Ten Suggestions for Resisting (or “differentiating”) Parishes, Pastors, and Laypeople in TEC

Only thing I’d add and it can go with #8 or#9 is build community of like minded orthodox around you. Jesus sent them out in twos. Just having another in your corner makes a huge difference. Also be willing to accept the people the Lord choses for you are often not the ones you would but in the end I’ve found the Lord to be 100% correct and I the foolish one. Discouragement with someone else is so much better than alone—in these battles perseverance through many discouragements is required.

Wow, Fr. Matt. I hear so much fear and loathing here… “heretic,” “plan for the eventual overthrow,” “civil disobedience”... and most importantly, the suggestion to refuse to engage (#2) in conversation. That seems to be a sign of a refusal to believe that “I could be wrong.” A sign of a refusal to believe that the Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways. A sign of a refusal to believe that God is continually self-revealing.

It all seems so un-Anglican. God has not blessed us with minds just so we can close them.

Really, PW?  Fear and loathing?  I merely hear suggestions for action.

Amazing what those on the other side “hear” isn’t it.  For example, I hear irritation, surprise, and anger from you that Matt Kennedy believes that progressive Episcopal activists in the Episcopal church need to be overthrown where they have gained power, and that they believe many overt heresies.  And then, I hear insecurity and a compensating attempt to imply that Matt’s opinions and beliefs are a sign of a closed mind.

Funny the things we “hear”, huh?  ; > )

PadreWayne,

Matt+ is just following that old Episcopal admonition, that Jesus died to take away your sins, not your mind.  Pretending that TEC is other than as he describes it requires forgetting that wise admonition.

APB

Padre—How can you object to civil disobedience?  Isn’t that how TEC came to recognize the ordination of women, and of gays?  Was that a result of “fear and loathing”?

Another suggestion, “Do not fund, attend, nor otherwise support seminaries which promote revisionist philosophy.”

Yes, PW, there is a such thing as heretics, and they are running the Episcopal Church.

I do have one quibble with Matt+, however, which I suspect he recognizes:

Plant biblically orthodox congregations whenever and wherever possible.

I doubt the possibility and wisdom of planting new orthodox congregations in the TEC.  Why would anyone orthodox want to JOIN the Episcopal Church?

I wrote a bit on differentiation on another thread that probably is more appropriate here. Kendall is big into differentiation but doesn’t address the main problem: differentiation singles you out and is a short lived game in the TEc. Whatever you do this year, will be declared out of bounds and get you inhibited next year. Don’t fight. You will be assimilated!

#7 Plant orthodox congregations outside TE"c”.  We have planted an Anglican parish under the authority of the Diocese of Bolivia in Northern Illinois (E"c"USA’s diocese of Chicago.)  Others have planted with CANA, AMiA, and others.  The point is not letting TE"c” prevent the making of disciples.

Sarah, Matt+ wrote: “2. Do not live into the tension. There is no “tension” between the clear biblical standards with regard to human sexuality and those promoted by the Episcopal Church. There is only contradiction between the Word of God and the word of General Convention. Do not participate in “conversation” or “dialog” that publicly implies or may be used to suggest that homosexual behavior is a possibility within scope of orthodoxy or is in any way an “open question.”“

Not an example of a closed mind? No conversation? No acknowledgement of our own sin?

Again: Don’t check your brain at the door.

In Newark: Valid point. I withdraw my objection. I’ve actually participated in civil disobedience. Yes, the ordination of women in Philadelphia was such an act. The ordination of gay men, however, has a long history…

Newbie Anglican: Heretics “run” the Episcopal Church? Heretics?!? Sounds like a hearkening back to the 17th Century…Shall we burn them at the stake? Lock them in the Tower? If indeed there are heretics, bring them before the ecclesial courts. (And I’m not suggesting this should not have been done a few times in the past, but alas, our HOB is reluctant to prosecute one of their own…)

Looks like someone has been watching Braveheart again…“capture structures of power?”

I like 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 and wholeheartedly endorse them.  The rest of Matt’s suggestions…not so much.  I’m just not in agreement with Matt over this whole “share in the wicked work” argument (that, and in my Bible I find only one chapter in 2 John).  I think it is possible for Christ to be proclaimed locally in parishes and for God to bless that work in ways we don’t yet understand.  To dismiss such good fruit because it indirectly might benefit some nebulous non-real entity such as a “national structure” is to claim insight and wisdom that I am not willing to claim for myself.

I have practical questions regarding some of these principles.

For #1) How do you balance a “pay to play” ethic so your voice carries weight politically, while ensuring funding for destructive causes does not occur with your money?

For #2) Realistically, wheat and tares are sown together.  How do you uphold righteous standards without coming across as a belligerent meanie and/or giving fodder to others who would castigate us as “bigots?”  And please none of the “names will never hurt me” business, there are real issues and consequences in terms of influence and politics at stake.

For #4) Less a question, than a comment.  Militant “overthrow” talk is great.  It can rally troops.  It can get the faithful to give vital resources to the cause.  But in reality, TEC’s trajectory is downhill by sheer force of numbers.  I personally think an “outgrow, outlast” strategy could win the day, but it is intentionally a long haul strategy.  It means having to put up with a lot of junk without getting sucked into it or contributing to it.  I think it could win hearts and the TEC could become a harvest field, if we become more like a MASH unit than a calvary. 

Spiritual warfare, on the other hand, that’s a different story!

Padrewayne, I wholeheartedly agree with what Matt said here: “Do not participate in “conversation” or “dialog” that publicly implies or may be used to suggest that homosexual behavior is a possibility within scope of orthodoxy or is in any way an “open question.””

