One Parishioner Writes His Rector About the Upper South Carolina Bishop Election

May he find God’s Peace in the Roman Catholic Church.

God Bless you as you continue to hold fast in your faith. For those that have led the Episcopal Church astray: Repent or perish.

Wonderful letter.  You rock Josh!!

How about sending a copy to the bishop elect?

The RC Church is not without its problems, but, among other things, what I like about it is that the clergy and laity are not allowed to monkey with the Doctrine or the canons at will and without penalty from the hierarchy.

What are Waldo’s views on sexuality that offended this young man?

Strongly agree with No. 5.

NoVA Scout—feel free to read Waldo’s material presented to the diocese, as well as the walkabout notes on this blog.

None of it will *you* disagree with—it’s only the sort of thing that traditional Episcopalians would find heretical.

As a traditional Epsicopalian, I find my reflex to pronounce people or ideas as heretical is somewhat less honed and hair-triggered than others around here.  Maybe it’s a function of age.

PS:  If Waldo or the others took a position on sexuality, I hope they’re for it (in the proper setting, of course).  Cant imagine why it would come up in this context, however.

NoVa Scout - your definition of traditional versus most conservatives here are probably about as different as your opinion of Waldo differs.

I will acknowledge that if Sarah and I are both “traditional Episcopalians”, it is a concept that has a wide range of content.  I was reacting to her use of the term.  But I think I can check virtually all the boxes she would check (e.g., aghast at some of the fuzzy theology of certain members and leaders, chronic unhappiness with the 1979 BCP, thinking that VGR and KJS should not be in their current jobs, opposition to elevation of practicing adulterers of either sex or sexual persuasion to either the priesthood or epsicopacy), except, of course, the facility of denominating, with lightning reflexes, certain people as heretics.  This did not happen “traditionally” in the church I remember from my early days.  Again, it may be a matter of age.

RE: “Cant imagine why it would come up in this context, however.”

Really?  In The Episcopal Church?  You can’t imagine why all of the candidates were asked about their views concerning the current presenting issues confronting us? 

Whatever, NoVA. 

RE: “But I think I can check virtually all the boxes she would check . . .

Well—you don’t think the sexuality debates are all that important.

RE: ” . . . except, of course, the facility of denominating, with lightning reflexes, certain people as heretics.”

Right—five months of perusing Waldo’s sermons, carefully reading his diocesan materials, listening to his replies in walkabouts, and on and on and on—really not enough time to figure out that he 1) regards Bishop Robinson as his “friend and mentor,” 2) happily practices communion of the unbaptized at his parish, in serene indifference to the national church canons, 3) regards Christ as “my way and my truth,” and 4) has “all the time in the world” to institute same-sex blessings after GC makes the appropriate gestures and noises over it.

Again . . . whatever NOVA.  You can pretend to be whatever you please. 

But pretending as if nobody has any written material on which to base decisions about the theology of both Schori and Waldo and literally scores of other Spongian bishops won’t be occurring here on this blog—maybe T19, but not any more here.

I’ll go ahead and recognize that pretense as trolling, since that’s what it is.

Okay NoVa—I’ll have a go.

In his official search process essays, Bishop-elect Waldo wrote that “we can not act unilaterally, and I would not therefore sanction such blessings in the Diocese *until* we have, through the General Convention, reached a decision.”

“Until” implies that he will be open after that. The trigger for him is the unilateral decision of TEC’s GC, apart from the clear requests of the church catholic gathered in council.

Heresy can be big heresy and not so big heresy. Big heresy will be when Waldo’s affirmation: “Jesus is my way, my truth, and my life” turns out to be foundational for his theology.

Not so big heresy for someone who professes in the Nicene Creed to believe in the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” is for the American branch to go its own way against the pleas of the worldwide body in council.

Walso also pledges to lead the diocese into a “robust” listening process about gay claims to blessings and ordination. Time will tell whether we also listen to the Anglican Communion.

Hey Gator, it doesn’t matter what you read to him from sermons, walkabout comments, or written materials.

NoVA basically prefers that people not make up their minds about people’s theology based on either their writings or their actions.

Because you see . . . it’s just not important enough to get upset over.  Truth to tell—the innovations under discussion are just fine with NOVA.  So the cluelessness is merely pretense anyway.

All of this, on a thread from a very saddened mid-20s young man who has just resigned from his parish.

