Baby Blue on Lauren Stanley and Her Removal As Missioner to Sudan—Along With A Quick Link Survey

The Center Aisle has never been about anything but themselves-their dignities, titles, and properties. God will bless the Sudan in their faithful poverty, and he has already rewarded the Church in Virginia (Where I was ordered Priest in 1971) with an effective dismissal from mission and blessing.
Nelson Koscheski

It seems like those on the left of the center aisle focus all their efforts on pushing those on the right out.  While those on the right are easy targets because they are trying to focus in front of them, on the alter.

[confusing references to family relationships deleted—no offense intended]

It’s worth reading the comments associated with this story over at BAbyBlue’s blog.  Thanks, Sarah, for doing the research and posting links that show Stanley’s long association with the Integrity movement.

One thing for sure:  Lauren Stanley is no Marc Nikkel.  The latter, of course, was the great pioneer missionary who went from the Diocese of SW Virginia to southern Sudan and served with great distinction and perseverance there.  Professor Grant Lemarquand of TSM in Ambridge has edited a book of Nikkel’s letters and reflections on his long and immensely fruitful ministry among the Dinka people, who’ve turned to Christ in huge numbers in the last two decades.  The inspiring book came out a couple years ago was ublished posthumously after Nikkel tragically died of cancer at a prematurely young age.  Nikkel was very close friends with the heroic Bishop Nathaniel Garang (Bishop of Bor, who alone stayed in southern Sudan at a time when all other Sudanese bishops fled to safety).

It’s significant that the brave new primate of the ECoS (Episcopal Church of Sudan), ++Daniel Deng Bul Yak, whose courageous and costly witness for the truth at last summer’s Lambeth Conference none of us is likely to forget, was Bishop of Renk before he was elected archbishop.  And Laruen Stanley was teaching at Renk’s theological college.  But clearly there was no love lost between the noble archbishop and the ignoble Lauren Stanley.

Occasionally, Russ Randal, mentioned in bb’s story, will post a comment here.  I hope that perhaps he may add something to this thread, if he sees it.  For years, he’s helped raise money for various projects in southern Sudan, but especially for medical care and to spped the completion of the translation of the Bible into the Dinka language.

David Handy+

Regarding discussion of the Indaba Listening Process at ACC-14:

Anis also warned the council about “another dimension” to the Listening Process. He said “several people,” including at least one bishop, have told him that they do not disapprove of people with a homosexual orientation, but that they disapprove of homosexual practice because they know it is against Scripture. However, Anis said, they can’t say so because their dioceses are “dependent on the donations that come from the west.”

A little addendum to my #4 and clarification,

Russ Randel (sorry for the misspelling) is a prominent lay member of big colonial Christ Church, Alexandria, and has long been very active in the Diocese of VA in many ways (GenCon delegate etc.) as well as in ardently promoting ministry among the long-suffering people of southern Sudan, especially the large, cattle-herding Jieng tribe (or Dinka people).

And I was calling attention in #4 particularly to the revealing comments of orthodox church planter Roger Schillenberg+ below BabyBlue’s article.  So far he and his innovative evangelical parish near Reagan National Airport have stayed within TEC and the Diocese of VA, but I suspect that their days are numbered. 

My point is that this mess about gay advocate Lauren Stanley+ is one more sign that there has clearly been a sea change within that historically conservative-moderate diocese since so many of the evangelical parishes that are bastions of orthodoxy have departed.  You can write “Ichabod” over the Diocese of VA now; the Glory has departed.  Alas, that formerly great diocese may still stand in the “center aisle” of TEC as a whole, but it’s no longer anywhere near the center aisle of Christianity, but rather it’s sadly lurched far to the left and is spiralling steadily downward.

David Handy+

I completely respect Sudan’s right to give Stanley the boot, and that action seems fitting in light of their theological disagreements with TEC.  But if Stanley was so totally inappropriate and unable to serve as a missioner in Sudan, why didn’t they give her the boot sooner? 

Also, do you have any criticism of her work there?  Do we know anything about whether she was an activist over there?  It seems to me these are questions to be asked before condemning the decision to send her.

RE: “But if Stanley was so totally inappropriate and unable to serve as a missioner in Sudan, why didn’t they give her the boot sooner?”

DavidH, I can speculate and that’s worth just what people allow it.

First, the former Primate of the Sudan was the one in place when Lauren Stanley was appointed—I doubt very much that he had someone to google up Lauren Stanley’s foundational worldview and to recognize that Bishop Lee had bestowed upon the Province of Sudan a person who was a radical progressive. 

I also suspect that the new Primate of Sudan . . . well . . . I suspect that Archbishop Deng learned a lot about TEC at Lambeth.  In fact . . . a lot of bishops learned about TEC there. 

Finally, I’m guessing that yeh . . . somebody had the good sense to send Stanley’s comments at Diocesan Convention right on over to Sudan.

RE: “Do we know anything about whether she was an activist over there?”

Oh, I’m sure she wasn’t—any more than I would be an “activist” if I were sent over to assist the bishop of the Diocese of Newark in Christian Education.

But you know . . . my faith and foundational worldview would certainly affect my teaching and my actions.  It’s impossible for it *not* to.