In fact, I wrote about it at length on a thread some while ago.

Dialogue is all well and good.  But if it’s in the service of a political cause like “see there . . . we’re all fine together, and all is well” then no.

I don’t engage in “dialogue” with progressive political activists.  Dialogue for them is about political points, and I’m not willing to help them with that.

Sharp public debate would be another matter.

For instance, I could see someone engaging in a public debate, especially if that person made publicly clear that he recognizes that he is debating someone who is actively engaged in promoting something outside the bounds of the Christian gospel.

Obviously, that takes place here on StandFirm pretty much every day.  ; > )

Widening Gyre: “To dismiss such good fruit because it indirectly might benefit some nebulous non-real entity such as a “national structure” is to claim insight and wisdom that I am not willing to claim for myself.”

Well said.

Wayne,
Your response to Newbie Anglican seems to turn 180 degrees in one paragraph, no?  You start off incredulous that someone would claim there are heretics at 815, and then commend the ecclesiastical courst process.  Then you admit that there have in fact been folks who should have been brought up on charges in the past, but lament that the HOB is reluctant to prosecute one of their own.  So it seems that by the end of your paragraph you understand the problem.  It shows that deep down, even revisionists know that “the process” would be subverted due to the HOB’s unwillingness to maintain order.

Widening Gyre,
You said: “To dismiss such good fruit because it indirectly might benefit some nebulous non-real entity such as a “national structure” is to claim insight and wisdom that I am not willing to claim for myself.”

The ‘wicked work argument’ was used by Matt to speak about withholding pledges.  In this case, the benefit does not ‘indirectly benefit a nebulous non-entity,’ as you claim but in fact directly benefits a very real, dangerous, and aggressive hierarchy.

I likie Zoomdaddy’s questions! Thanks for sharing.

Hey Widening Gyre, I’m confused.

Are you saying that the HOB, Executive Council, the various Commissions and Committees, the offices of 815, the Presiding Bishop, and the General Convention do not exist, when you say that the “national structure” is a “nebulous non-real entity”?

They don’t seem “nebulous.”  They hold real powers, decree real canons, decide the stated and public theology of the Episcopal church, change the prayer book, and approve the election of non-celibate gay bishops.  They take money and make decisions to sue parishes and individuals.  They create web sites that promote liturgies for women who want to have special women’s eucharists.

We send money to those things which you call “nebulous non-real entity.”

Widening Gyre, how can a “nebulous non-real entity” do all of those things and more.  How does a “nebulous non-real entity” spend money, hire people, maintain physical offices, and get insurance policies to insure themselves?

Or . . . is that what you think of the “nebulous non-real entity” called the Federal Government?  Is this just a general “denial” of all national structures of all organizations?

Or is it something more specific—that national structures of the specific organization of the Episcopal church cannot actually exist?

Or—are you just gone round the bend and, like a woman who says about her abusive spouse “he doesn’t really hurt me that much, it’s not so bad”—you’re just frankly in massive denial and trying to spread that to others, because for right this very moment, you have a nice place of calm and peace with your new rector?

Please advise.

#9:  Oh yes, I’m all for planting Anglican congregations outside of TEC.

Sarah, I’m floating down this wonderful river right now, and the water is mighty fine!  Join me for a float, won’t you?

In all seriousness, you’ve asked good questions about what I meant about a nebulous national structure, which require good answers.  I haven’t quite figured out how to convey what I mean just yet but I’m working on it.  It has something in common with Seitz’ recent piece in which he wrote, “The basic unit of Anglicanism is the Diocese.” Yeah, I know that there really is a Presiding Bishop and I know there’s this crazy Executive Council out there, I’m just not sure what is meant by saying we have a “heretical national structure.”  I’ll try to formulate and respond soon.

A few observations—and questions:

    1.  In my opinion, an “inside” strategy has to recognize the Biblical doctrine of authority.  Not the truth—the Roman and, for that matter, Temple officials were hardly virtuous.  But they were in place, and our Gospel is not the works of Ghandi.  For that reason, I was glad that SW Florida resumed its giving to the national—not because it is meet, but because it is right. 

    2.  While some perceive the underlying issue to be one of Scripture, a bedrock problem in the USA is our doctrine of the Church.  I cannot say what TEC thinks itself to be.  Is it a branch of the Church Catholic?  A marketing strategy?  An interest or pressure group?  Indeed, the PB seems satisfied with being a “niche.” 

Confirmation has been called a sacrament in search of a theology.  Is an Episcopal service nothing more than a meeting in search of a reason?

    3.  Finally, for Padre Wayne, it is my understanding that our Church assents to the three Creeds, including that of Athanasius.  The third Creed ends:

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Does our Church indeed faithfully believe that Creed?  If so, then the question of heresy is real—and (eternally) important.

This is a small part of a much larger story:  In Jan 2004, on the Thursday morning before our annual diocesan council, the Holy Spirit told me to start fasting.  So I restricted myself to liquids and prayed for the meeting.  During the meeting on Saturday, I was praying in the adjacent chapel.  The orthodox were being pounded because the resolutions committee rewrote their resolutions to change the meaning.  I prayed in tears all day.  The resolution to dissociate from the confirmation of VGR came to the floor.  I was alone.  I knelt with my head to the floor and cried out to God, Just as Your Father’s robe filled the temple, come by here, Jesus, and let the hem of Your robe fill this meeting hall.  Like the woman with the issue of blood who touched Your robe, I touch the hem of Your robe so that this diocese may be healed. 
The resolution lost.  A stranger named Greg Griffith walked up to one of the orthodox priests and said, I want to start a website for you guys.
Although we have fallen short of God’s call many times, I do believe that God raised up this website for this moment.  All of this is to say, Matt, add fasting to the list.

