Saturday, February 4, 2012

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Making the Case for Pittsburgh’s Resolution One

Monday, November 5, 2007 • 8:32 am


From The Rev. Johnathan Millard’s presentation to the annual convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, in which he makes the case for Resolution One:

1. There is confusion concerning who God is:

Over the past 40 years there has been a drift away from orthodox ways of speaking about God. In some places in TEC instead of God being referred to as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, He is addressed only by function as creator, redeemer and sustainer, and not in personal ways. The problem with this approach is that it makes God more remote and the fact is God has revealed himself to us through the Scriptures not just by function, but in personal terms as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Another example is when the name LORD is replaced with “God.” So instead of the Liturgical greeting:

“The Lord be with you” you may encounter in some parts of TEC “God be with you” or even “God is in you” with the response: “and also in you.” The word LORD apparently is perceived as too male, and too authoritarian. The earliest creedal statement was simply “Jesus is Lord.” And yes, it was meant to be authoritarian. I was very sad when I attended the Interfaith service at Calvary last week, to see precisely such a change had been made to the liturgy. When it came to share the Peace, the wording was not: “The peace of the Lord”, but rather “The Peace of God.”

2. There is a lack of clear teaching about the divinity of Christ:

In answer to a question referencing the divinity of Jesus, in an article published earlier this year, the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Shori, said this: “If you begin to explore the literary context of the first century and the couple of hundred years on either side, the way that someone told a story about a great figure was to say ‘this one was born of the gods.’ That is what we’re saying. This carpenter from Nazareth or Bethlehem -  and there are different stories about where he came from -  shows us what a godly human being looks like, shows us God coming among us.”

At best that is ambiguous or confusing, and at worst it is false teaching. Jesus was much more than someone who “shows us what a godly human being looks like.” And the Church does not say that he was “born of the gods.” The biblical witness and the faith of the church is that Jesus is the Son of God: fully God and fully man. The Word became flesh (John 1). We proclaim this truth weekly in the Nicene Creed.

3. There is a lack of clear teaching about Salvation and Sin:

Questioned about selfishness and falleness, the Presiding Bishop said this:·“The human journey is about encouraging our own selves to move up into higher consciousness, into being able to be present in a violent situation without responding with violence ... ” and in the same interview she went on to say: “The question is always how can we get beyond our own narrow self-interest and see that our salvation lies in attending to the needs of other people.”

This is not the Gospel story of sin and redemption. The Scriptures teach that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23). The Scriptures teach that salvation is not through our works, or our efforts to move up to a higher consciousness, or even through attending to the needs of others. Our salvation lies in Jesus, “who while we were still sinners, died for us.” (Rom. 5:8); and all who believe in the LORD and call upon his name will be saved. (Rom. 10:13)

4. There is a drift towards universalism:

The Presiding Bishop says of Jesus: “we who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box” (Time Magazine: July 17,2006). Jesus said: I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6).

When, some years ago, I first heard Bishop Duncan speak of us living in a time of Reformation of the Church throughout the world, I confess I wondered if that was a little grandiose. I now believe, without a doubt, that he was right. This was illustrated for me, once again, just last week. I was deeply saddened to hear Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu deny the particularity of the Christian Faith, mocking the idea that Jesus could possibly be the only way to God, and declaring that all religions are worshipping the same God, just by different names. The archbishop is a great man who has done wonderful work for reconciliation and peace. I salute him for all the good he has done, but I am sad and troubled that he would be so dismissive of the supreme work of love and salvation that our Lord Jesus Christ did for us on the cross.

5. There is a loss of confidence in the Gospel as Good News for all:

The official teaching of the Anglican Church on the issue of human sexuality is that which has been set out by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 (Resolution 1:10). But here’s the key point concerning the Gospel that I want to make:

[The Conference] “recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God’s transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships.” [emphasis added]. It is that confidence in the transforming power of God that the actions of TEC now challenge. So instead of welcoming and loving all into the church so that they might experience
transformation, TEC simply welcomes and affirms people just as they are -  denying them the healing and hope and transforming power of God.

6. There is erroneous teaching and practice regarding human sexuality

Over the past couple of decades there has been a serious rejection of the clear teaching of the Bible and the Church on human sexuality and marriage. The clear teaching of Scripture and tradition and of the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church is that sex is for marriage. The only sexually intimate relationships that are good and holy according to Scripture and tradition are those between a man and a woman, within an intended life long, faithful covenant of marriage. That means that pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, gay sex, any sex outside of marriage is all contrary to God’s will. This is the clear teaching of the Bible and of Jesus.

