Bishop Iker Writes His Clergy about TEC’s Proposal

the man is a rock.  solid granite.

Would it be fair to say that given this response from Bishop Iker, as well as the ACN and AAC responses, that 815 has suffered a catastrophic failure in holy listening, dialogue and undertanding?  Not to mention a failure to communicate?

Would it be OK with Bishop Iker if our Presiding Bishop’s name were Kenneth instead of Katharine? Our Constitution & Canons are clear about her authority—that she would delegate it in this way is beyond graciousness. This kind of response says more about the speaker than he intends.
This is like the game “Yes, But.”
I want a pie.
Here is your pie.
But I wanted a cherry pie.
OK, here is your cherry pie.
But I wanted a soft crust.
OK, here is your cherry pie with a soft crust.
But it is 6” and I want a 7” pie.
Here is your 7” cherry pie with a soft crust.
But I wanted. . . .

Sooner or later we begin to understand that the conversation is not about pie at all, but power. As I said, I believe the bishop has revealed more of himself than he thought.
Tom Woodward

“815 has suffered a catastrophic failure in holy listening, dialogue and undertanding?  Not to mention a failure to communicate? “

Not at all. They did this for legal effect—for use as an exhibit in future litigation. Cool and calculated. They needed to make it look as though they “tried.”

r.w.

They might make look as thought they “tried,” but as far as I’m concerned, it was a wasted effort.  I am still going to vote FOR the changes in the constitution of my diocese…..SanJoaquin…...this Saturday, December 2nd.

The proposal was a PR and legal move by 815. There was never any chance the appealing dioceses would accept it, as it leaves PB Schori entirely in the driver’s seat and seems to be little more than a pledge to send someone else to lay hands upon future bishop-elects in those dioceses. As Bishop Iker makes clear, we are appealing for an alternative Primate, not just a temporary stand-in for the present PB. May God bless him and the other leaders of the Network as they “stand firm.”

Welcome back Tom.
The dissenting dioceses were not asking for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight.  They were asking for Alternative Primatial Oversight.  From the beginning.  This was not a negotiated agreement.  There is nothing gracious about attempting to impose a settlement without negotiation.  The statement was nothing, I repeat, nothing more than a public relations ploy to make KJS and TEC look like the good guys.  They knew that this “offer” had been rejected earlier.  They knew it was not acceptable.  Totally disingenuous.

Tom Woodward,

How about this:

We want a Presiding Bishop that believes and lives the Nicene and Apostles Creed.

That’s simple enough. And it is abundantly clear, based upon both her words and actions (as are noted elsewhere on this site), that she does not.

The question isn’t so much is whether the PB is a woman, although that poses problems for Anglo-Catholics. The question is whether the PB is a Christian. And the answer is ‘no’. Given that the leadership is apostate, then what do the faithful do?

I will continue to hold the leadership of TEC in my prayers, but I’m not sanguine about the prospects of a united denomination.

“I want a pie.”

“Here you go.”

“What the…?  This isn’t a pie!  It’s some kind of gooey green mousse.”

“Spinach mousse.  It’s a New Thing we’re trying.”

“But I asked for a pie!  This restaurant always had great pies—“

“The previous owner did.  We’re in charge now.  C’mon, just try the mousse.”

“No thanks!  I want what I ordered.”

“Sheesh, you conservative types!  So wed to your stale old traditions!”

“What do you mean?  I happen to like pie.  Which last time I checked has a pastry crust, a fruit filling—”

“Yeah, like your mommy always made it.  You’re such whiners.  Open your mind to new experience—“

“I don’t want new experience, I want a #%!@ pie!  If you don’t make them here anymore, I’ll just go someplace else.”

“Not so fast!  That’ll be ten bucks for the mousse.”

“What??  I didn’t touch your revolting mousse!”

“Well, you didn’t think you’d just walk out of here with all your money, did you? Cough it up now.  Don’t make me call the bouncers…”

St. Anonymous, thank you.  Do you think Tom Woodward will understand your post?

Bishop Iker:

Perhaps it needs to be clarified that we have not requested someone to serve as “the Presiding Bishop’s designated pastor” to us; we have appealed for an alternative primate. Nor has this appeal been made to the Presiding Bishop, but to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

We didn’t ask for pie, or anything else from 815.

