An Invitation from Sarah Dylan Breuer

Thanks, Greg.  It’s my hope that more ‘reasserters’ than ‘reappraisers’ participate—hence the title of the post on Grace Notes. I hope the exchanges will be fruitful for all, in the “what did you mean by _____?” comments as well as the “I’d agree with ...” or “I disagree with ...” comments.

And I really appreciate your striving to establish a respectful tone. I’m hoping to learn a lot by this Grace Notes thread.

You can find it here.

The problem with this effort will be in definitions.  What does it mean to say that Jesus is Lord?  What does it mean to say that Scripture is inspired?  The statements themselves are not objectionable.  But like the individual statements in the Nicene Creed, they are subject to death by a thousand qualifications.  To the extent they allow for multiple interpretations they do not demonstrate common ground.  But only once reduce the ambiguity and all the old familiar arguments will instantly come forth.  To be honest, I am not sure that any new useful information can come from this effort. 

I also noted that there is as of yet no statement on either the nature of man, or the Atonement.  This touches on the sensitive nature of sin, and how God deals with it.  Since they are at the center of the conflict, they can’t really be avoided.  Nor can there be any meaningful common ground without common understanding in these two areas.  For how you understand those two issues shapes your understanding of the Gospel.  And getting the Gospel right is not adiaphora.

carl

Carl,
Why not go over and take a stab at defining sin and Atonement for the discussion? There might be more agreement than you imagine.

Although I certainly agree that we should treat our Worthy Opponents graciously when we encounter them, and I have a lot of respect for three or four reappraisers that seem to be really nice human beings, including Sarah Dylan Breuer, this is one area where I ardently disagree with Greg.

Reappraisers and reasserters have plenty of “common ground” as human beings.  I have some wonderful liberal friends, some of whom are feminists, socialists, pagans [their word, not mine], and certainly non-Christians.  We’ve gone to movies, read books, had great email exchanges, worked together, hiked together, and all manner of things.  Sometimes we’ve even talked about the events of the day. 

But other than the commonality of being human together and partaking in human activities together [eating, recreating, working]—which can’t really be accomplished in blogland at all—there is very little in common theologically, philosophically, rhetorically, or in any other of the Foundational Worldviews between reappraisers and reasserters.

Attempting to dialogue with reappraisers about theology, when we do not define any of the words in the same way—gospel, sin, Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, mankind, goodness, love, the fall, resurrection, miracles, Genesis, Exodus > Revelation, the Bible, atonement, redemption, conversion, eschatology, tradition, soteriology—is fruitless.  We do not have the same religion, and even worse, the two religions that we hold to are diametrically confrontational and opposed to one another.

We’ve been at this for four long years in blogland.  Any time a real debate occurs, the divide grows rather than narrows, as all of us realize the full enormity of the gulf between the two Foundational Worldviews that guides our thinking and actions.

If someone hasn’t figured this out by now, then maybe they are new to blogland and should go on over to the thread, spend a few hours, and then recognize just how severely opposing and not-in-common the two gospels are.

But for people who already have experienced and know what I have articulated above, traveling to the thread and once more drudging through the effort of spinning the rhetorical prayer wheel merely serves to foster an illusion that 1) we don’t all already understand the other side’s arguments [and both sides do understand them], 2) if we talk more we’ll finally understand, 3) if we talk we’ll finally agree, and 4) that there may be something in common, somewhere, on a gospel level [there really isn’t], beyond the thought that we’re all human and all working through our own worldviews and challenges.

Now if the thread were something like “What do Reappraisers and Reasserters enjoy about life—let’s find the common ground in our life enjoyments” I could possibly enter in, and I would name certain coffees, ice creams, great meals, great movies, fine hiking trails, and great books.

That’s enough common ground for me with my friendships, but I don’t need a church for that.