Paladin,

I do not think it is right to fund heretics. I do not think the doctrine of obedience extends to acts that would constitute disobedience to God (Daniel 3 and Acts 4 are good examples of faithful civil disobedience). 2nd John 2:9-11, would, I believe, certainly apply here. How on earth are you to fund heretics without also participating in their wicked work? If you cannot even extend hospitality to them or support, how are you to give them ten percent?

Matt,
As with so much of what I read here, this advice seems tailored for a different context/audience than where we find ourselves.  While some of the points may or may not apply in our situation, do you have any practical advice for places where there may be only one self-identified orthodox parish in a progressivist diocese?  Structural relief may not/is not coming, but radical self-differentiation is, if we so choose.  Any advice along these lines would be helpful.

heh, padrewayne, as for my closemindedness. I am certainly, as Sarah suggested, not arguing against “debate”. I think all heretics are to be engaged in open debate so that false teaching will be shown for what it is.

dl,

Not sure how this is not tailored for your situation? Can you be specific. I wrote and applied these suggestions in just such a context as you describe.

Start and promote a local parish of the KICKASS (Kirk of Independent Christian Klowns Associated for Sunday Services) Denomination.  You can structure this any way you want, provided biblical truths are taught.

If the division statute is upheld, there will be many small parishes in Virginia (CANA, TEC and AMiA) up for grabs.

#22 Interesting - prayer is key.

Opening today on a computer monitor near you!

PadreWayne’s World

Excellent! -  Not!

I think I’m gonna hurl!

zoomdaddy,

1. I do not think the reform of TEC will be accomplished in my lifetime. I am 36. I definitely agree that this is a long term strategy.

2. There are indeed weeds and wheat in the church. We are not, however, speaking in this case of an inquisition. Nor are we speaking of the average pewster. We are speaking of men and women who have taken the mantle of ordained or non-ordained leadership in the body of Christ and have presumed to teach falsehoods in his name, leading his little ones into sin. The NT is very clear with regard to how such wolves are to be handled…see Galatians 1:6-9

3. I think obedience and differentiation are more important than “pay to play” and that the use of these suggestions will certainly attract attention and allow for the opportunity to proclaim the truth publicly.

PadreWayne - re: heretics - perhaps we could dispose of the scary stories of burnings at the stake, etc., and simply hearken back to the 4th century (or earlier).  It would be enough to condemn the error and anathematize its exponents.  This is good for the eternal fate of both them (should they reverse course) and the faithful who would otherwise be their victims.

“The only good use for an open mind is to clamp it down shut on something solid” - Chesterton?  Lewis?  I forget…

Matt,
Let me respond point by point:
1. We have allowed conscientious objectors to give to designated funds, thus paying far less than our Diocesan apportionment.  The Diocese has actually cut us slack.  If we were not so alone there might be more confidence in making a stronger stand.  As it is now, we are dramatically underpaying our Diocesan assessment.
2. This is all good, as our Rector’s letter to our Diocese, re: SNAP shows.  There still are areas, however, where we can work with some in our Diocese on issues such as Safe Church, or Teens Encounter Christ, and Cursilo. Where it is harder is for those of us in discernment for Holy Orders.  I just barely got through, but still have a certain “Yecchhh!” factor about the whole thing.
3. This is easy enough in the parish but much harder in the Diocese, especially if we don’t pay our full apportionment.  Because of our extreme minority status the words of our Bishop ring in my ears, “Even if you put one person on every committee of the Diocese you don’t have the numbers to change the trajectory of full inclusion.”
4. What does this look like?  Where is it happening already?  Most of the orthodox folks who have left us either helped to start an AMiA plant or joined Mega Churches.
5. We are vastly outnumbered, with few allies.  But we’ve already been outplayed.  The Standing Committee may select a token Evangelical to make sure all the identity group bases are covered.
6. Agreed.
7. Would you suggest Bishop Howe’s new proposal then?  I’d love to see Bishop Smith preach and do Confirmations here.
8. Agreed.
9. Isolation doesn’t help.  When the orthodox clergy meet here it is the two from our parish, perhaps two other parish priests,
the AMiA guy, and a number of supply priests.  We’re aware of faithful priests 6-8 hours from us as well.  This is where it gets very tough for us, and part of why we joined the Network.  But, we tend to watch the action in the orthodox Episcopal heartland from afar.
10. Amen.

Matt,

In response to comment 30:

1.  I am less convinced that it couldn’t happen in my lifetime (I am turning 35 this weekend, and our current problems are the result primarily of a 30 year putsch by the previous generation), but we both agreed that it will likely be a long battle.  I feel called to it nonetheless.

2. Agreed that the costs are higher with wolves in leadership.  But our Eastern Orthodox brethren had to deal with the same thing under the Turks and Communists, and today they are growing in places Russia.  While I realize their troubles were more state-imposed, TEC is similar in that it is has capitulated to the culture at large, and the leadership has been “converted” to its mindset.  And as good as it is to go wolf-hunting, these leaders are still individually souls God wants to reach with the Good News of Jesus Christ.  So where discipline fails, grace must still abound.  I can’t vote ‘em out, but I can be a witness.

