BREAKING NEWS From Our Saturday Upper South Carolina Bishop Walkabouts

I knew that everyone would be interested in knowing this really shocking self-description

I am sure that moderation just oozed from their pores throughout the entire session.  Just out of curiosity, what percentage of their comments included the words “listening”, “reception”, or “baptismal covenant”?

Personally, I think that all candidates should be required to drink a moderate amount of distilled spirits prior to going on these things, in hopes that it might inspire them to actually give a moderately honest response to a question.  In vino veritas.  (ok, so I know wine is not a distilled spirit, but the sentiment is the same.)

Give them the Acid Test: 
Q1.  If you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, please describe how you explain away the consistent scientific evidence which appears to contradict it.  If you do not so believe, please explain precisely how your laity is to tell the wheat from the chaff. 
Q2.  If you are NOT inclusive, please tell me who or what you propose to exclude.  If you are inclusive, please affirm that you gladly and regularly celebrate in 1928, Rite I, and those other rites as well.

Give them the Acid Test:
Q1.  If you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, please describe how you explain away the consistent scientific evidence which appears to contradict it.  If you do not so believe, please explain precisely how your laity is to tell the wheat from the chaff.
Q2.  If you are NOT inclusive, please tell me who or what you propose to exclude.  If you are inclusive, please affirm that you gladly and regularly celebrate in 1928, Rite I, and those other rites as well.

This is high grade, quality chaff.

In the Episcopal Church, a “moderate” is someone to the right of Bp Spong.

One even is calling himself a “Passionate Moderate.”

That looks supicously like a Sewanee-asm. A priest who is “passionately moderate” is nothing more than “aggressively accepting” of the gay ascendency in TEC. At Sewanee School of Theology, they call it “radical hospitality.”

Which priest said that, and did he attend Sewanee? Even if he didn’t, with a claim as being a “passionate moderate,” nod nod wink wink, Sewanee will know that he is one of them and will gladly welcome him onto the board of trustees. If he is elected bishop, Sewanee seminarians will hold a full moon prayer festival to Goddess Mother Earth Gai and some newly ordained chickens (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sewanee/3963178034/)    as a thank offering to celebrate Upper S.C.‘s not electing one of those nasty “conservatives who aren’t real Episcopalians.”

Perhaps they all should be asked to identify other moderates within TEC, just for comparison’s sake.

I suppose they are able to claim to be moderate the same way that Bp Tom Shaw claims to be conservative.  I tire of this slick and cunning sublety.  If someone is confident in his or her theological position, then why not just speak the truth in love?

Exactly my point, Jill.  Let’s see who else is “moderate” in these candidates’ eyes.  Absent context, the declaration of moderation is empty.

http://www.bishopsearch.edusc.org/docs/Waldo_Response.pdf

Bets are on that Waldo is the “passionate moderate.”

He is the only candidate with a beard. He grew up in Alabama, but cured that embarrassment by obtaining impeccable Cambridge and Boston, Mass., credentials. If his current parish was any farther north from South Carolina, he’d be in Canada. And he did attend Sewanee School of the Episcopal Church Theology, of course.

The real question is which ones will KJS not let be confirmed.

Which one listed Bishop Robinson as his old mentor?

Going Home, that would be Waldo+.

Linder is the one who named himself da passionate one. Not once but several times.

Is there such a thing as a passionate moderate? Isn’t that some kind of oxymoron?

Revelation 3:15-16 comes to mind in regard to these kinds of moderates.

Yes… “passionate moderate” is an oxymoron… it is also pretty lame to try and baffle’em with the BS. After all. no one that I can see has been dazzled by anything… I will continue to keep USC in my prayers…

[While certainly interesting that Trinity Cathedral has a partnered gay person on staff, the articles you quote unfortunately use vulgar terms that we simply don’t allow here—comment deleted; violation of commenting protocol]

When I was in the Diocese of Southern Ohio, then Bishop-elect Briedenthal met with our vestry and described himself as quite orthodox, despite the two books he had written arguing that same sex relationships were holy and their blessing was consistent with scripture.  I doubt that any of the few remaining orthodox clergy or laity in that diocese would agree with his self-description. 
You need to evaluate their standard of comparison.  They look at each other and say “I’m not as far out as that guy.” or “Compared to Spong, I’m orthodox.”  They not only don’t look at their ideas in relation to the whole church , but, they do not look at their ideas in relation to scripture.  As humans and sinners,we take easy comfort relativism, “At least, I’m not as bad as that guy, I’m no murderer.” That is not how God measures our behavior.  That is not the way of surrender to God’s will. Bishops and candidtates for the episopacy are no different form other sinners. The problem is that too many of them longer recognize it.
It was this kind of thing that caused me, nad my parish, to leave leave TEC. Now I see it only in the rear view mirror.

