very small minority, and it will all die away soon" -- that was back in 2003. But obviously -- it has not died away at all, and instead the conflagration has spread. Obviously, Christians and Anglicans the world over believe that this is a very very serious matter. And truth to tell -- those liberal activists in TEC believe it is a very very serious matter too -- and they are willing to divide the church over their gospel, it is so important to them.<br /><br />So chastising the tennis players for not being quiet and for not stopping to protest something that they believe is very very serious -- and that the skeet shooters themselves believe also to be very very serious -- is coming on a bit too rich, isn't it? I mean -- if everyone had been silent, *then* you would have said "see there -- nobody really cared, just as we said."<br /><br />Obviously a person being robbed, if he or she were silent, would convenience the neighborhood by not awakening it with his screams. But the person being robbed is going, perforce, to yell out, [unless a gun is being held to his head].<br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-92180845336144111652010-11-23T15:12:50.980+00:002010-11-23T15:12:50.980+00:00Hi Erika,
RE: "I suppose, though, that I wil...Hi Erika,<br /><br />RE: "I suppose, though, that I will also always try to respect the integrity of those who think differently.<br />If their choices don't cause actual harm, if they are arrived at following the due process in their own lawful organisation and if they are supported by a large body of serious theology (whether I agree with it nor not), then I would feel I would have to leave the judgement to God."<br /><br />Hmmm . . . well, I won't argue with you about whether their actions "are supported by a large body of serious theology" [but have you read our TECusa leaders' dreadful and vacuous primary document purporting to support their actions theologically? It really is incoherent. Have you heard their speeches at our General Convention -- laughable if not so sad and shallow.] <br /><br />And further, I won't argue with you about whether their actions "cause harm" -- but if anyone believes that sex between same genders is 1) sinful and 2) not God's best or holy intention for sexual relationships, then *necessarily* it is "harmful" to those persons within such sexual relationships. Indeed it is horribly damaging to them in every way imaginable, as all sin is for all of us.<br /><br />But obviously, those who believe that sex between same genders is indeed holy and blessed aren't going to grant that it is, at the same time, intrinsically harmful. So it is hopeless for us to debate that.<br /><br />But I actually cannot agree with your criteria in general -- even were I to grant that it is not harmful and is theologically well supported. If we're going to have an association, I think the last thing we would want is to contain all people who "don't cause actual harm," "arrived at following the due process in their own lawful organisation" and "are supported by a large body of serious theology."<br /><br />Can you imagine -- really conceive of -- what those three criteria actually lets in to an organization of any sort, whether secular or religious?<br /><br />Just to name *one* issue out of literally hundreds -- that would let in the Sydney desire to have lay people celebrate the Eucharist. As I said, there are hundreds of such issues out there that would fit your three criteria and that would transform the Anglican Communion into something unrecognizable.<br /><br />RE: "I do feel terribly sad that you are so passionate about being part of a pure church - pure in your eyes."<br /><br />Hmmm . . . again. ; > )<br /><br />Do not fear.<br /><br />Recall a few things about me. 1) I am still a member of TEC - -a church positively *riddled* with grotesque heresies far far far worse than the whole gay sex is holy and blessed one [that's just the tiniest tip of the iceberg]. If I had only wanted to be a part of a "pure church" I would have taken my parents' advice and left years ago. ; > )<br /><br />2) Further, desiring that the church not accept heretical belief and practice *at its highest level* on a formal, legal, hierarchical, official, and national basis through our General Convention, is not in any way desiring "a pure church." After all, there are plenty of sins to take place *not* on a formal, legal, hierarchical, official, and national basis! My standards are actually fairly low -- practically rock bottom.<br /><br />I don't think it's too much to ask that we not enact approval of scandalous sinful unrepentant practice at a formal, legal, official, hierarchical, and national level.<br /><br />3) Finally, I think you are again not seeing the distinction between 1) Christians who do and believe things that are different from my theology and 2) people who don't believe the Gospel.<br /><br />I can well put up with the former and having such people -- including me! -- does not in any way create a "pure church." But having leaders who opine that Scripture needn't be bothered with, nor tradition, nor reason -- let's all go out there and bless the present-day culture and get on with it -- is just not my idea of any sort of church at all.<br /><br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-41580230569259172082010-11-23T14:31:32.662+00:002010-11-23T14:31:32.662+00:00[Continuing my response to Tim]