First, the former Primate of the Sudan was the one in place when Lauren Stanley was appointed—I doubt very much that he had someone to google up Lauren Stanley’s foundational worldview and to recognize that Bishop Lee had bestowed upon the Province of Sudan a person who was a radical progressive.

This is correct. The former Primate lived in Kampala and certainly didn’t Google anyone. To be honest, no one was googling anyone in 2000! The ECS has been fragmented, and I doubt the Primate had any idea about Stanley’s appointment. In any case, there was such great need in the Sudan that they tended to take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude to assistance.

I had a similar experience in Uganda in 2002 with the 815, which sent a short-term youth “missionary” to our regional campus without asking me. Turns out he had a same-sex partner (not with him). In order to save face all around, we had a very specific agreement that he would do all the listening and none of the talking on this subject. He went on to seminary after this mission and is now a priest in TEC.

After l’affaire Gene in 2003, the Church of Uganda asked all TEC missionaries to realign with an orthodox and hence independent agency. This caused some hardship but has avoided the kind of scandal that has occurred in the Sudan.

Stephen Noll,

RE: “After l’affaire Gene in 2003, the Church of Uganda asked all TEC missionaries to realign with an orthodox and hence independent agency.”

Can you indicate a list of those independent agencies?  Seems to me that this would be an excellent policy for all the orthodox provinces in the Communion.  Has anyone given a sort of help-tutorial on this issue to other provinces?

So let’s recap. Bishop Lee originally appointed to a very traditional—but poverty-stricken—Province of the Anglican Communion as their “missioner” someone who can only be described as a radical progressive activist… How wonderful that Bishop Lee was so respectful of a Province’s traditional Christian faith—and of course, so respectful of that province’s need and poverty, as well. That is, I suppose, the way of “the Center Aisle” for us all, I suppose.

I want to say explicitly, what is implicit in this discussion, and in the incident of Va sending Lauren Stanley to Sudan as a missionary or teacher.  TEC leadership, institutionally, and in its perennial actions, effectively displays—despite the verbal emphasis on humanitarianism which its frequent discussion of MDGs intends — contempt for humankind and its sufferings, in an obsession with its sexuality goals. 

Sudan is an area which—besides being very poor, quite orthodox in faith and morals, and a very “traditional” and “African” society in which homosexuality is completely unacceptable—has been severely war torn, and the Christians and black Africans there have been subject to terrible persecution, and slaughter, by a government whose constituancy is among Northern Sudanese Muslims.  It’s an area which is very vulnerable, and in many ways.  These facts are well known to anyone who has the slightest concern with the area.

To send into such a place a person who is identifiably associated with practices which would be utter anathema, not only to the people to whom she’s sent, but to the powerful persecutors of the Southern Sudanese as well, was to risk a scandal which might have become the pretext for further persecution and slaughter, as well as being a factor which keeps people from coming to Christ.  Again, this ought to have been obvious to anyone with the smallest degree of inter-cultural experience. 

Thus that Stanley chose to go, and that Va. chose to send her, under these circumstances, seems to show a callous indifference to human suffering and to the possible slaughter or persecution of many. The inability or unwillingness to listen to those who are really suffering, and really faithful in the midst of that suffering,  or understand their situation, is stunning.  It epitomizes the indifference to human suffering, as well as to the historic teaching of the Christian faith, which characterizes those who now run TEC.

Well said, Scruff.

The Lord spoke to people who have their own agenda and not His.  See Matthew 23:15

Trying to substitute their gospel for God’s is a harmful deception…it is evil.

When one does not have Jesus and His Gospel of Redemption and Sanctification, His mandate to make disciples of all nations as the foundation and goal of our lives and ministries, the result is not fruitful or longterm help, but in the end, a harmful deception.  There is only one Savior and One Gospel.  God the Father, has chosen to work our salvation through the power of the Cross.  It is the Holy Spirit who works God’s eternal truth, love, life, peace, goodness, freedom, and joy into our lives through sanctification as we abide in worship, trust and follow His will and ways.

The way to destroy a church is infiltrate its seminaries. I can assure you firsthand, as a former 815 appointed missionary,  that it has been—and continues to be—815’s “mission strategy” to send trojan horse “missionaries” into overseas dioceses to corrupt their future clergy and leadership. Often times these schools are in remote areas with the bishop/archbishop doesn’t have a day to day accounting of what is happening under their noses.

David H, in response to your question about concerns about Stanley’s actual work in Sudan, I can speak for myself that I’ve had concerns about what she was teaching at the seminary in Renk for 3 years.  It seemed she was really doubting what she was teaching and whether Jesus is the only way to be saved. 

Back in May 2006, Kendall Harmon published and article of hers that appeared (I think) in Episcopal Life.  If I understood her article correctly, she essentially seemed to believe that Jesus is well and good for her as a Christian (and especially as a priest), but she wasn’t sure what she should teach and proclaim to her Muslim friends and to her students.

As one who works myself in a Muslim country, I had some real concerns with what she wrote and I posted a comment at TitusOneNine, and also copied my comments as a blog entry at Lent & Beyond.

You can read what I wrote at the Lent & Beyond archives here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060613092010/http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/

(That is the full archive page for May 15, scroll down until you see the title: “A personal post… Karen’s reply to Lauren Stanley”

[Unfortunately, Kendall’s post which attracted 75 comments is not fully archived.  You can see the first paragraph here in the archive for May 11:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060811151401/titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?m=20060511
But the full post does not seem to be available.]