7. There is a seemingly ‘social justice only’ view of the mission of the church

I have struggled to find any clear statements from the Presiding Bishop about the basics of the faith. From her inaugural sermon through to all kinds of talks and sermons and interviews that I’ve seen or heard extracts from she seems to be concerned primarily with a political and social gospel. She seems to be concerned principally about the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. There is much to be commended about these goals and much to challenge us -  but they are by no means the same thing as the message of salvation for those who are perishing. (John 3: 16). If the Millennium Goals are our gospel message it falls seriously short of the message of proclaiming “Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

8. There is contempt for the Authority of the Bible

Bishop Bennison has said: “The church wrote the Bible, and the church can rewrite the Bible.” No, that is a serious error.

9. There is failure by Bishops to defend the faith

The role of a bishop in the words of the 1662 ordinal is: ‘‘to banish and drive away from the church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to the Word of God.”  -  Here in the States, the very opposite is true. Rather than drive away false teaching many of the bishops of TEC embrace it, celebrate it and declare to be good and holy that which God declares to wrong. To ordain an openly gay, non-celibate man -  when the rest of the world urged TEC not to do this -  is not only contrary to Scripture but is also an arrogant display of American intransigence.

10. There is a lack of respect for truth or unity

There seems to be a cavalier spirit among many in TEC that disregards the mandate for unity with the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. Claims are made by ‘progressives’ that they are putting truth ahead of unity. However the ‘truth’ they claim is that it’s a matter of social justice and Christian virtue to bless same sex unions and permit practicing gay and lesbian people to hold any office within the church. This is, of course, is contrary to the truth as revealed in Holy Scripture. And the only unity they secure is among a tiny minority of the church worldwide.

The entire address is here in PDF format.


62 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Wow, this is awesome - clear, calm, concise, factual.  I’m printing out copies for my parish.

[1] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 11-05-2007 at 07:56 AM • top

Bullseye, Catnip!

[2] Posted by Dilbertnomore on 11-05-2007 at 08:10 AM • top

A comment which sums up my position on my old parish and my diocese in general.  It goes directly to # 8.  We had an interim priest who basically stated along the lines of Bennison that “the church wrote the bible and the front portion has been written.  Let’s rip the back cover off and keep writing.” 

Now the Bishop allows this priest to keep practicing in the Diocese.  The new rector in my old parish allows Sunday school classes which like the PB challenges the one path to salvation. 

To me this is very dangerous in that it is quietly undermining scripture and no one is doing anything about it.  My family is out of it but how can clergy who are quietly sitting on their hands justify remaining there?  I believe this somewhat summarizes what the Rev. Johnathan Millard is saying.

[3] Posted by Lee Parker on 11-05-2007 at 08:21 AM • top

Two thoughts.

First, note how the first four items do not mention homosexuality at all. This is a good focus for Rev. Millard.  The conflicts over blessing SSBs is really a symptom of a much larger problem, and the problem comes from confusion about the nature of God, confusion about the nature of Jesus, the reality of sin and salvation, and the church’s embracing of universalism.

Second,  Millard only discusses #5 (There is a loss of confidence in the Gospel as Good News for all) in terms of homosexual persons.  The Gospel is good news for everyone: Muslims, Buddhists, secular liberals, secular conservatives, very very devout Hindus, everyone.  TEC (it seems to me) is embarrassed by the Gospel.  TEC would be willing for Muslims to simply be very good Muslims…rather than bringing all to the foot of the cross.

[4] Posted by selah on 11-05-2007 at 08:47 AM • top

I did notice that there was no scriptural refutation (in # 8) regarding +Bennisons claim that “the church wrote the Bible and can rewrite . . . “.

Is this perhaps because +Bennisons statement is true.  Millard should have included a reference to Biblical teaching regarding the contents of the Bible - an index of books or something of the sort - from the Bible.

[5] Posted by star-ace on 11-05-2007 at 08:58 AM • top

Rev. Johnathan Millard gets it and gets it spot on!

[6] Posted by TLDillon on 11-05-2007 at 09:05 AM • top

Complete nonsense. It seems like our author is trying too hard to justify an indefensible position.

[7] Posted by ruidh on 11-05-2007 at 09:08 AM • top

Ruidh, How is it indefensible? Please explain.