“Would it be fair to say that given this response from Bishop Iker, as well as the ACN and AAC responses, that 815 has suffered a catastrophic failure in holy listening, dialogue and undertanding?  Not to mention a failure to communicate? “

I think it would be more fair to say that, given the extreme case of “rectal/cranial inversion” rampant at 815, both listening and communicating are impossible.

St. Anonymous, thank you.  Do you think Tom Woodward will understand your post?

Probably not.  But I bet everyone else here will… 

As Bishop Iker well knows, we are a constituent part of the Anglican Communion and no diocese has independent access to the Archbishop of Canterbury. We have a constitution and canons all bishops have sworn to abide by. Period. There were no ifs and “If I don’t like’s.” It is called obedience. Obedience comes into play when something is not to our individual liking.
Katharine Jefferts Schori is certainly a Christian and was affirmed as such in her ordinations, consecration and election. Some of Stand Firm in Faith favorites voted for her. Bishop Iker’s problem is, perhaps, with Schofield and others who put her over the top.
  I don’t believe it is fair to ask for something which violates our Constitution and Canons and when something is given that meets the heart of your request but stays within the C&C, to cry “foul - this isn’t exactly what I wanted.” But then I do not believe there is anything that would satisfy bishops Iker, Schofield, Duncan, et. al.. Something else is going on.
Tom Woodward

Kenneth Kearon was involved in the crafting and submission of this. If anyone represents the ABC, he does. Technically, it is being sent to the ABC, but he was very much involved in the document’s crafting, though by proxy.
Tom Woodward

[Jim - a little more discretion, please. - G]

I think that Jim Gilmore needs to read Matthew 5:43-45.  For all our convenience, it is posted at the bottom of this thread.

I agree with the previous poster - no need for name calling.  Tom Wordward has posted here before, and although I disagree with almost everything he says, we still need to have a Christian attitude in our responses.

While I agree with Harry Edmon,I can’t help chuckle at Father Woodward’s comments regarding the TEC attempt at ‘playing reconciliation’.
From observing the recorded behaviour of PB Schori and company many can’t help but think that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth,first threaten(the Beers letters and her own letter to Bishop Schofield)then offer a ‘peace treaty’,sounds a bit Saruman like so no wonder Fr Gilmore had an Eomer like reaction,especially when he,like most here,has seen the havoc caused by 815 and co’s machinations firsthand.Actually,to me,the most recent ploy remind me a bit of a character from the Disney animated classic The Jungle Book,the bumbling python Kaa with its attempts to hypnotise potential victims and ending up hypnotising itself.

If not a pie, how about a cake? Then we could have our cake and edict, too!

P.S. remind should have been reminded
Also,Kaa’s attempts at hypnotism and then mayhem had a song that went with them to lull the victim called ‘Trust in me’,perhaps some of the multiplied offerings of our revisionist acquaintances have the same tune.

Tom,

A few points.
Even the ‘79 BCP does not call the bishop to abide by the constitution and canons of the church.  The bishop-elect agrees to conform to the doctrine, discpline and worship of the Church (p.513).  The Examination calls for the new bishop to guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church (p. 517-518).  But you know that already, you have probably been to more consecrations than I have.

But please notice doctrine and the faith come first before unity and discipline.  Doctrine and the faith apparently make the basis for unity and discipline right?  Or does discipline come first so that we march in lockstep right off the cliff? What happens when TEC changes its doctrine and the rest of the Church does not?

Second, any PB who is quoted in the NYT Magazine as commenting about violence in the Muslim world: “So do Christians!  They have a terrible history.” just might have put a little too much distance between herself and the faith once received. And its not the acknowledgement of past violent actions by Christians, its the word “they” not “we.”

Finally, are you saying you know who voted for Schori for PB?  I thought those ballots were kept secret and destroyed.  Are you naming Schofield as one of her voters?  Can that be verified?  Do you have other names of SFIF favorites that can be verified?  This dealing in rumors without facts is unbecoming of someone who wants to call us to unity and support of TEC and the PB.

Good grief Jim Gilmore, your totally innappropriate remark is not helpful. 