Lauren Stanley’s original article was titled “Wondering What to Do, What to Say” is available at a number of sites online.  (I did a Google Search).  I found it here:
http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2006/06/wondering_what_.html

Here is a pretty long excerpt of what she wrote.  See for yourself whether you think Sudan was justified in asking her to renounce her post as a missionary there.

The questions I have about what to teach, and how to teach it, all come to a head whenever one of the students asks a question about salvation.

Who is saved, one will want to know.

Just Christians?

What about Muslims?

This is not an idle theological question here. Sudan is a divided country, with a predominantly Arab Muslim North and a predominantly black, Christian and traditionalist South. The last civil war, which ended only 15 months ago, was racial and religious. The North tried to impose Islam on the South, along with the Arabic language. So this question is not asked lightly. Here, it is quite serious. Here, the answer could have dire consequences. So I tread carefully.

And I tell them: I don’t know.

I know - I’m a priest of the Church. I declared in my ordination vows that I believe that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation. I am teaching Christian Theology, for God’s sake! And still, I tell the students: I don’t know.

I only know what I believe.

And I believe that Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. I believe that for ME, I need Jesus.

But I also tell them this: No one truly knows how God handles salvation. Salvation is God’s business, not mine.

Yes, this is a rather universalist approach to salvation - I know this very well.

And that is the conundrum for me: Do I tell the students what I truly believe, or do I teach some sort of “party line,” without interpretation, without reference to other religions, without cautions about inclusivity and logic and graciousness?

The question hangs heavy for me because I fear that if I opt for the former, I will be imposing my beliefs on the students. But ... if I say the latter - that salvation is only for Christians, and that all others are lost, which is a literal interpretation of the New Testament - I fear I will help ignite new tensions, new fires in this land where Christianity and Islam butt up against each other daily, where religious tensions remain high, and where war has been the way of life for so long.

I am afraid that if I give the universalist answer - which is where I tend to stand, although not classically universalist - I am imposing Western liberal, progressive thought on conservative Africans.

I am afraid that if I quote strictly from the Bible without any attempt at interpretation, I will, in a small way, contribute to more hatred, more despising of the “other,” more intolerance.

I have no answer to my own questions. I still don’t know what is essential for me to teach and them to learn. And on the burning question of salvation, I have taken the middle road: This is what some people, including myself, believe:

We can’t tell God what to do.

We only know what God has told us.

And I know that, as a Christian (never mind as a priest), I need Jesus, and I need to follow Jesus.

As for my students?

I tell them to pray, read, think and talk about it, then pray some more, then make up their own minds.

I don’t think this is the essential information they were seeking.

But it’s the best that I, their teacher, have to offer.

BTW, For those who want to read more of what Lauren Stanley has written in recent years, check out this page:
http://www.stalbansva.org/sudan.htm

Just a couple of things
1.  Is the decision as to who is and is not a missioner a provincial call or a diocesan one in Africa?  2. From Nolls+‘s comments, it seems that “the listening process” must be one way or no way well “orthodox to gay” illustrated in his comments about the young gay man working in his area.  Orombi’s comment seems to be appropriate for Uganda, if the decision is at the primatial level, but inappropriate, if at the diocesan level, and very inappropriate for all of Africa if the churches are autonomous.  At minimum, it would seem a national church call.  Was his comment a CAPA thing?

Sarah,

In reply to #10, I think the best place to start looking for independent mission societies is Anglican Global Mission Partners (http://www.agmp-na.org/). AGMP includes folks in TEC and in ACNA. Some are traditional mission sending agencies; others are mission support or development aid agencies or simply churches, dioceses or seminaries with a Great Commission emphasis. Of course, if one goes outside the North American Anglican sphere, the possibilities multiply greatly.

Hope this helps.

Karen B., your T19 archive link doesn’t lead me to your comments.

Hmmm, somehow I got a link to the T19 archive (which doesn’t work) in place of the link to the Lent & Beyond archive.

For anyone who wants to see what I wrote in response to Lauren Stanley 3 years ago: Trying again:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060811150105/lent.classicalanglican.net/?m=20060515

Scroll down to “A personal post… Karen’s reply to Lauren Stanley”

RE: “From Nolls+’s comments, it seems that “the listening process” must be one way or no way well “orthodox to gay” illustrated in his comments about the young gay man working in his area.” 

Not certain how not allowing a person engaging in scandalous sin to act as a teacher in a diocese is not being involved in the “listening process.”  One is perfectly capable of “listening” to non-celibate gays and celibate gays without allowing non-celibate gays also to teach the flock.

RE: “Orombi’s comment seems to be appropriate for Uganda, if the decision is at the primatial level, but inappropriate, if at the diocesan level, and very inappropriate for all of Africa if the churches are autonomous.”

I didn’t get any sense that Orombi’s decision was aimed at all of Africa—although I certainly wish that he would work with the other CAPA bishops to help them produce the same decisions in those provinces as well.

And naturally, if one has the authority and power to prevent false teachers from infiltrating the dioceses one hopes that that person will take it.

Thankfully our Primate, for instance, does not have that authority or power—[yet, although she is certainly avidly pursuing it]—because her definitions of “false teachers” are the opposite to those of the Christian faith.