RE: "I think...[Continuing my response to Tim]<br /><br />RE: "I think your use of the word 'Fascist' is extremely unhelpful, as well as being rather disrespectful of those who were victims of the real Fascists."<br /><br />"The real Fascists"?<br /><br />Fascism is not a word that means "people will be carried off to the gas chambers." I feel fairly confident that nobody on this thread, in fact, thought that I was accusing bishops of carrying protesting traditional Christians off to gas chambers. Fascism is a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government and as such, I think it is an *excellent* word to describe the actions of vast numbers of the revisionist activist bishops over here on this side of the pond. <br /><br />But it doesn't appear that you've kept up with the activities over here -- you don't seem aware of the clusters of heresies they believe [setting aside the whole gay sex is holy and blessed meme], nor their bullying. That's okay -- I don't expect that with people in any Province. You have enough of your own problems in your own Province to deal with to keep up with others.<br /><br />RE: "It seems to me that he had some things to say in Matthew 5 about the words we use to describe our sisters and brothers."<br /><br />Other than the fact that you're making the same mistake as Alan Wilson, actually we should be accurate, truthful, and descriptive -- but not ungenerously so -- not only for our "sisters and brothers" but for all of mankind.<br /><br />I am satisfied that I have been so.<br /><br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-76281385579157739582010-11-23T14:29:49.405+00:002010-11-23T14:29:49.405+00:00Hi Tim . . .
RE: "Sarah, for all your subtl...Hi Tim . . . <br /><br />RE: "Sarah, for all your subtleties about 'five groups', you actually believe there are only two - those who believe your version of the gospel, and those who believe in a different gospel."<br /><br />Well seriously -- everyone in the whole world can be divided, if we must, into "only two groups" depending on the issue we are discussing. Not certain beyond that what you mean.<br /><br />For the purposes of this discussion -- you know, the discussion on the evils or goods of the Covenant -- we *do* indeed have two groups. Those who believe that sex between same genders is holy and blessed and that therefore we should elevate the practitioners of such sexual relations to the position of leader in the church. And those who do not.<br /><br />Or, we could have another set of two groups: those who believe the Covenant is helpful. And those who do not.<br /><br />But I was merely responding to your protest that you "think Sarah's division of Anglicanism into just two camps is simplistic and naive."<br /><br />And now you are complaining when I point out that one could actually come up with multiple groupings? You wish for me to return to pointing out that in essence, and for the purposes of this discussion, there are really only two groups? I thought you said that that was "simplistic and naive."<br /><br />Oh well.<br /><br />Certainly the *inciting* issue was that a province in the Anglican Communion decided to approve of a *bishop of the whole church* whom other provinces believe [and thousands, I should add, right here in TECusa] is in engaged in notorious, scandalous, and unrepentant sin. But investigation has demonstrated that the province in question has hosts of bishops who not only believe that gay sex is holy and blessed and that it's a good idea that some of those who practice gay sex should be elevated to be a bishop of the whole church . . . they also have with *that particular issue* a whole cluster of other issues that support such a belief.<br /><br />Belief in non-celibate gay bishops comes with a variety of delectable other heresies -- they all run together, as we've all discovered over here in TEC.<br /><br />But you won't have to take my word for that. Over the coming years, as the distance amongst the varying groups grows and deepens, the COE leaders will get to hang out most probably, with the TECusan leaders. You'll enjoy learning more, I'm sure, in the coming years as you observe their skeet shooting escalate and expand and broaden.