I realize the “canons and constitutions” of TEC have replaced the Holy Scriptures as the basis for Christian faith among many liberals, “canonical fundamentalists” as they are referred to here.  But this situation is unprecedented so perhaps there will be an unprecedented solution.  But I must say I am quite happy tonight because I realize that the ACN is serious and real seperation from heresy will be achieved.

Tom, how many times do we have to go around with you about this? It is not now, nor ever was about ‘liking’ and ‘not liking’ things, about ‘wanting’ or ‘not wanting’ what TEC has done.  Full stop.  Until you are able to recognize the difference between preference and conviction, you will never understand the nature of what divides this Church.  Full stop.

It is an ancient teaching, crafted by St. Augustine and embraced most notably in our recent history by Martin Luther King, Jr., that an unjust law is no law at all.  You are not bound by authority just because it is written in a law book.  Its authority derives from a Higher Source and it is to that source which reasserters in TEC all appeal.

“Then we could have our cake and edict, too!”
Brilliant!

You know what?

Tom Woodward is right, “Sooner or later we begin to understand that the conversation is not about pie at all, but power.” I actually agree completely!

The power of the Scripture and 2000 years of history or the power of TEC to change all that on a whim and place us at odds with the vast majority of all Christians the worldwide.

Wow, clarity. Thank you.

BTW -Tom, cakes are square, pies are round! 

Tom Woodward wrote: “We have a constitution and canons all bishops have sworn to abide by.”

Two items for reflection:

1.  I don’t know if Bp. Iker was consecrated a Priest long enough ago to have done so under the 1928 BCP, but if so he also swore “...to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; ....” and “that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. And ..., out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall bepersuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture.”

2. The much touted democratic institutions enshrined in the constitution of the PECUSA used, as their model, the Articles of Confederation for the United States of America.  As you may recall from your elementary school US History class, they were an unmittigated disaster that resulted in a constitutional convention to ammend them that, instead, wound up throwing them out and starting over from scratch with an accountable government under the Constitution of the United States.  (BTW; That convention was presided over by a vestryman from Turo Parish in Virginia — George Washington).

“when something is given that meets the heart of your request”

I’m not sure you understand what the heart of this request is, Mr. Woodward.  I agree with the posters above who assert that it is NOT enough to have a “stand-in” for the PB, when what is anathema is the policies and practices and theology (or lack thereof) of TEC in general, and the PB in particular.  We’re not “taking our dollies and going home”, we are fighting for souls.

I spent years in seminary trying to explain Christianity to liberals and the great difference between faith in inclusivity, diversity, tolerance and a love based ethic in which Barney makes a better Christ figure than Christ ... Only the Holy Spirit can convince a liberal. I can’t. There is no point wasting energy focusing on liberals. The tolerant are intolerant, the inclusive are as welcoming as the KKK and the liberals prefer pagan experimentation to Christian worship and prefer high liturgy to deep belief. They are big on worship and the sacraments, while denying the divinity, miracles, and physical resurrection of Christ. They focus on social justice, which like thier liturgy, is empty of belief. So there is no point to arguing with liberals. Arguing with “Tom” or the new PB or anyone else on the liberal end is a pointless endevour and distraction from Christ and the cross. While our Lord calls us to the great commission, focusing on arguements with liberals only distracts us from our Lord and His commission.

Chapie+

Tom, In regards to your comment ...

“There were no ifs and “If I don’t like’s.” It is called obedience. Obedience comes into play when something is not to our individual liking.”

May I offer the following

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!” But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:27-29 NKJV)

As Steve has pointed out this is a matter of conviction NOT preference. Our obedience is FIRST to God. The constitution and canons you cite pale in comparison to His word. If we follow your call to absolute obedience then I guess the American Revolution was really the American Rebellion. After all were we not colonies of the crown and didn’t we owe obedience to the king?

Regards, Conrad

Tom,
Long time.
It appears nothing has changed.  You still think that ECUSA represents a Christian organization.  We do not.  We still wish to adhere to the traditional faith handed down.  ECUSA does not.  We are not interested in “a new thing.”  Unfortunately, ECUSA is.
Speaking faster, slower or louder will not change the meaning of the words.  Oddly enough, we all seem to know the definition of “is” here at SFIF.
And I add my voice to Rom 1:16.  Are you privvy to information that us mere mortals are not allowed to know?  Or is your statement about the vote more unsubstantiated rumor just like your accusations against David Hicks.