3. No doubt holding back the money will attract attention in the short term.  You might get a meeting with the bishop even.  However, it will not, in the long term, do anything but aggravate and bring unnecessary hardship on faithful parishes in most cases.  They will be seen as intrasigent ingrates who must be spanked soundly.  And, oh the possibilities of spanking!  You could be removed convention votes.  You could be demoted to mission status and get appointed a priest with whom you could never serve.  Your vestry could be removed.  Heck, I wouldn’t put it past some of the more wily wolving bishops to appropriate parish funds and facilities for diocesan purposes without parish consent.  But, if I am trying to cultivate an audience where I can be heard and taken seriously for the long term, I think parishes can “render under Caesar” with designated giving in lieu of askings.  That puts not only moral stipulations, it puts legal ones as well (in American jurisprudence, at least).  And if the diocese misuses designated giving, then they have to answer to Uncle Sam (a god they fear more than the one true God).  And, more positively, it shows you aren’t against them, as much as expressing your conscience and looking to build relationships in order to promote the Gospel…even among them.

Zoomdaddy, this is not a “render unto ceasar” situation. This is not the government taxing you. This is a heretic body presuming to be the body of Christ asking for your financial support and participation.

Again, I think the NT is quite clear on this matter. There is to be no support in any way whatsoever with hereticls. Yes, you could lose your position etc…but, again, staying in is a sacrificial path. One thing that cannot be sacrificed is the Word of God.

I am thankful for the example of the Orthodox but do not think it takes away from the clear biblical mandate with regard to heretics. 

r

Matt,
  Where might I find an article setting forth an Anglican perspective on church discipline?

Here’s an article on the topic from a Reformed/Baptist perspective by Albert Mohler:

<a >http://www.the-highway.com/discipline_Mohler.html</a>

Though Catholic myself, the topic has come up in my wife’s small group (AMiA) which I attend on occasion and will I know of wesleyan and lutheran articles on the topic, I don’t know of a good Anglican article to reference. 

thanks,
  thomas

Matt,
I believe the capitulation to culture makes it closer to a church/state situation than a strictly church discipline situation.  Ergo, the focus on MGDs in place of the Ten Commandments, as an example.

That just exemplifies the point that we are dealing with a heretic body and as such the various passages that clearly deal with heretics are applicable.

Tdunbar:

I’m not aware of any official policy laid out. I’d also love any resources Matt+ is aware.

Now my AMiA parish has pondered some of these issues as a need from our demographic and a seminarian on vestry. I have permission to share from when SFIF discuss this in October, so I’ll send you a PM with it.

Thanks, Hosea, that’s useful.

I’m not looking for official “policy” as much as articles comparable to Mohler’s but from an episcopal rathar than congregational perspective.  I’ve also found: John Drury discussing connection between church government and discipline in his article Is Church Discipline Really Possible Any More? and some Christianity Today articles on the <a >topic</a>.

I hear so much fear and loathing here

And PadreWayne, if the shoes were on your feet?

Export reformation to non-orthodox parishes. Plant biblically orthodox congregations whenever and wherever possible. Plan to create the possibility where none presently exists.

I would like to hear some examples of how this might be done. Also - how does one identify the other orthodox people within one’s diocese? There is very little interaction amongst parishes in this area. We have an ACN parish 30 miles from us, the only one anywhere close that has identified publicly as an orthodox parish. But I have a strong feeling that our diocese is far more orthodox than our bishop. If we could connect up with each other, we could work for change together, but I don’t know how that is to be done.

Let me give a hearty endorsement to the Bible study suggestion. We have had a Bible study in progress for a year now - starting with an N.T. Wright course, then going through Alpha and now in our second N.T. Wright course and this has proven to be the most vital ministry in our church. For all of us it has been so meaningful and it’s been repeated to me again and again - I’ve never studied the Bible like this, I was never taught, etc. Forget the waffly feel-good, exploratory Bible studies and find something concrete that you can get your teeth into, something that makes you work and think. If we survive, if we grow, it will be because we started this Bible study.

Our church has been taken from us by people who weren’t afraid to politically organize and manipulate. I suspect that this kind of political action is alien to a lot of us. But I am wondering if the only alternative is to walk away? I think Padre Wayne’s outrage above suggests that the possibility that we will figure out an effective way to organize and work for change is the one fear that revisionists have. In that regard, we’ve given them little to fear.

Matt, this thread has been very helpful to me, and I would like to hear more about what people are doing, what they have tried, what has worked, what has not. Most of all, I would like guidance in finding the other orthodox in my diocese.

And don’t anyone forget #10. Judging by the statistics from 59 Episcopalians posted on T19 yesterday, praying is something Episcopalians across the board aren’t doing much.

Matt,
It might be possible to say that the leaders are heretics.  But the word “heretic” would indicate a “falling” from the faith.  I am convinced many (if not most) of those leaders acclaimed as heretics have fallen so much as has never been converted.  So there is a mission field to those leaders.  Some have fallen, or been deceived, or for whatever reason laid aside truth.  But it is impossible to paint broad brush strokes the theological diversity that liberalism has produced.  There are some who genuinely can affirm the creeds without crossing their fingers, yet have moral/ethical beliefs and practices unhinged from historic orthodoxy.  On the other extreme, some are wishy-washy on creedal orthodoxy, but consistently demonstrate a lifestyle and attitude that we are told are earmark fruits of the Spirit in Scripture. 

Plus, what we are dealing with is more than heretic leaders.  We are dealing with corrupted systems of decision-making and “shepherding” that have been inherited for longer than the advent fundatmentalist/modernist debate, Bishop Pike’s waffle, and the “new” prayer book.  We are dealing with people who are captive in systemic habitual sin, and the structures that have been created by them.  I despise the notion of a heretic bishop being allowed to continue in authority.  But when the very structures of discipline are abused and misused (I would add, malformed to begin with), we can only resort to addressing the person, the heart, of the leader. 