<br /><br />RE: "But why this issue?"<br /><br />Well -- a national church's primary legislative body formally, officially, legally, nationally approved of elevating people engaged in scandalous and unrepentant sin to the leadership of the church.<br /><br />Had the priest in question advocated open marriages, or embezzlement, or marriage of one's sister, or setting fires, or some other scandalous sin, then "this issue" would have been something else. But instead he -- and the entire church formally and officially and legally and nationally -- approved of *this* particular issue.<br /><br />It does no good to say "why this issue" when this was the issue that got the formal, national, official, legal approval. One might just as soon said "why this issue" regarding Arianism -- but it was because that was the falsity being preached.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-43037632295798136302010-11-23T11:53:58.252+00:002010-11-23T11:53:58.252+00:00Sarah,
I have spent all morning thinking around yo...Sarah,<br />I have spent all morning thinking around your explanation of the tennis court analogy.<br />And I must confess that it still puzzles me a little. Because the Gene Robinson consecration was a noisy shooting event at the time and yes, you could hear it on tennis courts all over the world.<br />But since then, he has really wanted to be known just as a normal bishop. And from the example of Mary Glasspool we can see that there isn’t necessarily a huge amount of noise coming from the shoot skeeters. Isn’t it the tennis players who have made sure that the noise doesn’t die down and that it gets louder and louder so that everyone now has no choice but to get involved in the debate?<br /><br />I can see that Bishop Robinson is a problem for any conservative Christian in New Hampshire. That’s a little like our anti-women priest people being appalled at the possibility that they might have a female bishop. <br />I can’t see that he is a problem for anyone in other diocese and particularly not in any other province at the other side of the globe.<br /><br />It’s not as though this topic didn’t cut both ways.<br />You are very right to say that we emphasise different gospel values (I wouldn’t go as far as to say that we have different gospels). And from my point of view, much that is said by homophobic Christians is not only contrary to the gospel but positively harmful and therefore immoral. I genuinely cannot understand the moral compass of people who are not appalled at the suicides of gay teenagers and who don’t see their own responsibility for helping to create a culture in which these kids feel there is no other choice for them. And I genuinely don’t understand the moral compass of Christians who actively seek the death penalty for homosexuals.<br />Their actions have a very real impact on the lives of other people and to my mind, they carry a huge responsibility. <br /><br />But there is no drive to kick these people out of the Communion, there is no liberal province complaining that they cannot get on with their own mission until these people have been removed.<br /><br />Why is it that you are hearing the noise coming from one quiet gay bishop so loudly and so constantly that it drowns out any other noise around you and that you feel compelled to eliminate it?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-65767720311635661772010-11-23T07:33:49.205+00:002010-11-23T07:33:49.205+00:00Tim
I found your comment about the BCP prayer of h...Tim<br />I found your comment about the BCP prayer of humble access intriguing.<br /><br />Yes, all those who truly repent are forgiven. That is one of the real miracles and the most humbling and freeing experience in anyone's life.<br /><br />But to "repent" what you genuinely do not believe to be a sin would be hypocrisy.<br /><br />Psychologically speaking, to say you're sorry when you don't really mean it doesn't heal you, it just adds a layer of stuff between you and the possibility of real healing.<br />Genuinely becoming aware of having done something wrong, or of wanting to change your life in a particular direction, can be the most healing moment in life, precisely because of the depth of the awareness and the intensity of the forgiveness.<br /><br />It has, to my mind, nothing to do with "unless you all you say sorry you can't come to the table", but it is a "if you were to dig up within yourself something that is troubling you and allow me to heal it, you would be most welcome".<br /><br />Or am I misunderstanding what you said?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-51015575964577729272010-11-23T07:29:16.330+00:002010-11-23T07:29:16.330+00:00Sarah
thank you for your reply.