“What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
Strother Martin to Paul Newman in “Cool Hand Luke”

Yes, the vote by Bishop Schofield is, indeed, well documented. He voted for Katharine Jefferts Schori. It was either his better judgment or it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him.

No the Constitution and Canons are not the same as Holy Scripture. I am loyal to both; however the C&C are about church order and discipline, Scriptures are on a different level. I believe Scriptures to contain all things necessary to salvation—I do not believe all things in the Bible are necessary to salvation and neither do the people of SFIF or you would take Jesus’ own words in Matthew, Mark and Luke more seriously than you do.
Tom Woodward

It seems more than a little disingenuous to appeal to the Constitution and Canons when TEC and its leaders have abused, misused, and broken both when it suited them. Pot and the kettle? In the law, we call it the doctrine of unclean hands.

cannyscot

Tom,

The C&C are meant to be in the service of a Christian church that is under the authority of Holy Scripture. That is why they exist - not to prop up the PB in whatever he or she wants to do. Good people have now made the strong case that this is no longer a Christian church, much less one under the authority of Scripture. Thus, the question of whether or not APO dioceses are operating within the constitution and canons is moot: The things they were designed to serve no longer exist.

Tom Woodward said:

Yes, the vote by Bishop Schofield is, indeed, well documented. He voted for Katharine Jefferts Schori. It was either his better judgment or it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him.

Leaving us with the question:  “Where’s the proof?”  I was looking for verifiable information.  Your saying it is well documented does not make it so.  Repeating rumors heard on other blogs does not make it so.  Again, show us the proof for Schofield or any other bishop’s vote for which you have personal information.  Please tell us how you came into this information so that we may rejoice with you.

Next question:  Care to elaborate on what words of Jesus in Matthew, Mark and Luke that I or any other poster on SFIF are not taking more seriously?  Chapter and verse please.  I’m currently teaching my way through Matthew, taught Mark a few years ago and will probably teach Luke in the future as its my favorite gospel account.  I would dearly love to know how I can apply the words of the Gospel better to my own life before standing up to teach.

Write Bp. Schofield and ask him. If he is a stand up guy, he will tell you that he voted for her.

Re: Constitutution & Canons: TEC has not violated them. The election of KJS and the consents for the consecration of VGR were done strictly according to the canons of this church. If you don’t like the rules of this church, there are other churches which may be much more accommodating to you—Roman Catholic, Assembly of God, MCC. Go for it: no one is holding you here.

The Synoptics: Look at the ways Jesus affirms the spirituality and faith of those not in the fold (Syro-Phoenician woman, etc.), the attacks on the “orthodox” Pharisees (very similar to Network orthodox in our own time), the parables which are attacks on narrow moralism (Mustard Seed, Leaven, Sower, etc.). I would look at the ways Jesus affirms the poor and the marginalized. What I hear on SFIF are quotes from John, many of which are in spiritual contradiction to the Synoptics. I will be glad to have a conversation about this, but not in the midst of the spirit of this web site.
Tom Woodward

Tom, your tactic in this post is simply passive-aggressive.  You drop a bombshell and then refuse to discuss it because you don’t like the ‘spirit’ of this website.  Then please, do not post such incendiary stuff and you won’t rouse people’s hackles so.  You know exactly the effect your words will have on people, so don’t act all holier than thou if someone actually writes back with some ire to call you on it.

Tom Woodward,

Your hostility and obdurate manner does not become anyone, nor will it tend to induce people to agree with you. You have done nothing but insult those who have made this forum available at their expense. If you feel that you are casting your pearls before swine, then perchance you should take the words of our Savior seriously and not cast them.

The Synoptics: Look at the ways Jesus affirms the spirituality and faith of those not in the fold (Syro-Phoenician woman, etc.), the attacks on the “orthodox” Pharisees (very similar to Network orthodox in our own time), the parables which are attacks on narrow moralism (Mustard Seed, Leaven, Sower, etc.). I would look at the ways Jesus affirms the poor and the marginalized. What I hear on SFIF are quotes from John, many of which are in spiritual contradiction to the Synoptics. I will be glad to have a conversation about this, but not in the midst of the spirit of this web site.