[8] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 11-05-2007 at 09:21 AM • top

Indefensible?  It’s the position (give or take small variations) of Christians for 2000 years—the position of the overwhelming majority of Christians around the planet right now—the position of churches which are growing and converting and transforming people all over the world—the position of thousands and thousands of Christians who have given their lives to its spread.  Christians throughout history have had no trouble defending it and converting souls to it.  Opposition to this position has come and gone over and over through history, but the Position, aka Christian Gospel, has remained.

[9] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 11-05-2007 at 09:50 AM • top

I did notice that there was no scriptural refutation (in # 8) regarding +Bennisons claim…

Star-Ace, a scriptural refutation is pointless if directed toward those who have contempt for the authority of scripture.

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

[10] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 11-05-2007 at 09:57 AM • top

In response to star-ace:  The fact that there is no “index of books” in the Bible does not lend any support to the position that the “church wrote the Bible, and the church can rewrite the Bible.”  The quotation seems to me to be an absurd caricature of the Catholic position.  The Catholic Church absolutely does not hold that the “church wrote the Bible, and the church can rewrite the Bible.”  Rather, it teaches that “God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inpired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them.  He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth…”  (CCC 136.) The claim that “the church wrote the Bible, and the church can rewrite the Bible” is nothing more than flippant theological improvisation.

[11] Posted by slcath on 11-05-2007 at 10:16 AM • top

Unlike commenter ruidh’s wholly indefensible drive-by word bomb, the Rev. Miller’s “Case for Resolution One”  is de facto well defended by Holy Writ and the faith and practice of the church, catholic and apostolic, over millennia.  On the other hand, the opposing side’s “new case” is apparently defensible merely because they say so (often and forcefully).

Next…

[12] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-05-2007 at 10:22 AM • top

Apologies.  The Rev. Millard.

Oh, to type more correctly and quickly!

[13] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-05-2007 at 10:23 AM • top

One year ago a congregation in Smyrna, TN, voted to leave TEC, experienced the wrath, left their property behind, and moved to association with CANA. Their wonderful story can be found, beginning at http://www.allsaintssmyrna.org/. This story is not the subject for discussion.

The diocese has turned their building into a mission church, and they have called a vicar to help with the program. I direct you to their Ministry Opportunities, and in particular, the column at the right where they seek to identify their purpose.

http://www.all-saints-smyrna.org/ministry_

I am sure they are troubled in trying to operate a church, where they are using property dedicated for service of a congregation they pushed out. Your suggestions might help this mission and TEC in other parts of the country, where they are using lawyers to keep what they treasure.

You are welcome to form a new thread, or discuss this in the light of actions in Pittsburgh.

[14] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-05-2007 at 11:23 AM • top

If any feel that Rev Millards case is “indefensible” and “Complete nonsense” let me stand with Millard and the uncounted others through the centuries who are deemed “fools” for Christ’s sake and His Gospel.

[15] Posted by Stefano on 11-05-2007 at 11:54 AM • top

We had Kendall in town this Saturday. Really a very good meeting. He first asked the question:

1. True or false: The Episcopal Church is still an effective mechanism for transmitting the Gospel message.
2. If you answered True to #1, go back to question #1.

With this in mind he stated that there are three options for the orthodox:

1. (Fed-con) join CCP.
2. (Comm-con) await external discipline, which will not be forthcoming in his opinion.
3. Stay in but differentiate oneself.

He was least specific about the third option which was his option of choice. He did not, for example, call for a separate General Convention as Ephraim Radner once suggested. I would be interested in his take on the following from the very fine essay:

1. It is not safe… once the existing rector or the bishop is no longer here – some parishes may very well not be able to appoint a new rector of their own choosing. You cannot call a rector without the approval of the bishop. Yes, praise God, Mark Lawrence, has received the necessary consents to be the next bishop of South Carolina – but I think we would be foolish to assume that that means that the hurdles to future orthodox nominations are now gone. On the contrary the attitude and actions we see coming from the
Presiding Bishop’s office is submit or be sued and/or deposed.
2. If not now, when? The issues before the church are plain and clear. We are divided by serious and substantial theological and ecclesiastical differences (as I have just set out). There is attrition all around us. Numerous parishes are being sued, thousands of parishioners have already left the Episcopal Church. This ship is going down – it is time to realign.
3. I believe this is a time for the people and parishes of the Diocese to stand firmly alongside our bishop. He is being directly opposed by the Presiding Bishop, who is threatening to have him deposed. I believe we are called to rise to the challenges of realignment that are now before us.

I would echo “If not now, when?” We heard at our meeting of another church that is realigning. The circumstances were dire. The priest said that if a decision was not made now, there would be no church left in 6 mos. Is this good stewardship and pastoral care? Wait till the hour is desperate? This is the second church in this diocese in less than 6 mos that has used this “strategy.”