I remember seminary arguments about Calvin/Arminius.  But the one thing we could agree on, the practical theology was the same, whether you viewed someone backslidden or not converted, they both needed to hear and engage the Gospel by faith.  And I am ALL ABOUT creating an environment to win that hearing, while still maintaining integrity (the virtue, the not LGBT activist group) and living among this flux culture called TEC.  TEC is a mission field that could become a church once again if evangelized with a kind of tact and grace that most of us are loathe to give, even when we have good biblical reasons for it.  I think that model is the only practical way to address TEC, because to address TEC as a church and her leaders as you would fellow Christians will neither be accepted (affectively closing the door of communication), nor stand up under the kind of strain a missional model would.

Zoomdaddy,

The word heretic, as it has been employed by Ireneaus on, applies specifically to anyone who claims to teach Christian doctrine but teaches a doctrine that is false. If you are looking for a more biblical term, perhaps we should simply refer to them as “accursed” in keeping with Paul’s usage in Galatians 1:6-9 referring to those who bring a gospel other than the one brought by the apostles. It really does not matter which term you prefer because the biblical prescription is the same.

The leaders are to be excommunicated. The people they lead, rescued if possible.

#5 In Newark…..That was a BOMB! Comment and observation of reality! Good ONE! I meant that bro, I’m with ya!

Out of the mouths. . .

TBWS offered a great exercise that brings a lot of clarity [ from here at Episcopal Life: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81834_95179_ENG_HTM.htm ]

Great Idea: Creedal gymnastics teach about community
February 25, 2008
[Episcopal Life] The Rev. Tom Woodward of Santa Fe, New Mexico, once devised a startling way to show a congregation its belief, unbelief and the value of community.

He calls it “an experience with the Nicene Creed.”

After explaining that they would be reading through the creed phrase by phrase, Woodward would give the charge:

“When the phrase is something you understand on one level or another, and believe, stand up or remain standing. When the phrase is something that makes no sense to you, or is something you do not believe, sit down or remain sitting.”

The resulting dance, he says, appeared to be something akin “to a rebellious exercise class,” with folks popping up, sitting down and squirming to watch their neighbors as they stood and sat and stood again.

At the end, Woodward would ask what they had observed. “The answers were always the same: No one stood all the way through the creed, and no one stayed seated all the way through, and there was always someone standing for every phrase.”

The teaching was obvious. “This is the creed of the church. It is what the Episcopal Church, in its fullness, believes, even while individual members may believe only parts of it. We make up for one another’s ‘deficiencies.’ It is the same of thing, of course, with the spiritual gifts allocated within a congregation. One person’s prayers ‘make up’ for another’s lack of that gift. Another’s hospitality covers for those who lack it. Each of us is valuable, and the whole is the whole.” 

Get deanery mettings to do this, diocesan convention as a community building exercise, your parish and the clarity will stand out as the orthodox remain standing, esp as your delegation remains standing.

I bet it would even work with the Apostle’s Creed.

There stands your network.

Hat tip, Hills of the North.

Bishop Tom Wright is on ABC news now.  He is telling about the “myths” of Heaven in the Bible; and how Heaven is only temporary.  I thought he was conservative!  However, he sounded great and authoritive.  Two years ago I probably would have been into His every word.  This is how important ya’ll are.  I can check and understand the Bible myself now.  (limited - to be sure - but more every day.  But wasn’t he supposed to be one of the good guys?  Now is 10:55 CST.

rose #47

I didn’t see the ABC segment, but Bp. Wright has a very good explanation of his position on his AnglicanTV NT-Wright">interview.  He claims, and I believe this to be true, that his position is thoroughly Biblical; he calls it “life after life after death.”  What he means is that there are two periods of life after death: the first, which he identifies by the name of “paradise” is a finite time between death and the Second Coming and Final Judgment when the soul (but not the resurrected body) of believers is in a state of bliss with the Lord.  At the Final Judgment, which will be a real event in history, believers will receive physical resurrected bodies similar to Jesus’ resurrected body and live in eternity in that state, a physical state of new creation, which Wright sometimes calls “heaven on earth.”  “Heaven” to emphasize its eternal character and new creation; “earth” to emphasize its physical nature.  IMO, this really does square with the Biblical accounts and does not in any way deny the existence of heaven.

My link didn’t work.  I’ll try again:

NT-Wright">http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm/2008/2/23/Interview-with-Bishop-NT-Wright

Sorry.  It worked both times in preview, but I’m left-handed and don’t drink coffee.

#50,  Thanks Mark McCall.  I found it on the side-bar under Anglican TV.  However, I think I will need Father Kennedy’s guidance on this one.  I’ve “seen” so much through his eyes that he has taught.  But, you are right Wright’s thoughts sound good.

[#2] PadreWaye wrote:

God has not blessed us with minds just so we can close them.

In truth, people are only open-minded about other peoples’ presuppositions - and never their own.

carl

Rose,

I disagree with Bishop Wright on a number of strategic and ecclesial matters. I even disagree with his revision of Pauline imputation, but on this issue he is correct. In general Christians in the west think of heaven as a disembodied immaterial reality. And while it is certainly true that when a believer is absent from the body his spirit is at home with the Lord, this is immaterial, disembodied abode with Christ is only a temporary home. It is not “heaven” as heaven will be when Christ returns. Heaven, in the ultimate sense, as it is anticipataed in the NT, will be a material place. In fact, heaven and earth will be united and the new heaven and the new earth will be populated by resurrected believers embodied and alive materially and spiritually, living with the resurrected Christ as our victorious King. This is what we ought to think of and long for when we speak of heaven, not the disembodied immaterial temporary rest with Christ that we will enjoy temporarily after death…although even that will be better by far than anything we can presently imagine

Many might think Rose’s questions about whether Wright was wrong about Heaven were digressions and not related to this post, but I think they point to a larger issue facing the conservative/orthodox.  We have adopted, for better or worse, something like a bunker mentality, where anything that sounds “new” to us must be “wrong” or “heretical” or “confronted.”  I witnessed this immediate hostility to things “not pre-approved by Matt Kennedy” in an AMiA parish where Bishop Tom was giving his spiel on life after life after death.  You could see certain folk in the audience starting to fume and wanting to pick up stones.  During the Q&A;, they really went after him with comments much like Rose’s “I thought you were one of the good guys.” 