Never having been an Episcopalian I dare say that the C&C are far outside of my perview, but your slipshod and faulty reading of the Gospels is well within it. Before getting in to you deficient reading here I will first draw your attention to article VI of the 39 articles:

so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation

So we are supposed to hold to and believe in your canons even when they run directly contrary to the 39 Articles. I know that ECUSA dropped them in 78 but that is still the operative frame of reference for the Anglican Communion. Moreover, it is the SOF that Schofield et al would have ascribed to in their ordinations. So they are keeping their ordination vows on this point when they don’t believe it just because 815 says it. To quote another dissenter whom you would probably crucify to with innuendo and pseudo-exegesis:

<blockquote>Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.</blockquote>

Tyranny whether it is papal, episcopal or otherwise is still tyranny. You would make people to violate their conscience so that you may keep getting their money to prop up a defunct and apostate system. This is helping to prop up the tottering system that needs be torn down to maintain the purity of the Christ’s Church.

Now to your problematic summary of the Synoptic Gospels, which you make repugnant to the Gospel of John, a hermeneutical no-no to say the least. As to Jesus’s embracing of the outcast, that is true, but the outcast were all told to repent and make their ways straight, “Go and sin no more.” Furthermore, as Markus Bockmuehl points out in ,i.Jewish Law in Gentile Churches</i> what Jesus rejects of the “Orthodox” Pharisees is their pitting scripture against Scripture (much like your little sham above. Such that the voluntary vows as governed by Leviticus 27 passim superseded the Exodus 20:12 “Honor your Father and Mother” (as an aside I was recently struck by how the Apostle Paul obviously ranks this as more serious than homogenital relationships in Romans 1). So Jesus calls all to repent and sin no more. The problem is not that we “Orthodox” think we are in like Flynn with Jesus because we are so good. The problem is that the apostate think they are good enough on their own merits. That is a different religion. As J. Gresham Machen argued 80 years ago using the language of Christianity, but investing the words with different meanings does not constitute Christianity. Christianity requires few things, but chief among them are the following:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen

By the way in case there is any question as to what they mean I will ask my 7 year old nephew, because I think he can figure out what this means, I didn’t need my M.Div. nor Ph.D. candidacy to figure it out, in fact they actually get in the way.

Tom,

Your statement “if he is a stand-up guy,” says you don’t know his vote anymore than the rest of us. Either you know he’s a stand -up guy or you don’t.

About applying the Synoptics to our lives, I can say that right off we would have a fundamental disagreement.  You see the Synoptics and John as contradicting each other and after years of looking I still can’t find the contradictions.  Different words, yes, contradictions no.

I also don’t think the Network orthodox have any corner on the Pharisee market.  Such a suggestion betrays a basic misunderstanding of human nature.  Everybody, reappraisers and reasserters alike, has their own battles with legalistic applications of God’s overwhelming grace.  It’s part of our fallen nature.  If you want to dig into that topic more, I would suggest Dallas Willard’s books, especially The Divine Conspiracy and Renovare, as excellent places to start.  They’re quick reads. Blessings.

To Tom Woodward:
    I was not referring to the elections of either Schori or Robinson, but the ways that TEC and its bishops have used and abused them to persecute orthodox believers in TEC, particularly those who have sought to peacably leave TEC, as you yourself have advised. Also, I am not Episcopalian. I would not touch it with a ten foot pole. I refuse to be yoked with unbelievers. I am Anglican, a member of an AMIA church. My goals are to see orthodox Anglicans join together in a separate Anglican province in the Communion, that they not be fleeced of everything that they have worked for as they abandon the sinking ship that is TEC, and that the Anglican Communion cleanse itself of the apostates and heretics that have destroyed TEC.
    You are quite right that Jesus affirms the faith of those not of the Jewish fold-but nowhere does He affirm their sins. What did He tell the woman caught in adultery? “Go, and sin no more.”
    If you think that the “Network orthodox” as you put it are in any way comparable to the Pharisees, I can only conclude that you know nothing about either group, as the similarities between them equal zero.
    You still do not understand that the debate dividing TEC is not simply about moralism, but the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith. If you do not know it by now, no amount of commentary on this blog or any other will ever convince you.
    I do not have a sufficient theological education to debate you on the fine points between the Gospels. I am a layman, not a seminary graduate. But do I understand you to deny the authority, accuracy, and authenticity of the Gospel of John? It is not difficult to come to almost any conclusion about the Scriptures you wish to if you are going to start picking and choosing which parts you accept and reject the rest. That has been done before. I believe it was called Marcionism. It has been considered heretical since the Second Century A.D.
    This is probably wasted effort, but I would suggest that you try reading the Scriptures-<i>all the scriptures</i>-with an open mind. Read them and look for the common sense, everyday meaning of the words, not the meanings that you want to find there, not the fine spun theories of theologians and philosophers. Instead of looking for the “contradictions” with a critical eye, look for the similarities with a humble one. You might be surprised at what you find there.