But pay no attention to the young man leaving his parish—it must be for a completely random reason unconnected to the antics of the past six years from TEC and now unconnected entirely from Waldo’s election.  It’s impossible for us to know anything about Waldo at all—and if we do we should just wait until the first same-sex blessing occurs.  And if that happens, why then we should just throw up our hands and say “who cares”.  But please know this .  . . . NOVA is Entirely Traditional.

The young man writes:

“Fr. Waldo’s theological views – particularly with regard to sexuality and his practice of allowing the unbaptized to receive the Blessed Sacrament – place him well outside the mainstream of orthodox Christianity. Not only are these positions problematic on their face, they demonstrate an unwillingness to submit to the plain meaning of Holy Scripture and to Sacred Tradition.”

One comment:

“...views…that offended this young man?”

A response:

“... a very saddened mid-20s young man who has just resigned from his parish.”

Some on the reappraiser side honestly acknowledge that their innovations deviate from scripture, tradition, and the reason of the catholic church.  A small minority of those honestly acknowledge that their perspective necessarily characterizes the faith of their ancestors - and current reasserters - as unacceptable and flawed, and are willing deal with their necessary rejection of reasserters and the pain and loss it will cause them.

It seems to me that most reappraisers want to characterize their innovations as somehow congruous, if not mandated, by scripture, tradition, and reason - IMHO, this appears akin to the hunger for affirmation driving the presenting issue.

And if the innovations are (mis-characterized as) congruent with scripture, tradition, and reason - then the young man, reasserters, and the witnesses of tradition are merely unfortunate, trapped in outdated notions that give rise to their own suffering and sadness.  And none of that need ever give any such reappraiser reason for pause, or even light reflection.

NoVa Scout, I know several people, including friends of Rev. Waldo, that share your use of the term “traditional Episcopalian”.  For them, traditional means the view that one’s faith was a private matter, not to be discussed publicly, certainly not in the fashion of the evangelicals, and that scripture was not to be read as a reliable rulebook for human behavior, except in a general sense of loving our neighbor and being charitable. As it turns out, this was their view for years, but I just didn’t understand it until all of the controversy related to the sexuality debate. The point out that is why they loved the Episcopal Church, because it was set apart from the more “fundamentalist” churches, particularly in the South. It was the thinking man’s (and woman’s) church.  They are generally very nice people, and some among them are very generous.  I have always liked them.

They still call themselves the traditional Episcopalians, and would characterize me as a radical, someone who never really was an Episcopalian in the first place. 

My ties to the Episcopal Church (I am now ACNA) don’t go back as long as many here. But at some point, your views clearly became held by a significant number in the church. Fr. Waldo’s father is an Episcopal Priest, as is his brother, and his views are obviously not out of the norm in the church, as much as some of us would disagree with him. 
So in that sense I guess both of you may be “traditional.”  Its all a matter of which language you are speaking.

Courage at its best!  He will find peace, truth, and right guidance for the years ahaed.

NoVa Scout,

Merely saying you are a “traditional Episcopalian” doesn’t make you one any more than me saying I’m a “Tony-winning actress” makes me one.  Yes, I participate in thespian activities from time to time on a local basis and am generally cast for my talent and years of experience in dancing/singing, and I have won several local awards.  But I cannot pretend I’m a “Tony-winning actress” with any honesty or integrity.

Brings to mind another pseudo-related analogy: parking a wheelbarrow in a garage regularly doesn’t make it a car any more than a person attending church regularly makes him/her a Christian.

Being a “traditional Episcopalian” could mean that you have warmed a pew for one hour per week for 30 years, sent in some money every week, attended a bunch of reception parties, maybe helped with Altar Guild, sang in the choir, or helped in a soup kitchen a couple of times a year, and never opened the bible.  Within that pretty typical description could be a whole host of theological and doctrinal beliefs.

WOW! Just like a revisionist dressed in Traditional clothing, NOVAScout has turned this thread quickly and early towards him instead of Josh, the young eloquent writer of this letter of whom his former parish and the DUSC has lost and it is a sad loss and a gleeful gain for the RCC. I wish him well and will pray for him and his family as they travail on their Christian pilgrimage on the RCC path. May God Bless him and may the rest of the “Tradional Conservative Anglo-Catholics” wake up from the fog of denial of what it truly means to be in TEc in this day and age. Souls are for saving not for risking.

Let us not get too worked up over trolls.

I feel for Josh. Been there, done that, and as senior warden.

My favorite line from his letter: “They demonstrate an unwillingness to submit to the plain meaning of Holy Scripture and to Sacred Tradition.” I think the key word is “submit.” They submit to no authority but themselves, and therein lies the problem with a root winding all the way back to the Original Sin.

