Kendall Harmon writes this morning, "I believe very strongly that one of the many tragic aspects of this whole Episcopal Church debacle in the last five years is that not only was the decision in 2003 wrong (and the way it was made wrong) but that nearly every major decision made by the TEC leadership since then has made it worse. The hard part about this is that when you keep failing to offer a sufficiently radical solution to a problem, the next time you face it it requires an even more radical solution."Click here to find out what the House of Bishops could offer the Anglican Communion.
If the TEC Bishops still have any integrity left, they could take very seriously what the Bishop of Jerusalem and Egypt Mouneer Anis told the House of Bishops yesterday, "If you really believe that the truth revealed to you is different from that shown to the rest of the Communion, then you need to uphold that claim with boldness even at the risk of losing unity. If you think it is right and necessary to ordain and consecrate practicing homosexuals and that you should bless same sex partnerships or even marriages, you should be true to what you believe is right and accept the consequences."
I am convinced that this is exactly what the majority of not only the House of Bishops, but of General Convention believes. The media campaign from 815 is that this division is over an issue of justice. If that is true, then why don't they courageously stand up and take the consequences for their convictions? They have publicly framed the debate in those terms and not in the terms of the Dar Es Salaam Communique - for them the division is over justice.
Is the Anglican Crisis one of Biblical Doctrine or Social Justice? What say you?What we need is clarity right now,
not fudge.
15 comments:
How about the Biblical Doctrine OF Social Justice?
What does the Lord require? (See also Micah 6:8)
Oh yay, the Micah 6:8 drinking game begins already this morning. Some days you could get absolutely sloshed, having to down a Guinness every time someone invokes Micah 6:8.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
I am not nearly as interested in hypothetical solutions. What remains to be seen is the response from the rest of the Communion to whatever comes out of the HOB meetings. Stay tuned for the Common Cause meeting in Pittsburgh.
Dear Susan, et.al.
When the paper from the "Legally Trained Members of the House" (otherwise spoken of by some sarcastic folk as the "We have law degrees and you don't Bishops") we were told that the overarching theme of the scriptures was justice. There it was. Justice. Other themese please step back and take a number. They explained carefully, for those of us who are slow to understand, that we need to reinterpret the passages of the Bible that were evidently culturally conditioned by the ancient world's context into a non-contextual desire to be in line with this theme of justice.
OK. I recall being taught somewhere that all heresies are matters of taking the truth and stretching it (bending it, or whatever). Justice is a main theme. Check. A main theme. Got it. We're not always good at working for it. Got it. (And by the way, I appreciate you using the Biblical source to show your point, though some of us on the other side of the issue would be told if we did the same thing that we were "proof-texting." I suppose that you are not, because after all, this is about justice.)
Nonetheless, justice is one issue. Not the only one. It's important for peace, but then so is righteousness and truth and reconciliation. Odd, but among these main themes, none of these issues were part of the great commission ... though teaching people to follow what Jesus taught was. I guess Jesus missed out on the memo about the bullet points to make on justice ... And there are those folk who have suggested this great commission is also the central theme of the ministry of Jesus among us. Of course it seems to lead in a different direction ... and they may just not be up with the times I guess.
What seems so odd to me, and I'm already an odd fellow, is that some folk seem a bit naive here. It sure seems silly to discount Paul's words because he was a man of his culture, and so conditioned to believe one way, and so has t be seen as unrelaiable to modern folk ... and then, to suggest that our 21st century vision of the Bible (and its central theme of justice) are not also conditioned by our culture, and so may turn out to be, in the long run, unreliable. No I don't suppose that can be right can it?
I guess it all depends on your view of truth. And if you've got it, why not flaunt it. I've watched so many people over the years whack others over the head with their version of truth in the name of being prophetic, or raising consciousness, or having a political conscience. Name it what you want, it seems to be a tactic never out of style. Personally I'm tired of being whacked and told to take it ... becuase I'm a straight, white, male and it's good for me.
I'd agree justice is a big deal. We need more of it. But it's one of the themes in the Bible, not the only one. Sometimes as I read from the TEC supporters, there would seem to be only one issue, and it trumps all others.
So I guess a question to ask is why is the assumption that "it's all about the justice, stupid" is good and an assumption that there are other issues at work here so sinful? Or ignorant? Or homophobic ... or whatever. I've been called them all. (And usually by people who want me to be better at practicing radical inclusion ...)
Yes, and have you ever noticed Susan, that it seems those who are strident about standing up for their rights, seem to have a harder time kneeling before God or walking humbly with him?
Just a thought. I could well be wrong ...
I agree with you, Susan, I do. The division is on doctrine. I started to write here about defining those doctrines, but I couldn't find a way to say it that wouldn't alienate your view and triumph mine - which shows how deep the division is. I mean that in sincerity. I do think the one thing that we both have in common is that we want honesty and clarity. We both opposed B033 because it was untrue and unclear. It took a manipulation of the process to pass, an appeal to one's sense of loyalty to the institution, not to our core beliefs. That was not right.
There is a choice set before the Episcopal House of Bishops by the Primates of the Anglican Communion. Will the Bishops be honest and clear or will they not?