That’s why, ultimately of course, the two gospels and faiths need to be in separate organizations.

There is a parallel to this story and the one involving Obama’s on-going attempts to send an ambassador to the Vatican whose views are way outside the pale of the RCC.

These underscore Obama’s failure to understand that there truly are people to whom rights to women’s abortion, etc are truly rejected.  either that or there is an element of attempted coercion on the rights of a foreign power.

Perhaps we could set aside our rancor for a few moments to thank our Lord for blessing the Communion with a bishop like the Most Rev. Dr. Daniel Deng Bul Yak.  The good bishop has an ability to say more in a sentence than most bishops can say in a sermon.  He is clear, direct, and quite resistant to the temptations offered by TEC.  If ever the Church needed a man like this, now is that time.

Now, to return to some of the ironies of this situation, one wonders if the Rev. Stanley was involved in all the attempts at Lambeth to sway the Sudanese bishops.  Which attempts, as I recall, were blown out of the water by another single sentence from the Most Rev. Dr. Daniel Deng Bul Yak.

“The question hangs heavy for me because I fear that if I opt for the former, I will be imposing my beliefs on the students. But ... if I say the latter - that salvation is only for Christians, and that all others are lost, which is a literal interpretation of the New Testament -”

Do they actually teach this false dichotomy in seminaries? There is space between- “salvation is only for Christians” and “everyone on the planet is already saved”. I would argue that, Christian or Muslim, Baptized or not, those who are machine gunning children in Sudan are NOT saved.  By the same token, Christ is not bound by any earthly rule written by theologians- if He chooses to reveal Himself to someone in the moment of their death and lead them to salvation, who are we to tell Him He cannot?  But none is save but by Him. She assumes that things work her way, and the only alternative is some fundamentalist strawman created in Episcopal seminaries to scare people into inclusiveness and Universalism. Has this woman never read through a Catholic catechism?  Or for that matter, the Offices of Instruction, circa 1928-

O Almighty God, who hast built thy Church upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner-stone; Grant to us to be joined together in unity of spirit, by their doctrine, that we may be made an holy temple acceptable unto thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

45 years ago, apparently, 12 year old kids in confirmation class knew things now lost to Episcopal seminary professors.  When you have a question about what to teach- teach the doctrine of the Apostles.

#23, but which Apostles: Thomas or Mary Magdalene? Or that of St Gautmas?

The progressives’ redefinition of Christianity goes much deeper than mere doctrine.

mousetalker-
I know.
Only so much fits into one blog entry.

What amazes me is that Lauren Stanley and her promosters seem to have been oblivious to the very real danger she herself was in.  More than ten years ago when I was in South Korea, the Sudanese ambassador to South Korea and his wife, a wonderful, African god-fearing couple, were recalled to Sudan when the new Islamic government gained power in that country.  We and they all knew the potential danger to them upon their return.  Our congreagation at the Seoul Anglican Cathedral We prayed our knees off for their safety.
I am astounded that no one seems to have considered that Rev. Stanley herself might be a target for martyrdom.  If only they would sacrifice themselves so willingly for the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

  I truly am confused and simply cannot understand why ANYone would use issues of sexuality as THE litmus test for faithfulness. - Lauren Stanley “God’s love, not issues of sexuality, all that matters”

Funny how it’s always the progressives, not the traditionalists, who are always treating “issues of sexuality as THE litmus test for faithfulness.” In my experience traditionalist tend to hold the positions they hold not because of their beliefs about sexuality but because they hold obedience to God’s word as THE litmus test for faith. As to why that is…perhaps “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15)”?

#22 tjmcmahon observes:

Now, to return to some of the ironies of this situation, one wonders if the Rev. Stanley was involved in all the attempts at Lambeth to sway the Sudanese bishops.  Which attempts, as I recall, were blown out of the water by another single sentence from the Most Rev. Dr. Daniel Deng Bul Yak.

Good memory, tj, and it seems to me that connection might not be far fetched at all. Also, your post #23 is excellent. Ah yes, “inclusivity” and “tolerence” - the dynamic duo - wed the two and we have a natural offspring, Universalism. Embracing this puts your eternal soul in jeopardy. Agreed, Jesus ONLY saves! Thanks be to GOD!

[confusing references to family relationships deleted—no offense intended]

Hey Piedmont and Ralph—I may be snoozing or ignorant of some inside thing but I’m just not aware of the significance of brothers, husbands or other family relationships to any of this.  I’d rather focus on Lauren Stanley’s publicly expressed ideas and actions, please.

Thanks.

No offense taken, for it’s a great honor to have a comment deleted by Sarah, whom I genuinely worship. (Sarah, if you aren’t sure what question I might have been asking, I’ll provide details in a PM, but only if you ask me to.) However, everything that I’ve read in the OP (including the links), as well as in several of the responses, simply makes me wonder just exactly what might be behind those “publicly expressed ideas and actions.” Perhaps it’s indeed irrelevant. So I stand corrected and will certainly honor your request for focus.

Signing off, Rafe

I know the lady in question here.  I find her massively intelligent and dedicated to mission work, but, in my view, her interpersonal skills and in-your-face style have always required a little work, which Peter Lee was never willing to address except to attempt moving her around in ministry. 

She and the Right Revd Daniel Deng Bul Yak were at VTS together in the 90’s.  The bishop may have been acquainted with her then. 