It will be interesting to see if God blesses the ACNA enough for it to provide a meaningful, lasting refuge to Anglicans in North America. I would be interested to read a discussion somewhere by people far more learned than myself whether Hilarie Belloc’s critique of Protestantism in “The Great Heresies” is more or less correct. Certainly there are a lot of Anglicans like Josh wondering if the RC is the only viable home.

NoVA Scout is a symptom of the larger problem that got us to the point that Josh is leaving.  There has been so much “revision”/redefining that original meanings have been almost completely lost.  Some of us have seen this in our lifetimes, and some even further back.  So much has been lost that many don’t see that anything is left to fight for.  Thank God that God doesn’t see it that way - God never gives up on us.

There are two purposes to “church”.  One is to worship God for who He is in a manner pleasing to Him, the other is to fulfill the Great Commission found in Matthew 28:18-20:
</blockquote>Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”</blockquote>

Not pew-warmers, but actively teaching about Christ - and not Buddah, Mohammad or anyone else - to obey everything Jesus commanded. 

While there are many who see church as a social opportunity, we have the responsiblity to teach what Jesus commanded us - actively.  Are people in your parish attending a Bible study?  Do you know your way around the Bible (without tabs, please!)?  Can you witness Christ to a stranger?  These are things that should be comfortable.  Keeping Christ to yourself because religion is a “private” matter is un-Christlike and contrary to Jesus’ Great Commission.  It was and is Satan’s way of putting Christ’s light under a basket and then putting it out completely.

If you leave, write a letter like Josh’s.  It’s wonderfully written.  But if God is calling you to stay, do it the way Christ would have you do - actively.  Let us be bold to retake lost ground and wash the mud off that has been purposefully slung on the original meanings.  And make a more concerted effort in teaching them to our youth and the person sitting next to us in the pew.

I do hope that Josh finds the fullness of joy in his new family.  The RC church seems to have its own set of trust issues, but I’m glad he’s made a decision.

What will Bishop Waldo’s hostility look like?  It’s intriguing to me.  Perhaps this young man is speculating a battle that Waldo isn’t even fighting.  Although maybe that’s the problem….

Revisionists have been fighting for years, John Wilkins. They still are.

I am sorry for the decisions Josh is making, it is indicative of a widespread problem as conservative candidates for bishop are eased out.
However I am not sure that one’s reasons for leaving one church are reasons for joining another.  It seems to me that the only reasons for joining the RC Church have nothing to do with TEC but are because, having studied their beliefs and practices, one can unequivocally accept them as the one true church in accordance with that church’s belief and each and every point of their doctrine, including their view of one’s prior church.  I think that unless one takes that line that the likelyhood of disappointment and unhappiness in one’s new church home are considerable.

And more generally this just demonstrates how essential it is to have a proper Anglican church available in the United States where people as unhappy as Josh can find a home, that is unless they genuinely feel called into another denomination.

I have no idea what possessed USC in choosing the bishop they did.  It is all like watching lemmings launching themselves over the cliff.

This letter is full of sadness; I have had parishioners who have expressed the same sentiments following every General Convention since 2003 and at other anxiety-producing times, many of whom have, as this young man has, left TEC to reconcile with Rome or the East.  I preached two sermons that are germane to this topic following our most recent GC, which anyone interested is welcome to read and comment on here and here.  This man’s departure is yet one more impoverishment of TEC, and yet one more victory for those who are happy to see conservatives depart.  May God richly bless Josh.

Nathan Humphrey+

P.S.  Anyone here see my piece entitled “Dual Citizenship?” in the November 15th issue of The Living Church magazine?  I’d be interested to get people’s responses, both pro and con, to the perspective I tried to articulate there.

Lightning reflexes. I gottem. I understand with the speed of lightning when someoune rejects the plainly spoken word of God.

Comes from the “Plainly Spoken” thing.

Twit.

[25] Although I agree with most of what you say, I differ a bit on one point: “unequivocally accept them as the one true church in accordance with that church’s belief and each and every point of their doctrine…”

Unfortunately, because of the proliferation of regrettable innovations in the AC, catholic minded Anglicans (not just in TEC) and even some traditional reasserters may face the prospect of being unable to say this for any of the catholic branches - at least to the extent of Anglican doctrine in practice (e.g., reception.) 