[16] Posted by robroy on 11-05-2007 at 11:57 AM • top

CindyT: “Wow, this is awesome - clear, calm, concise, factual.”

Not. Clear? Mostly. Calm? There’s an underlying tremor of fear that I sense—and I could be wrong. Concise? Yes. Factual? Not by a long shot.

Interpretive? Definitely. Spinned commentary? Definitely. Quotes/ideas taken out of context? Certainly so. Misleading? ohhhhh yeah.

“I’m printing out copies for my parish.”

I would reconsider.

[17] Posted by PadreWayne on 11-05-2007 at 12:27 PM • top

3. Stay in but differentiate oneself.

It is obvious by now certainly, we (those who are differentiating, by choice or by necessity) are engaged in a war of attrition.  A conflict in which the opposing party possesses every temporal advantage.  This is surely a strategy (differentiation) that leads nowhere but to association with that which is assuredly NOT a product of the faith once delivered.  Can anyone exposit a sound theological, moral, ecclesial, scriptural, or ethical case for strategy #3?

It appears our options are swiftly diminishing, and Archbishop Williams, through his acts of omission (it’s November 5, and no word from Lambeth about a report on the JSC report) and commission, has aided and abetted TEC in being the prevailing party in this war of attrition.

Dear Primates of the Anglican Communion, Please send help now.  Signed, the Orthodox in TEC

[18] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-05-2007 at 12:36 PM • top

PadreWayne:  How about some examples?  For instance, I said I thought it was factual, you said “Not by a long shot.”  There’s a lot of material there—with what, exactly, do you disagree?  What quotes were mischaracterized?  Let’s move past: “Is.”  “Is not.”

[19] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 11-05-2007 at 12:46 PM • top

“Can anyone exposit a sound theological, moral, ecclesial, scriptural, or ethical case for strategy #3?” Athanasius Returns

I second this request.  In the last several months I have attended PCA and LCMS and have found them lacking when compared to my current ECUSA parish.  However, I am increasingly of the belief that to stay in ECUSA is both futile and perhaps nonscriptural.  I understand the arguments for sacrifice and witness, but these seem to becoming more and more overwhelmed by the observed facts, i.e., no one wants orthodox witness and the only sacrifice they want is our financial one.

[20] Posted by ConsProf on 11-05-2007 at 01:06 PM • top

<a >Cindy</a>—Please.  It’s not polite to ask revisionists to actually defend their snippy little poison notes with genuine facts, citations, or arguments, since they quite obviously have none and would be incapable of coherent reasoning from them even if they did.  They long ago substituted the sneer for any form of rationality.  They understand sneers.  Thus the only polite response (if you really must respond at all) is to sneer back.

It takes practice, but can be quite rewarding when the skill is mastered…

[21] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 11-05-2007 at 01:11 PM • top

Silly, silly me.  Obviously not enough coffee yet today.

[22] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 11-05-2007 at 02:00 PM • top

Just because a calumny is repeated often, doesn’t make it any less false.

Jesus Christ is alive and well in the Episcopal Church. The Network, not so much. There is way too much concern there with the sins of others and not their own sins which are too numerable to mention.

[23] Posted by ruidh on 11-05-2007 at 02:09 PM • top

With regards to the third option:  2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

[24] Posted by athan-asi-us on 11-05-2007 at 02:11 PM • top

Ruidh, get a grip.  At the risk of engaging with yet another revisionist dive-bomber, I remind you to check the agendas and transcripts of any Network/CAPA/CCP/other orthodox group meeting you choose.  Every meeting of which I am aware spent a good deal of time on PRECISELY that—repentence of their own sins.  Repentence of judgement, bitterness, unforgiveness, wrong-thinking, hurtful speaking, and on and on.  They understand that none of us comes before God as righteous on his/her own.  And they take care of sweeping clean their own houses before looking anywhere else.  What they then come against is false teaching and the harmful agenda of 815.  There is no focus on personalities or bashing individuals, but on the Lord Jesus.  They do not waste time on name-calling.  And, in contrast to typical posts on revisionist blogs, their conversations do not contain obscene/offensive language—a sign of base thoughts, immaturity, and a lack of self-control.

Your generalized, unsubstatiated post above is nothing more than bearing false witness.