A sinner, saved by the Grace of God
cannyscot

Sorry, the last paragraph of my reply was cut off:

This is probably wasted effort, but I would suggest that you try reading the Scriptures-<i>all the scriptures</i>-with an open mind. Read them and look for the common sense, everyday meaning of the words, not the meanings that you want to find there, not the fine spun theories of theologians and philosophers. Instead of looking for the “contradictions” with a critical eye, look for the similarities with a humble one. You might be surprised at what you find there.

A sinner, saved by the Grace of God
cannyscot

Trying again:

This is probably wasted effort, but I would suggest that you try reading the Scriptures-all the scriptures-with an open mind. Look for the common sense, every day meaning of the words, not the meaning that you want to find or the fine spun theories of theologians and philosophers. Instead of looking for the “contradictions” with a critical eye, look for the similarities with a humble one. You might be surprised what you find there.

A sinner, saved by the Grace of God
cannyscot

Tom Woodward said, “I don’t believe it is fair to ask for something which violates our Constitution and Canons and when something is given that meets the heart of your request but stays within the C&C, to cry “foul - this isn’t exactly what I wanted.”

FAIR? Hmm. HEART OF THE REQUEST? Hmm. I think that is part of the problem. We, the majority in TEC, believe we have our “ducks in a row” and so we must be right. Fair says if we took a vote today, the traditionalists would lose. The heart of the request for a substantially different oversight for themselves was not to have an assistant coach take over and give orders for the head coach.

There are people living in a spiritual void because their faith is not in sync with the changes in the church they belong to. People are suffering spiritually. To think we can toss them a bone and be done with it is not only callous and unthinking it also so unChristlike as to be mind numbing for any who truly contemplate this from a Christian perspective.

I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t know that there is an answer. But, I believe those who are out there twisting in the wind at the very least deserve our best efforts to try to resolve this situation. Excuse me, but in this instance the rulebook be damned. Holding to the letter of Episcopal Church structure is costing too many too much. It is time to look for something innovative. Alternative Primatial Oversight just might be that something. If not that, then we need to work together to come up with something.

I know many traditionalists would have serious issues with some of my beliefs. I also know that my faith is solid, that I do not try to pick it apart. My faith is the bedrock upon which I have built my life. I believe it is the same for those who hold very traditional beliefs. I cannot try to pull one speck of belief out their faith lest the whole thing crumble for I do not know which speck is vital to them. I cannot guarantee that I could rebuild anyone’s faith. Telling someone to just suck it up and get with the program is not simply absurd it is absolutely cruel. The shepherds should not be inflicting this sort of spiritual harm on those they have been entrusted to lead and protect. It’s just that simple. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

Please consider that Mr. Woodward.

The reason I have not responded immediately to those who take issue with what I’ve written is that I don’t have time to stay online.

  As to Bishop Schofield’s vote for KJS, there are those in whom he has confided his vote. I cannot expose them. I can only attest that I believe their witness. They are friends of John David’s, not some wild liberals wanting to do him in.