Certainly there are going to be plenty here who feel as Sarah does - that there’s little or no reason to engage in coversations like the one Dyan’s hosting. I encourage them to move on to other things. But there are also plenty of people here who will find Dylan’s forum helpful - whether it’s to serve as a faithful witness, to sharpen their rhetorical skills, or even to get a better understanding of how the opposition thinks. All three are good uses of one’s time. I encourage those folks to head over.

Sarah - from the opposite side of the fence, I completely agree. Sometimes its just best to agree to differ - and if there are any things which people can work jointly on such as local community projects, then that can be done via ecumenical or inter-faith, or partnership settings where disagreement is taken as a given.

However, I appreciate what Greg says too, in that to an extent I feel that I have gained an insight into what the ‘opposition’ thinks via visiting here and T19. However, it has rather polarised my views in the opposite direction, and I think this may actually be the outcome of further listening processes.

What frustrates me is that there are very few people who actively want to move to a worldwide settlement (not elongation…) of the current arguments. Even if TEC leaves the Communion, there are still those in other provinces with similar outlooks, and they are just not going to depart voluntarily. particularly within the CofE, where the ‘stick together at all costs ’ mentality dominates.

Why not go over and take a stab at defining sin and Atonement for the discussion? There might be more agreement than you imagine.

John D
I came very close.  In fact, I had a post written last night, and all I had to do was press “Submit.”  But I couldn’t pull the trigger.  If I might explain.  Here is the statement on the the resurrection from Ms Breuer’s blog:

“The God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead.  I know some Christians struggle with this, but I believe this was a bodily resurrection and the tomb was empty.”

I am glad Ms Breuer believes this.  But no Christian struggles with the physical resurrection.  It is foundational.  There is no such thing as a Christian who denies the resurrection.  To deny the physical resurrection it to testify against one’s own faith.  So immediately the scope of the discussion is broadened to an unacceptable diameter. 

Progressives of course reject this assessment.  I have had the this conversation on Mark Harris’ blog regarding the ability of the Nicene creed to form the basis of a common theology.  We all say “and He rose again according to the Scriptures.”  But a spiritual or metaphorical resurrection does not count.  So once we get past the simple statement “He rose” where do we go?  Where do we go that we haven’t already been?  This will be the experience on every contentious issue.  We already know where the fault lines are located.

If Paul lived today, he would be writing to the Galatians and Colossians about our “Worthy Opponents.”  They are enemies of the Gospel.  They present a counterfeit faith from which we should seek to differentiate ourselves - not pretend to find a common ground.

For what fellowship has light with darkness?

carl

RE: “However, it has rather polarised my views in the opposite direction, and I think this may actually be the outcome of further listening processes.”

MerseyMike, I so so agree.

Any time I’ve ever really examined and “listened” to our Worthy Opponents, I come away thinking “Wow, we really do believe different gospels!  I’m freshly surprised at how different and opposing and intrinsically contradictory they really are!”

I guess further polarization is a good thing, as long as it involves truthful recognitions of how radical the divide is, but my polarization-meter has long ago “pegged out” and can no longer measure the degree of radical difference. 

It’s in the red zone, pegged out, at the end, “clanked on the bar”, thumped over, pinged the bell, not coming down, unmeasurable . . .

Let’s talk endlessly with them after 9/30/07. I am afraid that prior to some sort of decision as to whether TEC leaves the Anglican Communion, conversation is not only pointless, but possibly harmful. I have in mind several fence sitters of my acquaintance who would just really like it if the reappraising folks appear to be reasonable, humming kombaya lin the background like a greek chorus. Sixty years ago, in my memory, a lot of really smart people got talked into taking a Zyclon B shower by some folks who appeared to be reasonable.  Let’s wait.

Lol - I have to agree with Sarah on this one.  Bless Sarah Dylan Bauer for trying - I thank that SHE and many folks here have much in common - but in only a few posts, it is clear that the deffinition of “Jesus is Lord” is in serious question.  So much for common ground when agreement on your starting point is in jeopardy.

“I’m freshly surprised at how different and opposing and intrinsically contradictory they really are!”