[25] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 11-05-2007 at 02:23 PM • top

Per the request for a scriptural rationale for remaining as witness and as a seedbed for future reformation, I’d recommend Phil Wainwright’s extensive study, linked here: <<http://parishtoolbox.org/index.php/tbx/entry/43>>.

Bruce Robison

[26] Posted by BMR+ on 11-05-2007 at 02:24 PM • top
[27] Posted by BMR+ on 11-05-2007 at 02:24 PM • top

athan-asi-us:  Good point, 2 Thessalonians 3:6!  Any op-eds on point #3 above, the “differentiation” option?

[28] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-05-2007 at 02:29 PM • top

ruidh

Jesus Christ is alive and well in the Episcopal Church. 

Jesus Christ is alive and well… period. The question is to what extent TEC is “alive and well” in Christ.

[29] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 11-05-2007 at 02:43 PM • top

BMR+, For what it’s worth, I find Dr. Noll’s reply (at http://parishtoolbox.org./media/apostolicdiscipline.pdf) to Wainwright far more compelling than Wainwright’s rather weak and oddly argued position.  But that’s just me…

[30] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-05-2007 at 02:55 PM • top

Selah,

Two thoughts.

First, note how the first four items do not mention homosexuality at all. This is a good focus for Rev. Millard.  The conflicts over blessing SSBs is really a symptom of a much larger problem, and the problem comes from confusion about the nature of God, confusion about the nature of Jesus, the reality of sin and salvation, and the church’s embracing of universalism.

Second, Millard only discusses #5 (There is a loss of confidence in the Gospel as Good News for all) in terms of homosexual persons.  The Gospel is good news for everyone: Muslims, Buddhists, secular liberals, secular conservatives, very very devout Hindus, everyone.  TEC (it seems to me) is embarrassed by the Gospel.  TEC would be willing for Muslims to simply be very good Muslims…rather than bringing all to the foot of the cross.

Oh, Bravo Sir! Bravo Indeed!

“Bring all to the foot of the cross” - “the reality of sin and salvation”. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Well said.

8. There is contempt for the Authority of the Bible

Bishop Bennison has said: “The church wrote the Bible, and the church can rewrite the Bible.” No, that is a serious error.

Indeed. The Body and the Word proceed from the same single source. If I believed that the one could modify (nay… “rewrite”) the other, I would be forced to doubt whether I was ever part of the Body in the first place.

Beyond all this… #6 is a key… and cannot be too often repeated or better said.

[31] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 11-05-2007 at 02:56 PM • top

DRAT! Where is culeitreach when you need him. On a thread several weeks ago, he questioned whether Americans used the word exposit, to which I replied they do where I come from. Now I have the comment of Athanasius Returns, above, to offer as additional evidence for my bold assertion.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[32] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 11-05-2007 at 02:56 PM • top

Several weeks ago in a sermon, I mentioned that there are a lot of theories being bantered around as truth.  The most recent one of course is the theory of global warming, which England as already denounced as a hoax, and if you Google the hoax of global warming, you will find some neat UTube videos that scientist have done, and conclude with, if you want to know about science, ask scientist, not polititians.  The older theory, which is widely accepted as TRUTH is the theory of evolution, that we EVOLVED from fish or worms or whatever you like.  That is why tree huggers hug trees, they probably see them as some distant relative.  If we are EVOLVED and not created by God to have dominion over the rest of creation, then there was NO fall of mankind, and no need to have a Redeemer to redeem us from anything, and hence, if we don’t need a redeemer, then we don’t need the church, and we don’t need salvation.  So our public schools teach the THEORY of evolution and not the recorded record of creation, is it any wonder our young people are screwed up?  Just some thoughts….....

[33] Posted by Rev. J on 11-05-2007 at 03:11 PM • top

Just some thoughts….....

Some good ones Rev. J

If we continue to teach our children that they are related to monkeys… should we be at all surprised when they act as if they believe us? grin

[34] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 11-05-2007 at 03:22 PM • top

PosPho, I’m not sure whether the belief in evolution is the controlling variable in children’s behavior.  My observation of various church youth groups suggests, in fact, that there will be a strong pull towards imitation of the lower primates regardless of theological stance on the nature and mechanism of Creation…

[35] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 11-05-2007 at 05:11 PM • top

The The Rev. Johnathan Millard’s entire address is a good read in that it frames the many options for parishes.  I made a post here earlier today and I am a bit surprised it didn’t catch anyone’s attention. Possibly, other ideas caught everyone’s attention and it was lost in the shuffle.

In light of Rev. Millard’s address, it is important to see what happens to church property when it is grabbed by TEC to force a “National” context on a community.