People were concerned about her in the ordination process but I think the concerns fell on the deaf ears in the diocesan hierarchy.  bb may be able to speak to the situation in Burke, VA when Ms. Stanley and the Revd Dr. Larry Packard were working together there.  She didn’t last long; Fr. Packard is still the rector at that church. 

I like the lady personally and always enjoyed her quick wit and intelligence, but I don’t believe it a good idea to speak for the people of the Sudan in a public forum.  Sudan can speak for itself. 

Were Lee’s motives pure in sending someone with her theology to be missioner in the Sudan?  Now there’s a good question…

There is no question in my mind that sending Ms. Stanley was a deliberate act intended to subvert the teachings in the Sudan, though whether Bishop Lee was the agent of that deliberation or some power more sinister I could not say. What I am familiar with is the horror of the revisionists in the ‘70’s at the retaking of the Southern Baptist Convention by “troglodytes,” and their determination to prevent that ever happening in TEC. Having succeeded (to their mind) beyond their wildest dreams (ah, “the blessing of abortion” being but one sterling instance) it behooves them to make the world safe for their anti-religion by sending out their own kinds of missionaries. The truly amazing thing is, these folks are convinced of their righteousness and the virtue of their cause. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are completely sincere in their efforts. Or as the late Bishop of York is reputed to have said when someone was protesting the sincerity of someone who held forth a view that was otherwise quite appalling: “My dear, Hitler was sincere!”

This type of “missionary” can only be sent by a smug, wealthy, western, church, that feels that they need to “educate” the poor, backwards Africans.  It is the pinnacle of pride, and a false sense of self-importance.  It is also dangerous, on many levels.

There is no humility in an act such as this.

It also smacks of neo-colonialism….a potentially fatal disease.

I am guessing this situation is a lot more complicated than we will ever know.  I think what Jersey Girl said is helpful, as well as Stanley’s history of being asked to leave a previous church.

Of course, in this super-charged Anglican-blogosphere the story takes on mythic proportions. 

From the left’s point of view Stanley is the selfless saint serving the poor people of the Sudan, kicked out of the country by the evil Archbishop because he doesn’t think gay people are human beings and Stanley does.  The Sudanese students are now left without their beloved teacher, and will remain ignorant for the rest of their lives.

From the right’s point of view, Stanley is a false teacher removed by the Archbishop to protect his flock from this Trojan horse of antichrist.

I am guessing both views are projections of what we want this story to be.  The left needs a victim of a Global South primate, and the right needs a strong hero of orthodoxy.  I am willing to bet the true story is a bit too human for either side to get too excited about.

DoW

“...Stanley’s history of being asked to leave a previous church”.

This part of the history is one I would be careful about.  It’s true that Ms. Stanley has a history of trouble in parishes.  But, I also know a priest who was asked to leave his parish, yet the priest is a great pastor with no previous history of problems in parishes, other than what you might call normal “get-along growing pains”.  Instead, the parish he was asked to leave is a small one unfortunately full of intellectually-underdeveloped, neurotic nut jobs. 

Bear in mind that the fact that a priest was asked to leave a parish should not be the only data point, even though DoW does speak to that in the rest of his post. 

Thanks to all for conversing—KTF,

JG

How many “cheeks” do you have to turn before you get it? This is the same guy who told the VA churchs how to separate, then SUED THEM after they followed the instructions to the letter. The need to be mindful and respectful of those not in agreement with their position is considered a sign of weakness among the left. The ONLY goal of the left is to indoctrinate us into their way of thinking, for their way is the ONLY right way…period…

On point #4, regarding Lauren’s education at VTS.  As you know, I have been very outspoken about VTS during the Marth Horne regime.  Lauren and I were friends at VTS, she being in the class of 97, me 96.  I can tell you that in our work together in ethics with David Scott and in Church, politics and the state with Allen Parrent, Lauren was no flaming liberal.  We did a presentation together on Jim Wallis’ “Politics of Jesus” that was not glowing—essentially, at that point I would have described her as a “Love your Neibuhr” in terms of social policy.  I was surprised several years ago when I read an article by her on “dialog” with muslims because Allah and the Triune God are actually the same person.  I just couldn’t see how that would fly in Sudan, and that kind of clap trap couldn’t fly at VTS while we were there. 

Since then, obviously, there’s been a shift leftwards.  Journalism is her thing—if memory serves me, prior to seminary she was a sports editor with Knight Ridder.  Granted, since seminary, I have stepped further to the right, and she to the left.  I cannot say anything about the time between—this is really just to say, she’s moved left since VTS, and the VTS that once was.

#39 Theron,

....when I read an article by her on “dialog” with muslims because Allah and the Triune God are actually the same person.

<a >Catechism</a> of the Catholic Church:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Jersey Girl, post # 37,

You wrote the following:
“the priest is a great pastor with no previous history of problems in parishes, other than what you might call normal “get-along growing pains”.  Instead, the parish he was asked to leave is a small one unfortunately full of intellectually-underdeveloped, neurotic nut jobs.”

Your sweeping accusation of members of the parish you speak of is objectionable because Christians should not speak of each other in this demeaning way.
If you would open your mind and discard your unreasonable prejudice against small parishes you might find that small parish members are more intelligent and well balanced than you portray them to be.
With regard to the subject of this thread, Lauren Stanley, I think it is obvious she was a liability to the ministry of the church in Sudan and that she will be much happier when she is transferred to a more reasonable location.