I must admit, I ha...Sarah<br />thank you for your reply.<br />I must admit, I hadn't thought it would be possible to find anything in your own personal life that could change for the better if TEC was no longer a member of the Anglican Communion.<br />To me, it always seemed as though those who oppose gay people don't really have anything to lose or to gain other than a sense of self-righteousness.<br /><br />And you're right, I do have lines, I do have walls.<br /><br />I suppose, though, that I will also always try to respect the integrity of those who think differently.<br />If their choices don't cause actual harm, if they are arrived at following the due process in their own lawful organisation and if they are supported by a large body of serious theology (whether I agree with it nor not), then I would feel I would have to leave the judgement to God.<br /><br />I do feel terribly sad that you are so passionate about being part of a pure church - pure in your eyes.<br />I think my understanding of church is different too.<br /><br />And although I've said it here before, I'd like to mention again the man in my own parish who opposes everything I stand for, everything I believe and my whole way of living and who is very outspoken about it.<br />He has never refused to share the Peace with me, he kneels side by side at the altar with me, we pray together, we speak together.<br /><br />Secretly, I suppose, we both hope to convert the other:-)<br /><br />He and our wonderful Tim here are the only two people I know who can hold the tension of opposing something and struggling with how someone lives without having to draw lines and remove them from the gathering.<br /><br />To me, that approach wins hands down any time as an example of Christlike living.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-39701203866843522532010-11-23T00:18:24.546+00:002010-11-23T00:18:24.546+00:00Oh - and one more thing, Sarah - I think your use ...Oh - and one more thing, Sarah - I think your use of the word 'Fascist' is extremely unhelpful, as well as being rather disrespectful of those who were victims of the <i>real</i> Fascists. No one in TEC has been carted off to gas chambers. You claim to be the one who is faithful to the gospel of Jesus here. It seems to me that he had some things to say in Matthew 5 about the words we use to describe our sisters and brothers.Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-36596841238305143652010-11-23T00:14:59.706+00:002010-11-23T00:14:59.706+00:00Sarah, for all your subtleties about 'five gro...Sarah, for all your subtleties about 'five groups', you actually believe there are only two - those who believe your version of the gospel, and those who believe in a different gospel. And it seems that the deciding issue (this, of course, is the thing that has gotten everyone in the GS so concerned about us heretics in the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC) is homosexuality.<br /><br />But why this issue? Let me pick a different one. Let me agree with the vast majority of Christians in the first three centuries of Christianity and say that participation in war is incompatible with Christian discipleship. This of course is the plain meaning of the teaching of Jesus, and for the most part Christians believed it until Constantine co-opted the church and it became inconvenient for the Empire to have a pacifist religion. But to most in the early church this would have been a denial of the gospel. So why aren't biblical literalists today worried about the dangerous revisionism of a church which has military chaplains and accepts the just war theory? Why aren't you denouncing them as believing a different gospel?<br /><br />See, I think we all believe that God loves us so much he accepts us just as we are, but he loves us too much to leave us there. We just aren't agreed as to which changes he wants to make in us. But if everyone who disagrees with my take on that issue is to be construed as believing a different gospel, I suppose the whole world could not hold the heretics who would suddenly spring up everywhere.Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-91990467711859765052010-11-22T23:31:57.919+00:002010-11-22T23:31:57.919+00:00[Continuing my response to Erika]