ROTFLOL, Sarah!  I was just saying nearly the same thing to my husband the other night.  They just never do cease to amaze me!

Whoops!  Sarah Dylan Breuer!  Sorry, Dylan! :-(

Respect- a concept I always introduce first to my Confirmation class-and here we don’t have a handful of posts till Godwin’s Law comes down in all its contemptable force on poor Dylan and the “Worthy Opponents.”

FYI: Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Godwin, Mike (2004-10-01). Meme, Counter-meme. Wired Magazine.

And Francis, you know plenty of our worthy opponents have trouble with the L-word

So let us refrain from the following list of words in our conversation: Lord, sin, All male references to the deity, resurrection, crucifixion, etc. (Jesus?). What do you have have left? Salt that has lost its flavor. What do you do with that? “It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.” Er, I mean trampled by gender indetermined people.

Someone has already used “the f word” on the thread—“fundamentalist”, that is.

I find it so amusing to hear Episcopalians, whether right or left, using that word regarding one another.  A more pathetically ignorant thing I think I have never heard.

“A more pathetically ignorant thing I think I have never heard.”

Now Sarah, with all of the comments on this sight, that is a big statement!

I dont believe there remains a common meaning for the F Word;  it means one thing to serious historians, another to general population and yet another to those on the revisionist fringe (I don’t put Ms. Breuer in that camp).  The debate in the Episcopal Church has gotten so far out in la la land that it has overtaken such labels,  with positions that would be labeled as “moderate” in other denominations considered “right-wing”, “neo-conservative” or “fundamentalist” in the our debate. Many of my Southern Baptist and PCA friends consider me to be liberal, yet to many of my former Episcopal collegues I have become the reincarnated Bob Jones, Sr. because of my view toward Holy Scripture. 

Merseymike,  I also agree that given the dynamics of the debate the “listening process” simply results in further polarization.  I also dispair at the apparent failure of some on both sides to desire a true settlement, which in my mind is a process that allows those parishes which, by overwhelming vote, desire to do so to move to a seperate Anglican entity with a reasonable property settlement, without litigation and acrimony.  It is sad that this door is apparently closed.

As I have said before, the Episcopal Church in the US has become like one of those disfunctional families you see on COPS, where the husband/son/cousin chronically beats up on his/her wife/husband/cousin/son/daughter, yet when the police arrive is unwilling to do what is necessary to truly seperate and end the violence. 

Merseymike, are there revisionists that want a peaceful settlement, or are they more interested in the platform this fight gives them?

Rimothy - I think the problem is that is no settlement. For a statrt, this is an international issue, not a purely American one. You talk as if somehow all that really matters is what’s going on in the USA.

Any settlement will have to be:
1. International, across the whole communion
2. Accepting of their being no winners or losers
3. Accepting that there are simply differences, not right or wrong in terms of deciding what happens organisationally (of course, both sides believe they are right)

I don’t think there can be a ‘move to a different Anglican entity’ in any unilateral sense. It is that which needs international resolution - so that there can be, if necessary, the creation of two parallel Anglican entities operating globally.

It doesn’t happen often, but I agree with Mersey—I especially concur with points 2 and 3.  However, TEC is playing the zero-sum game here.  My belief is that in their “zeal” they pushed too far too fast.  Most conservatives have been looking for space and TEC offers none.  They most recently amply demonstrated their attitude by the kerfuffle over ++Akinola coming to the US.  If the “Virginia Plan” of negotiated settlement of property disputes had been followed a lot of bad blood which now already exists could have been prevented.  TEC could have taken the high road, sent many of us off with “a blessing” and added that they remain open to embracing us should we decide to return.  We probably would all even be meeting at Lambeth in 2008.  If they win every lawsuit, seize every building it won’t matter now.  I won’t/don’t hate them, but I will not come back to TEC.  The body of Christ is bigger than TEC and Anglicanism is also bigger than TEC.

I’m with Sarah Hey on this one too Gregg.  Way too little and way too late.  What is the point of it?