“If you would open your mind and discard your unreasonable prejudice against small parishes you might find that small parish members are more intelligent and well balanced than you portray them to be”.

Not the ones in this particular church, and I’m only speaking of ONE church, and I am not generalizing my comments to all small churches.  You did that in your own overreactive mind. 

Permission granted not to like it.

Jersey Girl,
You have made an unsubstantiated claim that the parish you are talking about is “full of intellectually-underdeveloped, neurotic nut jobs.”
It would be foolish for us to accept your description of people in this one small parish as a valid representation of them because we have no way of knowing if you have the intellectual or diagnostic ability to judge their intellectual or psychological condition. Since you characterize them as “nut jobs” I have to conclude that you are not trained in Psychiatry.

Actually I do have basic training in psychiatry and I will admit that sometimes my fellow medical brethren(and sisteren!) also disrespectfully fall into referring to certain untreatable types as “nut jobs”.  Doesn’t make it right, just true.  You would know that if YOU were trained in or had any experience working in psychiatry. Even psychiatrists can, at times, refer to each other as “crazy”!! 

The parish of which I speak will have a certified(also ordained) PhD psychologist as interim because everyone else in the synod’s leadership is utterly sick of dealing with its nonsense, and it now needs the biggest mental health gun out there.

And I don’t give a fat rat’s patoot whether you “accept” that or not.  I also feel no need to “substantiate” anything, as this is an opinion-based blog and not my own PhD dissertation. 

The last word’s all yours if you want it…

DUH

I will leave the last word to those who may be interested and qualified to defend the ethics of the psychiatric community.

You’re sending in shrink in to help sin-sick folks?

I hope he knows more of the Christ than the local Presbyterian Minister (without pulpit) PhD in Psychiatry does.

Sorry hit send too soon.

The man truly loves Christ, and truly wishes to do good.  But he is stuck in the ‘procedures and protocols’ of his profession, it has over taken him and distorted his vocabulary.  He couldn’t call sin by name if it slapped his mama.

Lydia Evans is blogging from Anaheim. She has this entry about this woman.

According to Episcopal Life, Lauren Stanley will be sent to Port au Prince, Haiti in August.

Thanks, Sarah, for reposting this, now that the Rev. Lauren Stanley has once more been thrust into the limelight.  But as I commented over at T19, at a time like this, when all hands are needed on deck to cope with such an overwhelming disaster as the killer quake that just hit Haiti a week ago, I welcome any news that we can get regarding the plight of our fellow brosthers and sisters in that desperately impoverished country.  Even if it comes from a hardcore, liberal, pro-gay activist like Lauren Stanley.

It’s not surprising that the ENS article that quotes Ms. Stanley encourages concerned readers to donate funds to Episcopal Relief & Development (ERD).  Of course they would.  But I would urge SF readers to tell their fellow parishioners and friends to donate to ARD instead, the conservative Anglican equivalent.

David Handy+

As per more than one comment above, LS is well known for being inter-personally brash (and proud of it), personally generous (and loyal to friends, etc), and—yes—off the charts lefty theologically… at least what USED to pass as lefty but now tries to look and act “centrist” once the right gets obliterated. 

The problem is not her, per se, but that she exemplifies the kind of Episcopal priest who either hedges many bets in the discernment process (no am NOT talking primarily about personal love life issues) OR is smart enough to “play along” AND/OR is actively helped out in doing so by enough of those in charge. 

In retrospect, while many of us simply (foolishly?) believed what we were being taught about theology and ecclesiology, there was a whole segment of other students, priests, and professors who simply were “winking and waiting” until the elder generation (including at VTS some old evangelical lions) retired… then they simply inherited a 51% vote in everything from seminary boards to vestries to diocesan conventions.  Done deal.

Throw in a constant mantra about “community” (focused on keeping the peace and minimizing even mind-boggling shifts in theology while keeping everyone going to chapel/lunch/class as always) ... and you get VTS’ new slogan “orthodox and open” ... designed to keep traditional money flowing in while being “open” to everything but traditional belief and practice.

Spot on above re. “trojan horses.”  Stories abound regarding old timers who never wanted to have a woman priest in their parish… then they were visited and cared for in the hospital by The Rev. (fill in the blank)... and they changed their hearts and minds.  More than a few very intentional efforts to copy the same m.o. with a different issue… let’s quietly hire or call a likable person who is to stay in the closet until an opportune time, then 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian belief can be overturned in one board/vestry meeting because we all have had an epiphany of liking and respecting Bill/Bob/Susy’s sermons or lectures or pastoral calls…

Scripture and tradition are fine to read and analyze and discuss… but at the end of the day how WE feel and what WE desire become the non-negotiable points of reference for every decision… while the same hymns and the same vestments are trotted out every week just to keep up the illusion of continuity.

Yes, watch the seminaries to see where the parishes will be 10-20 years later.  And VTS probably we even farther behind the curve than several others.

#19 Karen B.  Amen and AMEN.  That reply [link] to Lauren Stanley is outstanding and deserves its own thread.  I pray she read it and took it to heart.  I especially appreciate the lack of finger-shaking and head-wagging in it.  Your love shines through, and I am so grateful someone like you is doing the work which you do.