Were TEC to be...[Continuing my response to Erika]<br /><br /><br />Were TEC to be out of the Anglican Communion I would work hard to find a parish that was recognized as in the Anglican Communion. Were that my local parish -- my word, the influx back of departed parishioners would be *huge* -- instant growth serum for an already fairly largish parish! ; > ) Plus, I'd be able to invite flocks of people who stand on the outskirts and email me about what's going on -- they're Anglicans theologically, but are not able to be a part of such a corrupt organization as TEC. One of my close family members could return. Many of my friends. The outreach possibilities would be immense -- I live in a conservative area of the country, and TEC parishes are simply not options for so many liturgical and sacramental and thoughtful Christians now. I can think of numerous friends to whom I could then say "y'all come on now!"<br /><br />I do not believe that my relationship with God would change much -- I mean obviously I hope every day and every year it grows stronger and deeper. And certainly there would be great thanksgiving to God for what I could only see as a huge miracle, since obviously I think it *highly unlikely* that the Anglican Communion will so discipline and order itself.<br /><br />Certainly it would relieve an immense amount of tension between the warring parties in TEC. Both sides could go their way and cease the recriminations and political fighting, since neither side would end up in the same organization. Although I care about the souls of the revisionist activist leaders in TEC, I hold them no personal ill will -- I'm sure we could enjoy drinking coffee together and discussing movies and books at some point were we ever to connect, although I would not want to engage in any ecumenical activities with them [though I could *definitely* see inter-faith activities of some sort]. We just don't belong in the same organization together, as we don't share the same mission, goals, values, foundational worldview, or belief in the same gospel.<br /><br />I hope that answers your question -- I honestly rarely ever think of such a thing as I think it's obvious to all by now that TEC will remain in the Anglican Communion. Even were the Covenant to be signed by most Provinces [and I hope that does not happen, since I think it hurts us, and does not help us, but for obviously entirely different reasons from Alan Wilson], and TEC were not to sign the Covenant, TEC will happily remain and continue blasting away [to return to the skeet shooting metaphor]. So I don't think there is any hope at all that TEC will ever be out of the Anglican Communion.<br /><br />What that necessarily means is greater and greater distancing -- farther and farther away -- and more differentiation [ie, "we're definitely *not* those types of Anglicans, we're this type over here"] between the tennis players and the skeet shooters in the tennis club. And that means massive division, disunity, conflict, and pain on all sides.<br /><br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-67838420092799073862010-11-22T23:31:29.894+00:002010-11-22T23:31:29.894+00:00Hi Erika,
RE: "I don't often get the cha...Hi Erika,<br /><br />RE: "I don't often get the chance to talk properly to people who believe that lines have to be drawn and walls have to be built."<br /><br />Now see -- I'll bet you do. For example -- you probably talk a bit to yourself sometimes, and you yourself believe that on occasion "lines have to be drawn and walls have to be built." I'll bet you can think of a potential practice or belief from an Anglican Communion leader that would be outside of those lines and walls. ; > )<br /><br />It's just that you and I don't agree on *which* actual actions and beliefs *should* be outside those walls and lines. And that has to do with very different foundational worldviews, values, missions, etc, at the core level which we do not share. That doesn't make you or me bad -- it just means that we don't agree on enough foundationally to be able to come to mutual consensi on practices and beliefs that should be outside of the Anglican Communion walls and lines.<br /><br />But to get to your question: <br /><br />"What difference will it make to you personally, to your life in your community and in your parish church, to your relationships with other people and to your relationship with God, if TEC is no longer part of the Anglican Communion?"<br /><br />That is a *great* question.<br /><br />First of all -- I would be absolutely *thrilled* for the Anglican Communion as a whole, since the purpose of TEC leaders -- the current leaders, that is -- is to use the Anglican Communion as a carrier or host for their own very destructive, and false, different gospel in a whole variety of areas. So just the joy I would have at the Anglican Communion's having established some good boundaries and good order and discipline would be huge -- I would be so happy for the AC's identity and future.<br /><br />Of course, that would mean that my own parish would have to make some very hard decisions, since we do wish to be a part of the Anglican Communion. My hope would be that we could remain in TEC but have either our parish or diocese recognized as in-Communion. If that were not the case, it would be most tragic -- but I'd be willing to put up with that if it meant that the Anglican Communion itself could be released and have a clear and Gospel-based identity and could also have more internal unity amongst Provinces who believe and preach the Gospel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com