One year ago a congregation in Smyrna, TN, voted to leave TEC, experienced the wrath, left their property behind, and moved to association with CANA. Their wonderful story can be found, beginning at http://www.allsaintssmyrna.org/. This story is not the subject for discussion.

The diocese has turned their building into a mission church, and they have called a vicar to help with the program. I direct you to their Ministry Opportunities, and in particular, the column at the right where they seek to identify their purpose.

http://www.all-saints-smyrna.org/ministry_

Originally, they invented a list of programs to draw a congregation. Now, they are trying to figure out purpose for their ministry.

I am sure they are troubled in trying to operate a church, where they are using the total property (including Prayer Books, Hymnals, ...) dedicated for service of a congregation they pushed out. Your suggestions might help this mission and TEC in other parts of the country, where they are using lawyers to keep what they treasure.

[36] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-05-2007 at 05:38 PM • top

Dr. N.

I would like to provide suggestions (read your initial post earlier today), but have none that I am aware of that wouldn’t run afoul of the law.  My best advice is to retain expert legal counsel.

[37] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-05-2007 at 07:04 PM • top

Athanasius,

What is the legal issue? I must be missing something. TEC got the property they wanted and now they are trying to figure out how to use it.  If they win their battles in Virginia or Pittsburgh, will the buildings end up with the same fate?

How does one reestablish a congregation in a community setting, where the historical congregation has been displaced?

[38] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-05-2007 at 07:16 PM • top

Dr. N,

I also followed both of your links earlier today and found them…sad.

Thanks for sharing.

[39] Posted by selah on 11-05-2007 at 07:40 PM • top

Positive Photoaxis,

Thank you for the kind words.

You however, are the one who (weeks ago) compared fixing heresy in TEC by getting rid of SSBs to getting rid of asthma in an asthmatic by treating her with cough syrup.

I have never forgotten that analogy. Brilliant.

[40] Posted by selah on 11-05-2007 at 07:43 PM • top

Selah,

Why did you find them sad?  I have visited this congregation on several occasions and there is nothing but joy and optimism in St. Patrick’s Anglican. ASA is up, contributions are up, they are buying land to build a new church home, and they are seeding mission congregations themselves—in one year! The tragedy is over at All Saints.

There are no law suits involved, yet the diocese holds a building and doesn’t know what to do with it.

What will TEC do with won lawsuits in Virginia, Pittsburgh, ...? They will spend money to win, and then they can only force their context onto the community. That is not the way to plant congregations.

[41] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-05-2007 at 07:50 PM • top

I found it sad that the church with a ministry was forced out of the building and the group that replaced it had no idea of what a ministry was.

I think it is fantastic that St. Patrick’s is a joyful place. (All I saw in the link was an announcement of the departure…if I remember correctly.)  That joy is evidence of the Holy Spirit.

Praise God.

[42] Posted by selah on 11-05-2007 at 07:54 PM • top

Isn’t it supposed to matter that we’re here? Isn’t it supposed to matter that the Church is here on earth? Aren’t we supposed to be the eyes of Christ, the hands of Christ, the ears and mouth, yes, the body of Christ in this time and place? We think the answer is yes.

(sniff !)
‘smells dead.  Where’s the baking-soda?

[43] Posted by Moot on 11-05-2007 at 08:02 PM • top

Selah,
There is a link on the web page (1st link in my posts) that takes you to St. Patrick’s. Father Ray is outstanding IMHO.

[44] Posted by Dr. N. on 11-05-2007 at 08:06 PM • top

Chapter 2 of Revelations:
The Message to the Church in Ephesus(England and the U.S.)
“Write this letter to the angel of the church in Ephesus (England and the U.S.). This is the
message from the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand,
the one who walks among the seven gold lampstands (Jesus):
2:2“I know all the things you(The orthodox) do. I have seen your hard work
and your patient endurance. I know you don’t tolerate evil
people. You have examined the claims of those who say they
are apostles but are not(Pike, Spong, TuTu, Schori,Bennison, O’Niphong etc.). You have discovered they are liars.
2:3You have patiently suffered for me without quitting. 2:4But I
have this complaint against you. You don’t love me or each
other as you did at first! 2:5Look how far you have fallen from
your first love! (Leave these heretics and) Turn back to me again and work as you did at
first. If you don’t, I will come and remove your lampstand ( Communion,Parish or Diocese)
from its place among the churches. 2:6But there is this about
you that is good: You hate the deeds of the immoral
Nicolaitans (communicants), just as I do.
2:7“Anyone who is willing to hear should listen to the Spirit
and understand what the Spirit is saying to the churches.