We will never ever begin to explore reconciliation unless we're first honest here. I find myself far more able to get along with progressives (as long as we all can refrain from namecalling and stereotyping) because - and I am just speaking for myself here - I respect their integrity to be honest that this is what they truly believe and they are willing to defend it. They want clarity. I can know that the issues that divide us are deep - and sometimes the pain is such on both sides that it can get toxic. Sometimes we do have to step away - I think that is wise. A cooling off period is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we don't grow cold.
It's the smoke and mirrors, the saying of one thing and believing something else, you can see it in the body language of the press conference yesterday. That is not a group of people getting along with each other. You could feel the chill. There was no warmth, you wouldn't even know that we are all in the same denomination - the chill was all over their faces.
If the House of Bishops would stand up and say to the Anglican Primates, "We hear what you are saying to us but you are asking us to go against our conscience, against our firmly held beliefs on Social Justice and full inclusion of the baptized in every part of the ministry of the Church. We are willing to make the case - from a biblical point of view even - that what we are doing is right and just and we won't back down from our convictions. We are willing to take the consequences for our beliefs and our actions and recognize what this may mean our reduction from full membership in the Anglican Communion. But fidelity to the witness of our convictions is something from which we cannot waiver."
Now that would be honest - and frankly, I think, the truth. That is something that would challenge the communion in ways that the past year of obsfucation could not and would not do.
I think - and please correct me if I'm wrong, Susan - but I think that we both want clarity and honesty from this House. Am I wrong?
-Mary
The only problem with that this it sells the conservatives who've chosen to remain in the TEC down the river. You want the leadership of the TEC to state and extremely liberal position so you can be the only "right" one.
The conservatives who choose to remain with ECUSA are making a choice to remain in a liberal church (some with very good reason such as a missionary call). They are not 'being sold down the river'.
BB, I totally agree with you about the need for utter honesty. There is no starting point without this.
Mary, I'm right with you. (At least on this one.) Just wrote about this over in my little corner of blog-land.
Susan, above, makes a good point -- and I think that's something I would agree with. The problem is that too often we progressives have talked just about the social justice part without starting at the biblical doctrine part.
Peace,
Scott+
BabyBlue: my apologies if I offended you and I ask that you forgive me.
Trog, I appreciate that very much - all forgiven. I don't have the capability of editing comments as the elves do at Titus or StandFirm and since I don't know your real name (nor do I need to) I didn't know how to reach you. Thank you for your post. You are welcome here.
bb
scott -- Yes, AND be careful in speaking about "we progressives" ... whild I'm not a sola scriptura type I am a "scriptura primera" ... which is why (get out the Guinness!) Micah 6:8 comes up so often.
Mary -- There's a big old hunk of truth in what you write and I thank you for it. I've been working on a blog on precisely why it is "liberals" (for lack of better stereotypical language) struggle so to come up with a final answer. (God forbid we ever got on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire!") I fear sometimes it's because we make an idol out of process and are convinced if we try ONE MORE TIME ya'll will see the (AKA "our") light.
I also think -- sincerely -- that at least some of us really BOUGHT the Anglican Comprehensiveness As Our Inheritance argument and are convinced that a church that started out being able to hold both catholic and protestant in tension can also hold the present differences.
We might be wrong.
But thank you for giving us credit for being sincere.
PS - Enjoyed the Anglican TV Round Table earlier this evening.
I do hold out hope there might be a way or ways forward, perhaps in ways that challenge current structures. It may not be "as we've always done before." We could be on one hand, doctrinal pioneers (progressives) as well as structural pioneers (orthodox).
It does seem that there are some, not all, but some who are traditional on the structures but progressive on the doctrine, while there are others who are progressive on the structures but traditional on the doctrine.
I cannot know another's heart, but it seems wiser to assume the sincerity of each other's convictions rather than the delve into the jaded point of view. In fact, I think that's another common thread for both progressives and the orthodox. There does seem to be those who are fearful of convictions. Often those with deeply held and felt convictions are not so much rigid and unbending (for some flexibility is needed to make a secure foundation) as have convictions that resonate in deeply in their souls. In this cynical and widely secular age, there are those of faith who truly believe - as the man with trumpet believes as he sang this afternoon on a Jackson Square corner.
I guess what I am looking for is evidence of those convictions in bishops. Do they have the courage of their convictions?
-Mary
I think some of them at least want to but the episcopate does funny things to people.
We will know more on Monday.
And now, as the Dodgers have just dropped ANOTHER one to the Diamondbacks I'm going to call it a summer and go sleep through the autumnal equinox.
Once again we see talk about "justice" as a prophetic imperative. Some of us are sceptical of whether the "justice" sought is really the Word of the Lord, or is it merely a cover for the echo chamber of a post-modern power structure. Perhaps we can pose a quetion to show us the way.
The so-called "Duke rape case" was recently before our eyes. There some local officials and some politically minded academics community sought to put three young men away for thirty years. Their pretext can, most charitably, be called the hallucinations of a sex worker. Very few spoke about the hijacking of justice in the name of p.c. prejuduice. So, for our justice-driven prophets:
What were your words on the Duke case
I think we can all agree that - now - there is only one thing the ECUSA bishops can offer to the communion in good conscience: their resignations
if they have - as Susan Russel confirms, and as their own cations demonstrate - left the Christian faith, then that is the only action they can now take with Integrity.
And if they do not now resign, after all this, the Primates should simply declare the Sees vacant, appoint Christian bishops, and sue for the property.
Post a Comment