With apologies to the Bard, There are more things in heaven and earth, Rose, than are blogged about on Stand Firm.  In other words, we in the conservative branch of the Church don’t always get it right or have all the right answers.  The “myth” of heaven is a great example of how we’ve all been Indigoed on that one (a la I don’t think it means what you think it means.)

Indigoed?

Yes, WG, the laity do get uppity sometimes. Not like the good old days, before nasty bloggers started meddling in affairs of their betters. O for the time when people knew their place and kept it.

I loved this gem:

” I witnessed this immediate hostility to things “not pre-approved by Matt Kennedy” in an AMiA parish where Bishop Tom was giving his spiel on life after life after death.”

heh, if only I had that much power! Think of all the heretics and collaborationists we could haul before the Inquisition.

Matt, I thought you’d enjoy that one.  Didn’t want you to get too big for your britches!  I should have stressed for those not familiar with the WG-Matt give and take that I offered that in full appreciation of Matt’s efforts and did not intend that as a slight on Matt—more of a comment that we conservative lay folk like to find clergy (or nonclergy talk radio) heroes and then give over to said heroes all power to define what is in or out.  I certainly am guilty of that myself vis-a-vis Tom Wright.  And in reality, Matt, you are quite influencial in certain circles, which as you are well aware can be both a blessing and a curse.  With great power comes great responsibility…and all that jazz. 

Indigoed? as in Montoya…does that help?  Where is our pop culture knowledge? Don’t they teach anything in school anymore!?

Wait.

Wait. A. Minute.

RE: “I witnessed this immediate hostility to things “not pre-approved by Matt Kennedy” in an AMiA parish where Bishop Tom was giving his spiel on life after life after death.”

; < (

: < (

: > O

How can this be?

Did you mean to say this?

“I witnessed this immediate hostility to things “not pre-approved by Sarah Hey” in a [ComCon] parish where Bishop Tom was giving his spiel on life after life after death.”

I’m so confused.

referencing post #44.

Matt,
You and I both know that, realistically, they WON’T be excommunicated.  So the question becomes, how do you engage a proper mission to the “accursed” when discipline fails, if you are called to TEC as a mission field?

“Think of all the heretics and collaborationists we could haul before the Inquisition”.

Ah, make my day…I feel better already. 

Zoomdaddy,

You are missing my point. You do not engage in a mission “to” heretics. You engage in a mission against the heretics. With heretics you do not even eat. You do, however, try to rescue those they are leading toward damnation. That means non-cooperation and non-participation with heretics and a dedicated effort to overthrow and undermine them

Sarah, all the different emoticons are making my confused.  Were you asking if I mistyped AMiA instead of ComCon?  If that is the question, then my answer is, “No, it happened at an AMiA parish that is definitely NOT a ComCon parish, at least as I understand all the acronyms.” 

And the irony of the Tracy Lind prayer grenade is not lost upon me, esp. after I made the bunker mentality comment.  Cripes.

Matt,
That depends on whether you consider the heretics really part of the church to begin with.  My point is, if you take the view that TEC is less a church and more of a culture, then the heretical leaders are leaders not of a church but an organization that mimics the church but is not really the church.  That means a mission “to” TEC and its leadership is more than appropriate.  I know that squishes a lot of ecclesiological toes—visible vs. invisible church, holy club vs. mixed multitude—but I don’t think the verses you quote apply.  Paul is dealing with heresy in a nascent church where the clear line of authority went to the apostles who were still around.  We are dealing with apostasy that has gone unchecked for decades, where the systems have been corrupted, and it is quite possible—in spite of apostolic succession—that TEC is more of an ecclesiola pretending to be ecclesia than part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.  If that is the case, then being present as a missionary in TEC is more than appropriate, even as a missionary to its leaders.

I have a hard time believing that AMiA parishoners were fuming over Wright’s comments something so obvious as life after life after death.  If they were, well, it’s time to break out the catechisms. 

Also, I am quite frankly confused regarding all this talk about bunkers, and orthodoxy being measured by one’s agreement with Matt+.  The fact of the matter is that Matt+ agrees with me on most things.  Therefore, the more someone agrees with me, the more orthodox they are. 

Matt+, schmatt.  You want a standard-bearer?  Here I am. 

Thank you Father Kennedy—- and all.  Maybe I’m more distrustful of ABC, A&E;, Discovery, and the History Channel.  Plus, you would not believe what I believed before!  And it could never have included me!  I don’t want to be a burden on Father Kennedy at all, but I’m telling you, there are things I can now “see” and read in the Bible that were so elementary before.  Like he just knows what I’m missing.  The same with Heaven—- gosh, I’ve even read it that way before myself!  But I’m learning from all of ya’ll.  The errors will work themselves out.  But I do trust Father Kennedy is a real Shepherd, so I count on him.  Love to each and eveyone of you!!!