[45] Posted by athan-asi-us on 11-05-2007 at 08:10 PM • top

ConsProf wrote:

Can anyone exposit a sound theological, moral, ecclesial, scriptural, or ethical case for strategy #3?

The only reason I can think of to stay is that one has not yet gotten orders to leave. To use Sarah Hey’s analogy of the little stone bridges, I think the orders of each orthodox believer still in TEC are: “hold your position until relieved or ordered to fall back”. Not everyone will get “orders”, by which I mean the conviction that one should leave, at the same time, and some people may be called to stay indefinitely. That the prophet Jeremiah stayed with the apostate nation of Judah until God’s judgement fell, and even after, did not mean that he was unfaithful or disobedient. He was exactly where God put him, doing what God called him to do.

[46] Posted by kyounge1956 on 11-06-2007 at 01:18 AM • top

Martial Artist wrote:

Where is culeitreach when you need him. On a thread several weeks ago, he questioned whether Americans used the word exposit, to which I replied they do where I come from.

Try looking in “My Account” under Subscriptions. There should be links to any thread you’ve posted to in there, if you really want to find that previous comment. I remember the post (although I thought it was pageantmaster who asked).

[47] Posted by kyounge1956 on 11-06-2007 at 01:36 AM • top

kyounge:

Problem of strategy #3, stay and differentiate oneself.

It apparently not easy. The so called Camp Allen bishops went to the New Orleans after meeting and strategerizing (to use Sarah’s favorite neologism) and fell in line like ducks. These are men like Bruce MacPherson, who at the meeting said everything was hunky-dory, came back home and came to his senses and publicly apologized.

The increasingly intolerant TECcorp, intolerant of any dissidence, is also frighteningly and cavalierly using the charge of “abandonment of the Communion.” It will not be long until a group of priests that refuse to participate in a sham Delphi-technique laden diocesan convention get keel-hauled on this charge. If, say a comm-con diocese like Western La or Central NY refuses to participate in GC or proposes an alternate GC as suggested by Eprhaim Radner, the same “abandonment of Communion” charge will be leveled against those bishops.

Thus, stay and differentiate oneself, is a very short lived strategy which brings one back to “If not now, when?” Waiting till one’s flock is on its last leg, withered by attrition, to try to bolt is not good pastoral care. Remember attrition goes to Rome, goes to non-denominational, goes to the East, but also goes to nowhere.

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”  He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.” John 21:15-17

[48] Posted by robroy on 11-06-2007 at 02:10 AM • top

RE: “Thus, stay and differentiate oneself, is a very short lived strategy . . . “

Well, I guess that depends on how long you think “short lived” is . . . I plan on being around for many more years, and I know many many others who will be too.  I think StandFirm has done a good job of “differentiating” itself too!  ; > )

On another note, I cannot wait to hear Kendall’s talks.

[49] Posted by Sarah on 11-06-2007 at 08:00 AM • top

My point is that inhibitions “abandonment of communion” could fly as early as GC 2009 if bishops fail to participate.

With the sound of soldiers whistling the theme from the Bridge over River Kwai: “Vee vill maks you play und sie vill be happy about it.”

[50] Posted by robroy on 11-06-2007 at 08:36 AM • top

Robroy wrote:

Problem of strategy #3, stay and differentiate oneself.
It apparently not easy. (snip)
The increasingly intolerant TECcorp, intolerant of any dissidence, is also frighteningly and cavalierly using the charge of “abandonment of the Communion.” (snip)
Thus, stay and differentiate oneself, is a very short lived strategy which brings one back to “If not now, when?”

Just a quick word before I take off for work.
Nobody said #3 is easy. It most certainly is not. In fact we are told that being a Christian is not easy, we’re told to expect problems, temptation, difficulty and conflict (but be of good cheer, He has overcome the world). However, #3 may be the assignment one is given. It may be for a short term, or it might possibly be lifelong as for Jeremiah the prophet. I don’t know anyone else’s orders, I only have access to my own. I just ask people who have gotten orders to leave, not to asssume that those who have not yet gotten such orders are in the wrong. They are just on a different part of the front than you.

Also true that TEC is willing to charge priests who won’t toe the party line with abandonment of communion. I’m not a priest, so that doesn’t apply directly to me, and I don’t think they can (yet) charge laypersons with abandonment.

In answer to “if not now, when?” I can only reply as I said before:
“when I am relieved, or ordered to fall back”.