The point is that an exercise like this can be very helpful for most of the groups of people in this debate. True, those who have reached the place where Sarah Hey is have no reason to go over there… but very few people have reached the place where Sarah hey is, which is a very peaceful place, arrived at only after a long and careful journey of careful introspection. Most other reassertsers in this debate are in one of two other places: Either very angry at our Worthy Opponents as a group, or almost completely unaware of how deep and profound the differences are between their beliefs and those of our Worthy Opponents.

Engaging in debate with the other side just might help those who are consumed with anger understand that for every Susan Russell, there are a couple of Dylan Breuers. I know for me that has been a very helpful lesson. And for the other group, it can be instructive to learn how many of the folks on the other side of this debate son’t simply disagree with them about the homosexuality issue, but have vastly different and quite disturbing ideas about who Jesus Christ is and why He came to Earth.

Coming to terms with both of these facts - that among our Worthy Opponents are many genuinely kind people, not just the shrill harpies who tend to dominate that side of the debate; and that the other side is being led largely by people who have fundamentally different ideas about Christ and his role in our salvation… is something everyone on this side of the debate needs to do before they can really claim to have arrived at that special place where Sarah Hey and a few others currently are.

The current crisis was precipitated by the Anglican churches in North America -specifically USA and Canada. So I am not sure why there should be an “international settlement across the whole communion”. This is about the US and Canadian provinces accepting and following the official Anglican Communion teaching on Human Sexuality.

We are called to spread the Gospel message and to be witnesses for our Lord Jesus Christ.  We are not called to succeed, at least insofar as success is understood in this world.  Dylan offers us a chance to spread the good news about Jesus Christ. 

If 18th and 19th century missionaries had based their decision on whether to go to Africa on a reasonable estimate of their chances of success in worldly terms, there would be no global south in the Anglican Communion today. 

Here is an opportunity to praise, to bless, to proclaim the Word.  What more do you want?

Greg:

I agree with Sarah Hey and it has not been an easy or pleasant journey to reach the “peaceful” point. Sarah H is right - the terms are the same but mean something completely different. I am wondering if Spong’s book on “Why Christianity must change or die” had something to do with it. I wonder how we reached this point and if there is anything we could’ve done to prevent it. If Spong can become a Bishop, there is something wrong with the polity of the Episcopal Church. I hope any new realignment takes into consideration the errors of the Episcopal Church polity.

An academic discussion of common interests on these blogs is harmless, even if ultimately futile, and can sharpen one’s focus. However, in the larger struggle the resources of orthodox leaders and parishes are best marshalled to get in a position where they can effectively proclaim the Word to the world at large.  This goal is hindered, in some places rendered impossible, by being tethered to TEC.  Anything that diverts attention or resources away from rectifying that situation is poor stewardship.

Reappraisers are certainly a mixed-bag. 

There’s tension ahead I believe, between the Spongians and the antinomians who don’t water down Christian distinctives with “metaphor.”  Perhaps the antinomians will be the next “rear-gaurd,”  when they recognize the pastoral crisis going on there.  Wouldn’t that be a gas?

It’s funny though - the Spongians still want the family-name.  The house isn’t good enough.  Nor the furnishings.  Nor the kiddies.  Nor getting alimony.

Because, JGeorge, there are plenty of us in other provinces who agree with what the US and Canada is doing and would prefer to be aligned to them, rather than the AC without Canada or the US. Without an international settlement, this wouldn’t be possible. However, the views would remain, so there would continue to be conflict and disagreement.

Dear all, I think it is worth pointing out that Merseymike has already publically stated on Christian based forums that he doesnt believe in a God who is Father Son and Holy Spirit nor that Jesus was anything other than human. Nor that Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was necessary or made any material difference.
So to see him on so many Christian forums saying which church he would rather be aligned to is somewhat ridiculous.

Moot, you have me completely confused.  Does “antinomian” mean something different than I think it means, or was that your point? Per my Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, antinomianism is: “...the view that Christians are by grace set free from the need of observing any moral law.” 
Is there more here than the obvious- which is that a Spongian does not require grace to be set free from the need of observing any moral law?