Hey Moot,

Most folk in this particular AMiA parish were not brought up in the Episcopal Church and probably wouldn’t now the catechism if it hit them on the head.  Do you travel much in the more evangelical branches of the American church?  I think his point is anything but obvious to most run of the mill American evangelicals.  I grew up in the Episcopal Church and I struggled mightily through his big book on the Resurrection because the false idea of Heaven is so much a part of our culture.

My point was not to pick on this particular parish but to point out what I see as an interesting irony about the evangelical church in America—we want to claim the Bible as our authority yet in some important aspects, we don’t really understand it.  So that makes us susceptible to placing too much emphasis on the teachings of the “latest hot bestselling Christian author.”  And if a particular point hasn’t been covered by that particular author, we automatically assume that point is “wrong/heretical/etc.”  Or even worse, if one of us dare to question that particular best selling Christian author, watch out for the pitchforks and torches!  I’m just not that brave at heart, if you catch my meaning.

Widening Gyre—Your post #54 & #66 seem to directly oppose one another.

Your first point that most former Episcopalians are just that, former Episcopalians that maybe only marginally more knowledgeable than they were before the current crisis hit, then I’d fully concur. AMiA, CANA & ICON groups have a lot of work ahead of them, for once outside the path of least resistance is be complacent, which is what allowed this crisis to happen in the first place.

Your second point about the American Church broadly being Christian consumers verses knowing their faith at its deepest and richest levels is something you’ll hear me rant on this blog often. In our general eschatology, Americans have various levels of acceptance of dispensationalism, which is a nineteenth century British/American innovation and you must admit, it really appeals to our psyche. It also makes for better drama in the <u>Left Behind</u> series (<u>Father Elijah</u> tried, but Protestants don’t mix with Catholics very much). Also dispensationalism is tied directly & indirectly to the Bible church movement, where if something is a “Bible” seminary there is a good chance it’ll be dispensationalist. Thus to be be Bible educated means that very traditional catholic views as +Wright expounded would have the context of not being Protestant.

This is where “supplications in general” theme came in on another thread as I’ve discovered the hermeneutical framework used yields many different understandings when doing an exegesis.

So I complete understand your #66 and mostly agree with you. However in #54 you are caustic, arrogant, abusive and basically acting out the very thing you accuse other in your post #66.

I do want to make distinction in dispensationalism and the way Americans understand it.

I’ve not found that dispensationalist would have a problem with what +Wright said (they’d probably be more upset that he didn’t expound on it more). I do think dispensationalism has elements of utopiaism in it, especially pre-trib folks, and I think that appeals to our hedonism, also a general misunderstanding of the Fall, we’ve forgotten that death is in fact not natural and the ages confuse people so simple understanding is “I’m going to Heaven to be with Jesus.” Also the counter reaction to the social justice focus of the liberals also pushes “Bible believing folks” towards the Heavenly utopia, where there is actually a lot right with social justice agendas, but not how they are applied.

<strike>’ve not found that dispensationalist would have a problem with what +Wright said</strike>

After I wrote this, I saw over at T19 the ABC interview where he comes down squarely amillennialist, oh yeah, they’d be in disagreements for hours, days, weeks, months, years ...

(Though pleased that the producers chose the exact example I did in the <u>Left Behind</u> series to contrast).

Hosea,

The Left Behind stuff is a good example of one of the current difficulties facing the American Church.  And I’m sorry if my earlier post came off as caustic, arrogant and abusive; that certainly was not my intent.  I was aiming more for flippant, sarcastic, yet humourously poignant (while mildly needling my brother, Matt of course). 

I am not a caustic arrogant or abusive fellow (at least not in my mind).  If I were, than I would have began this post by quoting Michael Card’s beautiful Song of Gomer—you know, the one with the chorus that ends, “Hosea, you’re a fool.” It’s one of my most favorite songs.

“I am not a caustic arrogant or abusive fellow (at least not in my mind). ”

I said your post #54 was such, but radically different from tones of #66—I try to judge actions without making a judgment on people, mostly because I am too quick to make pronouncements the Lord proves wrong and my moniker is mostly a verse I need to have preached to my own heart.

PS—“Hosea, You’re A Fool ” is one of my favorite Michael Card’s songs. Mostly because Gomer describes my relationship with our Lord, who has always been faithful to my running off.

Most folk in this particular AMiA parish were not brought up in the Episcopal Church and probably wouldn’t now the catechism if it hit them on the head.  Do you travel much in the more evangelical branches of the American church?  I think his point is anything but obvious to most run of the mill American evangelicals.

I grew up Heinz-57 Evangelical, so yes, I’ve been around the block, so to speak.  Regardless of the venue (Pre-Tribs against the Post-Tribs, or Amils against the Postmils), neither the Intermediate State nor the Resurrection that accompanies the Final Judgement would have stirred up much dust in the ECUSA, or by the Pentacostals, or by the LCMS, or the CRC, or the OPC.  G.I. Williamson did write a story about one woman he talked to who had a gnostic view of Heaven, but when GI expounded on the doctrine just a bit (a few minutes) everything clicked for her. 

The sharp disagreements between eschatological schools seem to be over what happens between Now and the Perusia, not the Perusia onwards.  I’ve long thought that preachers who avoid preaching about eschatology are afraid of stirring up disagreements between camps, but I’m not sure it’s even possible to preach without eschatology creeping in there somewhere, somehow. 

If it is true as you say, and there are lots of AMiA folks who are confused about the Intermediate State and the Resurrection, a slight course correction would be in order;  but it’s not major surgery.

Teaching folks how to read prophetic idiom ... well, that’s a different story.

Hosea, re: #72, you and me both, pal.

I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you (and this seems the most appropriate thread), that there is not yet any scathing comment regarding the upcoming special Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin convention! Where are you, people? What’s going on? Please don’t tell me I need to go over to VOL to start getting my reasserter news!