[51] Posted by kyounge1956 on 11-06-2007 at 09:19 AM • top

kyounge1956
“Where is culeitreach when you need him” - “..I thought it was pageantmaster who asked”

Not guilty - I don’t know culeitreach.  ‘Tho sometimes I do get a sense of deja vu!  Is it an anagram do you think - something to do with treacle?

[52] Posted by Pageantmaster [Pray for +Mark Lawrence] on 11-06-2007 at 10:23 AM • top

Selah,

Thank you for the kind words. 

Right back at you.

You however, are the one who (weeks ago) compared fixing heresy in TEC by getting rid of SSBs to getting rid of asthma in an asthmatic by treating her with cough syrup.

I have never forgotten that analogy. Brilliant.

I said something brilliant (and then forgot about it - which is even less characteristic)? Wow.

Well… the sentiment certainly fits even if the specific formulation exceeds my normal perspicacity. I’d love to take credit for it, but can’t figure out how to get the search feature here to work… so I’ll just have to strive for brilliance at some future date.

I’ll let you know if it happens… but don’t hold your breath. grin

[53] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 11-06-2007 at 10:29 AM • top

Consprof… your words were magnificent. Well said.

[54] Posted by bluenarrative on 11-06-2007 at 10:37 AM • top

kyounge, perhaps I should have said strategy #3 is unreasonable to expect instead of saying strategy 3 is difficult. If stalwarts like MacPherson and Salmon cave into the TEc’s railroading who won’t? But as I also said, the opportunity to practice strategy #3 will be very time limited. The tolerant church simply won’t tolerate it.

[55] Posted by robroy on 11-06-2007 at 01:02 PM • top

<u>OBVIOUSLY (if only momentarily) OFF-TOPIC</u>!

Pageantmaster,

culeitreach is (was?) a priest with whom I got in a polite (or at least so I thought, and which approach I maintained passim) discussion on the comment thread labeled “Christian image is turning youths off.” I noticed the screen name, which struck me as very likely Gaelic and probably Irish, and asked here if he might inform me of its translation into English. He replied with this, which suggested to me that he was in some way displeased with me. I therefore replied to that latter comment with this. I am not sure what I said, if anything, that may have offended him, but such was never my intent. I thought I recognized a Gaelic quality to the name (cf., the Irish Gaelic Taoiseach, the title of the Prime Minister of Eire, and pronounced as “Tay-shuck”) and was simply attempting to be sociable. Apparently, he was not having any sociability at that particular moment. In another comment or thread about the same date he posed the query to which I referred above. The reasons I remembered it was him were (a) the linked exchange and (b) my semi-eidetic memory. Hope that clears it all up.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[56] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 11-06-2007 at 02:22 PM • top

Hmm… thanks MA - I see what you mean - much anger there.
Regards
PM

[57] Posted by Pageantmaster [Pray for +Mark Lawrence] on 11-06-2007 at 02:36 PM • top

Well, I have a question, Gang. Being new to this website (only because I’ve become aware of this issue and found this wonderful site as a result), I’ve searched a bit and haven’t found answer yet. The Episcopal Churches in my area have a tag on their websites saying they’re a member of “The Episcopal Church USA”, or that that they’re a member of the “Worldwide Anglican Community” is it a safe bet that the latter would be considered orthodox- conservative?

PLEASE keep up the good work!!!
Dana

[58] Posted by Joyful Noise on 11-06-2007 at 03:14 PM • top

I agree with Positive Phototaxis. I have never been able to get the search feature to work either. I guess this is OT, but it would be great to have a weekly thread on technology.

[59] Posted by Deja Vu on 11-06-2007 at 03:28 PM • top

robroy wrote:

kyounge, perhaps I should have said strategy #3 is unreasonable to expect instead of saying strategy 3 is difficult.

I don’t catch your thought. Unreasonable to expect of us? Unreasonable to expect results? Or something different?

[60] Posted by kyounge1956 on 11-06-2007 at 08:42 PM • top

Dana,
Many churches claim to be a member of “the worldwide Anglican Communion”, whether they are of the orthodox bent or not.  Your best bet is to find a church listed here.  I’ve heard it to be a reliable source, or at least starting-point for “safe” churches - if orthodox is “safe” for you.

[61] Posted by GillianC on 11-06-2007 at 09:02 PM • top

Gillian,

Thanks so much. I suppose I COULD just come right out and ask the Rector, I guess. Thanks again!

Dana

[62] Posted by Joyful Noise on 11-07-2007 at 06:38 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.