Oops
The sentence: “The problem is that too many of them longer recognize it.”  Should read: The problem is that too many of them no longer recognize it.”

Passionate moderate = Luke warm orthodoxy = vomit

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to [vomit] you out of my mouth. (Rev 3:14-16)

I really feel for you in DUSC. At the same time, I am glad I left ECUSA and the Anglican Church. I simply could no longer deal with such low standards for Bishops.

Passionate moderate = Luke warm orthodoxy = vomit

TEC Action: Episcobabble
Anglican Reaction: Vomitus Non Stoppus

Make that Obfuscatory Episcobabble; they lie a lot while they babble!

Let’s cut to the chase: 

Traditional/Conservative—refuses to do gay marriage or blessing

Revisionist/Liberal—has no problem doing gay marriage or blessing; might want to throw in stuff re:  open Communion without baptism and “interfaith possibilities”, i.e. half-Christian/half-Muslim priests

Moderate—One who is trying not to act like they’re either one of the two above for political purposes. 

DUH…I agree with Jill #7—knock off all the asinine cloak-and-dagger and have the guts and honesty to simply claim what you are. 

Maybe the pewster will weigh in on more details regarding the walkabout.

They look at each other and say “I’m not as far out as that guy.” or “Compared to Spong, I’m orthodox.”

The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.” (Luke 18:10-14)

22 Bottom Dweller,

I am working on it and have posted my rough notes. Reports from the field are coming in, but sometimes I get so mad that I feel like Auntie Em, and I have to hold my tongue. Next post Wed early a.m.

Almira Gulch, just because you own half the county doesn’t mean that you have the power to run the rest of us. For twenty-three years I’ve been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now… well, being a Christian woman, I can’t say it!

Passionate moderate = Luke warm orthodoxy = vomit

Nonsense Festivus… “moderate” = “luke warm”

“Passionate moderate” = “Really really luke warm”

I remember someone once said that there’s never going to be a book written titled “Great Moderates of History.” Anyone remember Henry Clay from history class? He was known as the Great Compromiser, because he was the brains behind the slavery compromises of 1820 and 1850. He was so proud of having found the middle ground on that devilish issue of slavery! Shortly after his death, a much wiser, and much less “moderate” politician arose. His philosophy? “A house divided cannot stand.”

Not one of the candidates, to the best of my knowledge, unconditionally affirms Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation and the Father. Not one, to the best of my knowledge, unconditionally affirms the authority of scripture as God’s word, applicable to all peoples and all generations. Not one, to the best of my knowledge, unconditionally affirms the faith once delivered to the Saints, applicable to all peoples and all generations.  Not one, to the best of my knowledge, rejects ordination of overtly practicing homosexuals.  Not one, to the best of my knowledge, rejects allowing the un-baptized to participate in the Holy Eucharist.

One of them will soon be the Bishop Elect of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, with a very high probability of consent/approval by the House of Bishops of TECUSA.

How sad, how very sad.

Ol’ Bob—I’m afraid the best of your knowledge isn’t so good. Three of the nominees take the conservative position on each of those issues. Maybe they aren’t in print *in this process* on all these issues, but some of us have checked them out in detail. There are three orthodox choices—Burwell, Michell, and Williams.

On the subject of this thread, one of the self-proclaimed moderates is more up-front and honest than the other two. David Thompson—an internal nominee—came right out and said that if TEC authorized the ordination of partnered gay persons, he would be open to ordaining and placing such persons in the churches of the diocese.

I say he was “more” honest than the other two so-called moderates, but Thompson could have been yet more honest. He must know that TEC *has* already given such approval. General Convention 2009 passed Resolution D025 which states: “General Convention affirm[s] that God has called and may call [partnered gay persons] to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.”
See:
http://www.gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final

Thompson voted in favor of this and must know this means our next bishop will have freedom to do what General Convention says God has been doing!

Bull Street (#28),

My comment made no mention of a “conservative position”.  Please note my use of the word “unconditionally” on the first three issues. 

You are right, the best of my knowledge may not be very good. Please refresh my memory by giving me an example of any of the three “orthodox” candidates you cite having made any such “unconditional” affirmation.