Scathing comment number one Padre:
1.  Snooooooore!

Padre Wayne, don’t give us the “open mind” bit.  I find it absolutly impossible to believe that there is not doctrinal or moral line which you hold as either completly non-negotiable or already settled beyond dispute.  The difference between you and Matt Kennedy is that his lines are closer to the historic and scriptural norm of Judeo-Christian theology, consistant with the teaching of the Apostles and the Church Fathers.

PadreWayne wrote:

I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you (and this seems the most appropriate thread), that there is not yet any scathing comment regarding the upcoming special Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin convention!

 
You mean this convention?

Exactly, kyounge1956. I’d have expected Sarah to be laughing up her sleeve but then presenting such a fine argument (and she’s darn good at it!) why it is, perhaps a waste of time, or to echo +[Canonically insecure in the Province of the Southern Cone] John-David’s letter to the “meddling” TEC clergy who had the affrontery to enter his diocese (of what province would that be, Your Grace?)—or perhaps Fr. Matthew giving us a well-constructed (and they really are well-constructed, whether I agree with them or not) essay about a convention of heretics.

But not a word?!? What gives?!? No one cares?!?

RE: ” I’d have expected Sarah to be laughing up her sleeve but then presenting such a fine argument . . . “

Too busy. Not interesting enough.

RE: ” . . . a convention of heretics.”

How is this news?  How any different from GC?

We need some real news—not old warmed-over hash that we all expect anyway.  News about conventions of heretics are just passe in the Episcopal church.  My eyes just glaze over as I think . . . “your words are nothing more than a series of hoots and clicks to me now” and I move on.

PadreWayne,
I couldn’t say. Perhaps they consider a deafening silence more scathing than any words could possibly be. It certainly seems to be getting under your skin!

re: convention of heretics…IIRC I read something during the convention last December to the effect that some parishes, while not at all in agreement with the current course of TEC, had doubts about the canonicity of switching to Southern Cone and undecided whether to go along or not. I’m not in the Diocese of San Joaquin, so I’m not familiar with the people or parishes listed in the article. Do you (or anyone else reading this) know if any of them fit that description? Or do they mostly take a more reappraising view of things? What will the actual makeup of the convention be?

#50 Mark…left-handed I can accept… the coffee thing we can work on…  :o)

My statement, which may not make sense otherwise, was an allusion to a comment by someone named Greg Griffith on another thread.  It was, however, absolutely true, although occasionally when I see a cute little cup of espresso I take a few sips, but only avec dessert.

Can you guys resist the temptation to feed the trolls? I looked over this very important thread and was disappointed. Anyway, this is from a posting of mine at Titus:

The Robroy list of differentiation:
1) Start a petition for clarity with regards to costs of litigation. (Which everyone should go sign here. I don’t have Sarah’s or Greg’s signatures, yet.)
2) Write letters to the editor. If there is a newspaper article that is posted by SF or Titus on the Anglican mess, that is an opening to fire off a letter. They are quite easy to write. Most of the newspaper websites have the email address to send them.
3) Organize protests when Katherine Jefferts Schori comes to town.

I am waiting on the last one, but when she does come to my neck of the woods, expect to see a guy on the 10 o’clock news with a sandwich board sign saying,  “Ms Schori - quit persecuting Christians.” I will have a megaphone shouting “Jesus didn’t say he was ‘a way’, he said he was ‘the Way’. Why do you twist the gospel?” Maybe, I will get arrested. Then my wife would kill me. In that case, Matt+, would I be considered a Christian martyr? Imagine a hundred years from now…celebrating the Feast of St. Robroy’s day.

Suggestion #1 reminds me of the three orders (or degrees) of separation practiced by American fundamentalists: (1) “Separation from theological liberals and ungodly or worldly living.” (2) Later separation “also from those who were either associated with or cooperated with persons of liberal persuasion,” such as Billy Graham or Rick Warren. (3) Still later separation also “from other fundamentalists who fail to practice second-order separatism.” [Daniel G. Reis et al., eds. Dictionary of Christianity in America, p. 1074]

Interesting, DW—were you once a fundamentalist [by that I mean the American separatist dispensational branch of Christianity begun in the early 1900s]?

Matt’s first suggestion actually has little to do with tertiary separation and much to do with merely making certain that money does not get into the hands of those propagating a false gospel.  Sadly, if an otherwise orthodox parish persists in not allowing parishioners to designate funds away from a revisionist diocese . . . or if any otherwise orthodox diocese persists in not allowing parishes to designate funds away from a revisionist national church, then money cannot be given to those entities.

Tertiary separation would mean this: even if your traditional parish allows parishioners to designate money away from a revisionist diocese, or even if your traditional diocese allows parishes to designate money away from a revisionist national church, you still cannot support such parishes or dioceses because they are still in TEC.

But . . . that is not at all what Matt said.

Thus—he does not counsel tertiary separation, as believe me, tertiary separation would involve much more draconian levels.

And, you can always take a shortcut to “orthodoxy” by becoming actually *Orthodox*.  It saves a huge amount of time and worry.  You don’t have to keep waiting for the bishop to be a woman or invent a new religion.  Get serious.

There is such a thing as exile, an irrevocable renunciation of everything in one’s familiar surroundings that hinders one from attaining the ideal of holiness. Exile is a disciplined heart, unheralded wisdom, an unpublicized understanding, a hidden life, masked ideals.  It is unseen meditation, the striving to be humble, a wish for poverty, the longing for what is divine.  It is an outpouring of love, a denial of vainglory, a depth of silence.