  I do not believe it is the liberals or progressives who are shutting traditionalists out of the Episcopal Church. Access to the sacraments, access to voting on all levels of our governance are open. No one in the church has ever been guaranteed a Presiding Bishop with whom they will agree on all matters. The issue now is property—and that was decided a long time ago by all in the Episcopal Church. Property belongs to all the Baptized and you can’t take it away into another denomination or out of the structure of The Episcopal Church. Anyone can leave the Episcopal Church because of a dislike of the music, the color of the Prayer Book, the theology and its openness to women in ordained ministry. Not a problem. No one is making anyone stay. Bishop Schofield does not like the theology of The Episcopal Church, so he is free to be obedient to the church or to leave. He just can’t take the church with him if he leaves. Even Peter Akinola says, “The issue is spiritual - if you have to leave, leave, but don’t make it a property issue.” With that I agree with the archbishop.
Tom Woodward

We should not deceive ourselves. Tom Woodward understands perfectly well the issues that divide the Church. His team won, at least in the short term, secular world. He and the rest of his team are not going to willingly give up the power and perceived credibility of property ownership. Nothing we say will change that. It is like wrestling with a pig, you get dirty, and all it does is irritate the pig.

Katharine Jefferts Schori is certainly a Christian and was affirmed as such in her ordinations, consecration and election.

Having read every interview and sermon KJS has given since she was voted in as PB, I don’t think she is a Christian—at least not in any historic sense of the word.  I think the best assessment of her theology was inadvertently provided by the astonished NPR reporter who asked her: “What are you, a unitarian?”  To which KJS replied by changing the subject.

Based on her own words, KJS is a person who discerns some sense of divine presence in nature, and who believes that the religious experience available in all religious traditions is the way in which people attain salvation—the meaning of which she has never defined beyond the usual TEC tripe about inclusiveness.  For Christians, she believes that experience comes through Jesus.  For those in other religions, it comes through other experiences. A devout Hindu could affirm as much.

A person who summarizes their faith in this way is not a Christian.  They might be a theist in some sense.  But Christian? No, not really.

Hi Tom.  You sure spend a lot of time on line on listserv.  Tom this is about core theology and political mandates.  It is not about the color of hymnals.  Why do you think that I would remove my family from a parish I attended for 20 years?  Trust me if I did not have children or my children were in their teens, I would be on the inside trying to retain the real estate because it belongs to God not to the orthodox not to you and not to ECUSA.

William Witt hits the nail on the head. Thank you. Ms. Schori has made it plain she does not believe Jesus is the only way to the Father. Since Jesus explicity says he IS the only way to the Father, saying otherwise is calling Jesus a liar. But, then, we mustn’t let that pesky Bible get in our way, right?

Nancy, Of course you realize that Jesus saying that He is “the way, the truth and the life” is found in that contradictory Gospel of John. I guess it’s OK to ignore it then. 

Regards, Conrad

Manny Publius has done a beautiful and great job of summing up the “crust” of the matter.  I wish more of the “other” side had his heart.

What Tom Woodward and many others refuse to understand is that the issues are extremely profound to US.  Should be to Tom and the ECUSA/TEC as well.  There is more at risk than property—our eternal souls.  Thousands of Episcopalians have left the church because the stance of ECUSA/TEC is so unacceptable to them.  I know of at some who are waiting for a “home” to come back to.  The TEC has left no room at the inn for them or the rest of us.

Based on all that we know, much less can read, about Bishop Schofield, it would have been highly unlikely and out of character for him to have voted for KJS.  If you want to cite such an accusation, you should have facts to present to substantiate it.  That is why in our country the accused has the right to know his accuser.  God says multiple times in Scripture that all things will be brought out into the light.  Bishop Schofield would welcome that light.

Lee Parker - We don’t have children and if we had, we probably would have left without having the blessings of orthodox churches that we have had.  Your decision to leave for the care of the souls under you (your children and family) will be honored by God.  God has called us L2 to stay and be missionaries in the TEC/ECUSA so far .  We will obey God rather than men.

And to Chapie+  I believe I understand what you are saying, but wanted to make sure you knew that there are many high church orthodox out there—even “fundamentalist” ones. 

We pray that God will be with ALL of us especially during the next few days and months, that we ALL would set aside ourselves and and truly listen to what HE wants for HIS creation.

GrayPilgrim, if it helps, Mr. Woodward doesn’t believe the things in the last part of your comment.  The last time he commented here, dissembling and insulting as he went, was to proclaim he was just as “orthodox” as us, before denying the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  You’ve correctly seen also, as has cannyscot, that Woodward is a Marcionite heretic (at least).