TJ,

I don’t believe that anyone fully accepts that definition of antinomianism.  Even a person claiming to, would start to hedge when they were confronted with life and death situations (What?  The death of Christ makes premediated murder okay?).  Our own Merseymike even believes in a strict interpretation of monogamy. 

Everyone draws the line, somewhere.  And in some senses, I believe that we are all antinomian in various degrees. 

When I use the word, ‘antinomian,’ I mean those who reject that their besetting sins, are offensive to God.  In this case, it would be the heterosexuals who refuse to name non-celibate homosexuality as sin;  and non-celibate homosexuals. 

It’s possible (e.g.,) for a non-celibate homosexual to believe in a literal Resurrection of our Lord, but to reject the orthodox assertion that they must repent of their homosexual lifestyle.  That’s where I see the next line in the sand, being drawn - between those who metaphorize Christianity ad nauseum, and those who (while still very wrong) have some seeds of the Gospel (praise God) yet in them.

Er,  premeditated. 

What’s premediated?  Some sort of new prenuptual agreement? 

Moot, thanks for the clarification (and here I am using Webster’s, not the HoB definition of clarity) of your point.  I know a couple individuals myself who are perfect illustrations of your view. I hope you will forgive my sarcasm on the issue.  Still, when I read your earlier post on Spongian vs. antinomian points of view in TEC, I couldn’t help but envision a debate on a revisionist website contrasting the Spongian vs antinomian views on Justification.

I hope you will forgive my sarcasm on the issue.

Sarcasm?  That was sarcasm? 
Hey brother .. No harm, no foul. 

I couldn’t help but envision a debate on a revisionist website contrasting the Spongian vs antinomian views on Justification.

That would be something, wouldn’t it?  They’d probably start on the question of why it is needed, and end up wrangling over what it means.  If the antinomians got around to rejecting Pelagianism, I’d take that as the Spirit’s work. 
Now .. THAT would be something. 

Did a little experiment to see if this Sarah DB site is managed like the other Worthy Opponent ones. Attempted to post a firm but non bomb throwing comment. Voila. Blocked. Shall I be a hand puppet to see if they’ve got my IP? Think I will. But, I always believe plus que ca change, plus que c’est la meme. Tiger changing stripes etc.

Love the lefty “listening process.” Yammer yammer yammer. It hides the click of the hammer being drawn back.

Teddy,

I have not deleted or edited ANY comments on this Grace Notes thread. Generally, I only delete comments that are ‘comment spam’—i.e., advertising commercial products that don’t have anything at all to do with the subject of the thread. Perhaps if you describe what happened when you tried to post, I can help you.

I do know that reading the ‘capcha’ graphic on the posting screen is difficult or impossible for those with serious visual impairments. I’m sorry about that, but having that is the only way I’ve found to control comment spam with the content management system (TypePad) I’m currently using.
Especially in light of the volume of comments coming in—all of which I’d like to be able to read carefully and respond to appropriately—I would like to ask commenters on that particular post to stick to the subject and spirit of the post. If you want to post a comment on Grace Notes that doesn’t respond directly to a post I’ve got up, I’ve just created an open thread that would be the perfect place for it. Please feel free to post anything you want to say on Grace Notes there, as long as your comment is clean and non-commercial.

My opinion is that commenters are perfectly able to judge for themselves whether what they’re posting is responding to the post on which they’re commenting, and I’d prefer to have the only regulation of non-spammy comments on the blog be self-regulation. That’s how things are now, and they’ll stay that way for as long as it’s fruitful (as in yielding fruit of the Spirit).

Thanks to all responding to the invitation!

Blessings,
Dylan

Fr. Jake’s crew keep calling “Greg Griffiths” (sic) an “ASSHAT”, especially Eileen and Leonardo Ricardo.

I am not sure why Fr. Jake thinks this is an appropriate way to dialog.