Ol’ Bob: Are you in this diocese? Those of us in this diocese praying to have a Bishop who is orthodox on the issues you cite will be thrilled with any of the three nominees I named. Their positions on these issues, known to a number of us, meet the standards of evangelical orthodoxy. I don’t have time in this week before Thanksgiving to give you citations.

I hope you might pray for us that one of these Christian leaders will be elected.

Ol’ Bob,
Bull Street is right. You can rest assured with Burwell, Michell, and Williams. If you have doubts, and if you are a delegate, speak with them personally.

Bull Street (#31) and Undergroundpewster (32),

Thanks to both of you for responding to my comment.

No, I am not a member of DUSC; two generations of lineal descendants, about whom I care greatly, are.

I am not a member of TEC (USA).  I am a member of the Anglican Communion.  Without desiring to impinge further upon your time, I will simply repeat what I have said earlier on another thread on this subject:  I believe that every Anglican and, indeed, every Christian, has a stake in the outcome of this selection process.  DUSC is an integral entity in God’s one, holy catholic church, of which I believe I am an individual member. 

I am praying for an outcome consistent with God’s will.  May the Holy Spirit guide and direct you and all others involved in the selection process.

Ol’ Bob,

We share a common prayer. Thanks.

Ditto

And blessings on Ol’ Bob

To those now wondering because Ol’ Bob shared his observations,
Within the last 18 months, I have conversed personally with both Neal and John B. several times (with John Burwell in a lengthy interview), and I can assure you that on the matter of the mission and centrality of Jesus Christ, on the matter of the authority and reliability of the Bible as God’s Word, and on the matter of the reception of the clarity and understanding of the Faith received and shared—and of the need and calling to share it with all peoples everywhere—both Neal M+ and John B+ accept these tenets unconditionally.  Ol’ Bob’s second set of three follow from the first unconditional set of three.

Now, having said that, one of the problems in the mainline denominations today (and for the last 50 years) is that there are “revisionist” bishops who would answer “Aye”, without comment, for each of Ol’ Bob’s unconditionals.  Granted, there is such separation now between those that Kendall+ first delineated as “reasserters” and “revisionists”, that many revisionists will betray their conditional acceptance of the basics in the voluntary explanation of their answer.
But that in and of itself is the very reason Q & A is so important.  Ask the questions that illuminate a candidate’s Faith.
For instance, as illustration, rather than asking “Is it important that bishops develop relationships with their diocesan clergy?”, or even the more compelling, “HOW important is it….” or “WHY is it important that…”, ask the question that not anybody could answer.  Such as, “How do you model your relationship with Jesus Christ (using short-hand evangelical language) with other clergy; share an example of discipling an ordained person.”
Again, instead of asking, “Is evangelism important?”, ask “When was the last time you directly assisted a person come to Faith in Jesus Christ; please share briefly how that process unfolded.”

The implications in both questions are manifold, but positive response to the core subjects will help reveal the basic beliefs.

Oh, and while I’m at it, these two things are two primary issues I believe are needed for Upper South Carolina (as Sarah asked for on a different post).  I am assured that both Michel and Burwell would take on those ministry needs.  Regarding clergy modeling and discipling, for Neal, call up the congregations where he has stepped in during clergy vacancies, and in those congregations where he has helped facilitate congregational development.  For Burwell, get in touch with current and past clergy assistants, such as John Zahl and Rick Luoni.  I took three days to interview Fr. Burwell primarily due to the 20 year growth of the parish from 80 to 1000.  What I found as well was an extraordinary ability to nurture and disciple clergy (I had the opportunity to speak briefly to a good portion of their parish while there and noted the gift and challenged them to allot more time for their Rector to do exactly that, not only for the sake of the parish and the diocese, but for the whole Church.)

Thanks, Rob+; well said.

Hmmm.  We Anglicans do tend to idolize moderation, don’t we?  I mean, moderation is a very fine thing, when displayed with moderation, of course!  After all, the Golden Mean, or “Moderation in all things” is a principle that goes back to Aristotle and the pagan Greeks.  It’s NOT a biblical ideal.

For years I’ve been fond of saying that one of our root problems in Anglicanism is that we so often show “an immoderate love of moderation.”

David Handy+

Rob Eaton+ (#36),

Thank you for the additional assurance and expanding on my simplistic observations in my comment #27.  In the cases you cite, I am delighted to have been wrong.

Or to put it another way, David, “Moderation in all things—especially in moderation.”