God bless you.

Here again has it right and spot-on.

I believe Lauren Stanley was softballed in the discernment process, and/or Peter Lee was actively playing a game of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, thus ordaining many practicing homosexuals whilst leaving himself the deniability of “I was unaware of their sexuality when I ordained them”. 

Even though this particular person has some gifts(kindness, intelligence; but not her theology), she can be very abrasive, so Lee was probably only too happy to have her far away in Sudan and Haiti. 

Mission assignments are one thing; brainwashing assignments are another.  Deceptive, wrong, and sad, but typical of TEC…

Bottom Feeder (#53),

I’m no friend of +Peter James Lee, but I will stick up for him here, at least partially.  His track record is more ambiguous and less Machiavellian than your post seems to suggest.  After 20 years of living in VA and watching him in action, I can testify that +Lee was very astute in how he played his cards on this, as so many matters.  At least from a human, political perspective.  He always knew which way the wind was blowing, like any good politician or leader, religious or otherwise.

Exhibit A.  Katherine Ragsdale was refused ordination in VA.  +Lee rightly discerned that she was a lesbian and, perhaps more important, that she was even more abrasive as an uncompromising “progressive” activist than Lauren Stanley.  So he rightly refused to let her proceed toward ordination.

Of course, that didn’t stop her from being ordained elsewhere.  And maybe she’d sail right through the ordination process in the new, no-longer-centrist Diocese of VA today.

I’m just saying that +Lee was and is a more complex figure than we often suppose.  He really did try to act in an even-handed fashion for years.  Perhaps some cynics might be prone to add, as long as it seemed expedient for him to do so.  Well, maybe, maybe not.

My hunch is that the guy really and truly was a centrist at heart, thologically and politically.  But the center of TEC shifted to the left and toward an open moral as well as theological relativism, along with the dominant elite culture.  And +Lee lacked the definite principles of dogma or morality to withstand that fatal shift.  Without a strong anchor in divinely revealed truth, he drifted with the institution and the culture at large.

And so did legions of other leaders in TEC.  It was all perfectly normal, natural, predictable human behavior: go with the flow.  Just like water running downhill and taking the course of least resistance.

So I’ll not one to make a villain out of +Lee.  He wasn’t a bad man, just a weak one.  Sort of like Pontius Pilate in the gospels, who followed the crowd.

And therein lies the basic reason for the tragic demise of TEC.

David Handy+

Oops, that should have been, as in so many matters…

And I’ll not be one to make a villain out of +Lee.

No need for the latter, actually.  He succeeded very well in destroying his carefully built reputation for moderation and prudence just fine all by himself.

He reminds me so much of King Saul.  Such a promising start.  Such a horrifying end.  It’s almost as if he went mad… “How have the mighty fallen!”

David Handy+

Fr. Handy, your posts are fair and evenhanded. 

“Rolling with the tide” or subterfuge on Lee’s part; hard to tell. 

I was at VTS when it underwent its massive left-shift.  Wasn’t Lee chair of the BOT when Martha Horne was hired?  It seemed as if they were all just sitting around waiting for Prichard, Stafford, Vandevelder, Price and the like to either die or get lost.  When that started to happen, the dime turned. 

Lee was certainly Board chair when the sexuality policy went by the wayside. Clergy there would talk about how he turned a blind eye to gay blessings in that diocese for years.  Here again’s post above is spot-on. 

Maybe the above doesn’t make one an entirely “bad man”, but it’s enough cloak-and-dagger and bait-and-switch for me not to like it, and not like the conductor. 

I agree with you though, in many ways the whole thing is sad…he also allowed the Mother of Lies to end his episcopate with lawsuits he probably didn’t want.  In a word, “mess”...

He reminds me so much of King Saul.  Such a promising start.  Such a horrifying end.  It’s almost as if he went mad… “How have the mighty fallen!”

Good summary in that department

#54, excellent analysis, thanks David Handy+.

Thanks for the kind words from several commenters above.  Much appreciated. 

FWIW, I’m just back from the funeral for my godly mother-in-law, a retired missionary, who passed away last week at age 81.  So I’m just now returning to the blogs.  That’s why I didn’t respond earlier.

And yes, Bottom Feeder (#56), of course, you’re right.  +Lee was indeed Chairman of the Board when Martha Horne was elected Dean of VTS, a fateful decision in many ways.  She sure was no Richard Reid.  Just as +Lee was no +William Meade.

But I continue to maintain that MORE than personal failures are evident in this whole mess.  When a formerly great seminary or diocese goes down the tubes, it’s tempting to find a scapegoat to pin all the blame on.  In this case, there’s plenty of blame to spread around.

And I accept my share of it.  Although I was never canonically resident in the Diocese of VA and never went to VTS, I’ve been geographically resident in VA for two decades, and failed to do much to stem the changing of the tide.  Perhaps none of us on the conservative side did enough.  But my point is simply that systemic factors were at work, that made it seem almost inevitable that VTS and the good old Diocese of VA would succomb and capitulate to the general drift in the culture toward theological and moral relativism.