In the face of crisis, some may stay and fight - some may take to the mission efforts – sadly, some may be completely de-churched and disaffected.  Another option might be participation in a different catholic branch.  I would suggest that this option be pursued only after an assessment of its beliefs, a frank acknowledgement of doctrinal differences, and the recognition of a willingness to submit to that catholic branch on those differences as an act of faith.  IMHO, however, this option becomes feasible not at the point of unequivocal acceptance of every point of doctrine, but when the doctrinal differences posed by the different branch are at a level of acceptable dissonance, and definitively pose less of a crisis than the differences within Anglicanism. 

In other words, for example, I could easily see an Anglo-catholic, who may harbor doubts about the papacy, accepting the offer of the personal ordinariate (in submission) over the prospect of being de-churched or remaining in TEC under a female bishop.

26-I very much appreciate your observations, however, I have a slightly different take on one comment.  I do not see this gentleman’s resignation as a true “victory for those who are happy to see conservatives depart.” A real victory for that crowd would have been for this parishioner to have continued to indirectly fund the revisionist political agenda through contributions to his parish, without having access to the levers of power to change such agenda. Or for him to have become slowly acclimated to a watered down Gospel. Or to have ultimately become angry and embittered and to have left the faith. 

Selfishly, I wish he had joined the ACNA. I am sure there are some insiders that wish he had stayed in TEC and continued resistance. But I am always overwhelmed when I see such a bold proclamation of Christian faith and obedience.  Those who nurtured this gentleman in Columbia should feel good, even if they are hurt because of his departure.

subscribe for now please…
Intercessor

I was just going to subscribe, but let me throw in my two carrot’s worth on “traditionalist.”

I don’t think that the term “traditionalist” is useful as an identifier; it is too pliable. There are too many competing traditions.

On the one hand it could refer to the traditions handed down from the apostles through the early church and leading to the great councils of the church undivided.

On the other hand it could refer to the well established Episcopal church tradition of never ever preaching theology from the pulpit. That was my experience from 1950 through 2000, in a dozen or two Episcopal churches from (mostly) California to Arizona to Missouri. No one in those 50 years was interested in my theology or shared theirs.

Now I know different, of course—as if scales had fallen from my eyes. But still, when I hear the term “Traditional Episcopalian” the first thing I think of is that latter tradition—which is precisely the tradition that allowed and till allows The Episcopal Church to be destroyed.

I am tempted to use “Traditional Episcopalian” as an epithet to label everything that is wrong in TEC, but I won’t out of respect for those who use the term differently.

But I might use it to describe our beloved troll, who exemplifies how we got into this mess.

(Maybe that was three carrots.)

Still not quite catching the drift.  How are my views “revisionist”?  How am I not equally a “traditional” Episcopalian along with Sarah?  I see a lot of taxonomy, a lot of ipse dixiting, but not a particularly compelling argument that I have gone astray (beyond the usual and perpetual failings of all Christians, to which I readily admit).

Hello, John,
You read it incorrectly.  The young man, making use of the term “hostile”, did not refer to some hostility that would emanate from Fr. Waldo as a bishop, but that “under his leadership, this diocese will become increasingly hostile toward traditional Anglicanism.”
In fact, as I have read his answers and listened to him speak, I get the distinct impression that Waldo would be intent on NOT being a bishop who shows hostility.
The problem is when the handler does not engage the choke-chain on the dogs after the opponent is subdued.

NoVa Scout (6 and 9),
I take it you have a semantic difficulty with Josh’s use of the term sexuality?

Given the context of the issues of non-celibate homosexual acts in the Church, and Waldo’s comments and beliefs in that regard, it would seem obvious about which Josh was referring.
So it would be helpful to me in understanding your comments earlier in the thread if you would define what YOU mean by making use of the term “sexuality.”

Dear Josh,
Before you burn any bridges behind you, I pray you will reconsider.
Reconsider by asking the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to make it abundantly clear, through the power of the Holy Spirit, what gifts of the spirit and areas of ministry you were given to make use of in the Body, and if indeed you are still called to make use of those in the “safe haven” congregation from which you have just left.

If Josh’s Rector, I would strive to help him work through this assignment, if he were willing to consider it, of course.  One may not know all the issues here with Josh and the parish, but my first response would otherwise be “Oh, _____.”  Still, once the decision was final on his part to depart, I am bound, even in my grief, to bless his travels, and pray for another spiritually strong congregation for him to call home.

RE: “Still not quite catching the drift.”

Heh—sure you are.  You just don’t like the drift.

NoVA Scout, let me be clear.  If you choose to comment here at SF—and I don’t particularly care one way or the other—pretending as if you don’t understand what’s going on will be considered trolling on any threads at all.

This is a warning for the future.