But part of what I was getting at with my analogy to King Saul is that there is ultimately a mysterious dimension of divine sovereignty at work in tragic cases like this.  Just as the Lord mysteriously handed Saul over to madness and cut off his dynasty and turned the throne over to David, so it appears that God, in his inscrutable wisdom, has caused a certain madness to fall on the leaders of TEC, including the normally astute +Lee, and has taken the kingdom away from them, in order to entrust it to more worthy men, more after his own heart (like ++Duncan, +Minns, +Atwood, +Guernsey, etc.).

Who could ever adequately understand such things?  They are too deep for me.  Or any mortal, I suppose.

David Handy+

I was canonically resident in the Diocese of Virginia when Bp Lee was elected, and I attended the electing convention.  There was another, biblical candidate (Dean of the cathedral in Little Rock; I forget his name), and we conservatives voted for him.  After a ballot or two, it was clear he was not going to be elected - so the conservatives shifted to Lee as a second choice.  At least on issues, he was the second-most conservative candidate.  We did not (and probably could not)know that he was as susceptible to the spirit of the age as he has proved to be - but had one of the more liberal candidates been elected, the situation would almost certainly have been worse.

Of course, we must all pay attention to the state of our hearts.  Few of us would knowingly choose evil - but we might take a step towards it without thinking, and then another, and another.  As Screwtape said, the best strategy is the soft road, the gentle turn…

As I have in the past, I strongly disagree with NRA’s take on Lee.

RE: “My hunch is that the guy really and truly was a centrist at heart, thologically and politically.  But the center of TEC shifted to the left and toward an open moral as well as theological relativism, along with the dominant elite culture.  And +Lee lacked the definite principles of dogma or morality to withstand that fatal shift.”

I think he had all sorts of heretical “definite principles of dogma”—and that he merely valued the *pretense* of being “moderate” while all the while hoping and working to move the institution to the left.

He had inflated pretensions of his abilities as a negotiator and moderator . . . and when those radically and epically failed at the departure of a cluster of parishes I think his pretensions were punctured and he himself was infuriated.  I’ve never bought the notion of “oh, KJS made him do it”.  I’ve always believed—and warned too *beforehand* back when conservatives were putting their faith in the “agreements”—that Lee was an untrustworthy adder and that nothing he “agreed” to was worth the paper it was written on.

A lot can be explained about Lee’s actions if you calculate in 1) outrage and 2) publicly punctured pretensions.

Sarah (#61),

You may, of course, be right.  I think my take on +Lee is more charitable, but it may indeed be more naive.  And in a church civil war, naivite can be deadly.  In the end, only God truly knows our hearts, much better than we do ourselves.  So I’m reluctant to draw firm inferences and pass judgement about people’s intentions based on their actions.  And +Lee’s actions are surely damning enough.

I do agree with you, Sarah, however, that +Lee seems to have believed far too much in his legendary ability to broker compromises and play the role of the statesmanlike neogtiator of pragmatic deals.  I doubt that ++Rowan Williams is subject to the same pretensions that you attribute to +Lee, but he is running the considerable risk of ending up in the same forlorn situation.

The bitter, harsh reality is one that institutionalists like +Lee or ++RW simply refuse to acknowledge (at least publicly and maybe privately).  And that unpleasant reality is that there simply is no way to keep everyone at the table endlessly in this kind of dispute.  Oil and water simply don’t mix.  Never have.  Never will.

And a house divided against itself the way that TEC and the wider AC are, simply can’t and won’t stand. 

Schism is inevitable.  Bitterness and animosty aren’t.  The real irony is that when guys like Lee or Williams try (with the best of intentions) to forestall a major institutional breakup, they only delay the inevitable and actually make it worse in the end.

David Handy+

This sounds a lot like marriage—Sarah has her views and Fr. David has his; the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. 

I’m in full agreement that no one person caused the downfall or left-shift of any diocese, seminary, or church.  That sort of corruption is always a collaborative effort. 

But I lean closer to Sarah’s viewpoint…for years that man(Lee) said one thing and did another. 

And then, there’s this

“He had inflated pretensions of his abilities as a negotiator and moderator”...yes, and I think he believed he’d be able to talk the conservatives out of their views and into Lefty-Land. 

I never found him the “infuriated” type, and I believe he was negotiating the conservatives’ exit with integrity, if only for the sake of the cash settlement it would net DioVa.  Then, KJS meddled for the worse and he let her…I would have told her to pound sand, cut the deal anyway with the traditionals, and taken my retirement, which I was headed for and entitled to in the first place. 

I will always believe that she skewered him with some form of threat/extortion, but that’s only my opinion, not based in any known fact. 

Dr. Handy, you are not naive.  But I think that RW has already shown himself highly capable of pretension.  And I also believe he will go the way of Lee, with a tainted legacy, unless he pulls his blinders off and does what a Christian leader truly needs to do. 

This is not simply about institutionalism, it’s about the Gospel, and whether or not false witness like

“I simply refuse to hold the doctrine that there is no access to God except through Jesus. I personally reject the claim that Christianity has the truth and all other religions are in error.”(KJS)

will be allowed to flourish in the AC remains to be seen; the “itching ears” out there willing to hear said crap notwithstanding. 

So thus, in my peon view, the issue is not “institutional”, it is doctrinal, and solid-tumor cancer treatment cannot be successful without the tumor cut away.  Not to mention, the surgeon can only pray he/she gets it all; there are no guarantees.