Florida Anglican (#18),
Based on the facts that I a} presume you to be female, based on the term ‘actress’; b} presume that you have two intact legs, which bend in the middle, based on your reference to years of dancing experience; c} presume that you keep yourself in good physical condition and toned, given the reference already specified in “b” (and with the stipulation that I am not prepared to personally verify the presumption made in “c”, being happily married and planning to remain so); I therefore, by whatever power Sarah Hay is willing to vest in me, do declare that your dancer’s legs, and particularly the muscles and ligaments surrounding the joints and patellas dividing upper from lower limbs, are indeed in excellent condition, and hereby grant you this AWARD FOR TONED KNEES.
And now you can legitimately claim to be a TONED KNEES AWARD WINNING ACTRESS!
[It makes as much sense as ‘tradional Episcopalian’, doesn’t it?]

Note bene: In my first line, fourth word, please note that I used the word “facts” in the way the traditional Episcopalian on the top floor at 815 uses the term—a “fact” is whatever I presume it to be.  Don’t argue, or I’ll sue you.

Oh, Conego!  Thank you, thank you!  You really like me!  You really, really like me!  I’d like to thank the academy…..

(Yes, indeed makes just as much sense as “traditional Episcopalian.  Pshaw!)

I totally understand.  You are doing the right thing.  If I lived there I wouldn’t be able to stay either but thankfully am in the Ft. Worth Diocese.  God bless Bishop Jack Iker!

Hey NoVA - I’m not a moderator, so you can take or leave what I’m about to say.  First off, accusing the SF community of playing fast ‘n loose with charges of heresy is just ridiculous.  I’m from the OPC originally, so (ahem) I know what I’m talking about in that regard. 

The other thing is, if you value your posting priviledges here, now would be a good time to call it quits with your “thesis” on this thread.  I’ve got a sixth sense for this sort of thing, and right now it’s sounding off.

As a (once very active) member of Andrew’s current parish, I can tell you that whatever else he is or is not, he is certainly thoughtful and reflective.  I believe (even if our personal politics do not always match) that he truly relies on faith, scripture and reason in matters both theological and political.  Despite being quite a social person, temperamentally he is introspective.  He is also both a “feeler,” at least in a macro sense, and yet heavily analytical.  He doesn’t do backbends to try to make the faith fit his preferences or what is convenient, and he has been open and honest with the congregation, both formally and informally, about his own struggles and discernment.  I believe he is of the view that on certain things - perhaps most things - reasonable minds can disagree; he is acknowledging of the imperfection of man and of our individual and collective fallibility.  He likes to prod and provoke (thoughts), but generally in good measure.  He has gone head-to-head with the vestry and while persuasive, also gracious when the lay opinion went the other way.

In short, he may not be what some of you envisioned, but he has many fine qualities and the ability to lead, together with a philosophy of helping to enable others to themselves lead.  In my view, you can dig in your heels, contemplate leaving our beautiful tradition and church and further cripple the unique opportunity we have, or you can recognize that there is good to be found everywhere, get engaged in the diocese and aim to balance what you think you’re getting.  Either way, he makes a mean barbecue and is a delightful dinner companion should you get seated next to him a a dinner party. 

PS - to the extent he has input, if you want tradition, you will love his music.  He, his wife and his children are all passionate and devoted to beautiful, particularly early, music.  The happy antithesis of charismatic mega-churches, for sure.

PS2 - I saw a few comments in these threads about the numbers at Trinity.  I can assure you that while numbers are moderate, the congregation, particularly the youth, has taken on a beautiful vibrancy in recent years.  Our children’s choir follows the traditional Anglican formation program and just turned a wonderful rendering of a very difficult Britten piece for Lessons & Carols.  Sunday School and Godly Play are full of bubbling energy.  The congregation is welcoming and we have a broad base of active members, a harbinger of success.

I don’t claim to follow all the detals of Josh’s issues with his church. But if, between himself and the Lord, his conscience requires him to leave, then that is what he should do.

I found his letter to be clear and restrained, done in a gentle and loving spirit. Even if his reasons are wrong, I expect the Lord will honour his faithfulness to his conscience.

Sarah makes a good point above - if you are going to leave a diocese or church, it is a good idea, nay, a Godly idea, to inform as many people as possible as to your reasons. In a gentle and loving spirit of course.

Lakeland at #22 also makes a good point - if the Lord calls you to stay rather than leave, then do it actively!

That way, whether you leave or stay, the church (in the broader sense used by the Apostles) will be edified and strengthened by your witness.