You’ve already seen the baseless lie about +Schofield repeated; that’s typical of Woodward’s behavior, and, if you give him enough time, he’ll tell all of us what racists and bigots we are.

Tom Woodward says: “Anyone can leave the Episcopal Church because of a dislike of the music, the color of the Prayer Book, the theology and its openness to women in ordained ministry. Not a problem. No one is making anyone stay”.

Interesting…I don’t recall any reappraisers subscribing to that philosophy 30 years ago when they began preaching their “strange doctrine” within ECUSA.

Dear All,
In the INTERNET world of newsgroups there is an entity known as a TROLL. A TROLL sits under his bridge waiting, lurking until he finds a topic he knows that he can throw out an outlandish idea to and incite everyone. Tom is a TROLL ignore him and he will go away. Use your energy to pray for Br. Iker, Bp. Duncan, etc…

When traditional Anglicanism is characterized as “outlandish idea” you know something else is going on.

Iker, Duncan and others do not represent traditional Anglicanism but a kind of crypto-fundamentalism mixed in with neo-Puritan ideas. Gone is the comprehensiveness and respect for Biblical scholarship. If that makes me a TROLL, I am proud to wear the title.
Tom Woodward (one of few on this site who actually signs his name)

Revisionists have no problem signing their own names because unlike reasserters they won’t be harrassed and persecuted for their beliefs.

Well said, St. Anonymous. 

By the Lakeland Two - who have said who they are and where they live.

So Phil, what do we have to do in get racists and bigots response out him? He seems close, just throwing out noise pollution of ad hominem post claiming scholarship. Do we poke the proud be Troll or what?

I don’t categorize Tom as a troll. I, too, disagree with about everything he says, but I give him props for showing up here and standing in against a lot of high and tight fastballs. He knows not to expect kid-glove treatment here, but I’d like to see everyone respond to him courteously.

Biblical Scholarship is nothing more than a bunch of people pooling their ignorance. This coming from someone working on his dissertation in the OT. It is often laughable what goes for “scholarship” it has a great pedigree going back to the likes of Julius Wellhausen, who would throw in nice little barbs like “the critically assured results…” which amounts to this is what I thik and if you don’t agree with me I’ll stick my tongue out at you. It is not Fundamentalism to actually take the Bible at its Word. 

The dividing line is those who use a hermentutics of suspciion, which is ethically dubious at best, and those who use a hermeneutics of trust. While since Spinoza, Simon, LeClerc et al the intelligentsia has used a hermeneutics of suspicion when they read the Bible they rarerly do so when reading each others works unless there is personal animus between them such as between BS Childs and James Barr.

I always find it facinating when one reads some of the great exegetical work scholars such as von Rad and company can accomplish, but then because of their presupositions, i.e. in von Rad’s case that a belief in God as creator gives credence to National Socialism (see Walter Bruegemann’s intorduction to his Old Testament Theology for the bibliography on that one). The problem with Biblical Scholarship in general is that it is more about being not being made fun of every November at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. So you can trust those who put their fingers to the wind, who seek to undermine Scripture at every turn, who remove any edifying quality of the Scriptures if you choose. I will happily read and devour the Puritans, who sought to live in the way of Grace! WHo understand the nature, power and corruption of indwelling sin in the life of the believer. So that I might wage the fight that the Lord demands of us against the sin which so easily ensares us as Fallen humans.

But, but ... Phil said it would happen ... if we waited long enough ...

Okay Greg, we’ll play nicely.

I do think there are a few open threads currently on Stand Firm that are more suited to show off his “comprehensiveness and respect for Biblical scholarship” than this pastoral letter.  Though I did like the pie stuff. 

I’m not sure, Hosea, but he got around to it more than once during Matt Kennedy’s commentaries on Woodward’s “I’m as orthodox as you” column.

Tom wrote: When traditional Anglicanism is characterized as “outlandish idea” you know something else is going on.

Hey, Tom, watcha been drinkin?  If you think TEC is representative of traditional Anglicanism, you must be high.  Bp. Iker and company do indeed represent “traditional” Anglicanism.  “That faith once delivered. . . ” and not some new nonsence, feel good semi-religion without core fundamentals.  To be traditional it must be rooted in Holy Scripture.  The TEC is aspoucing a new non-traditional aproach to God.  That is our argument.

It’s always the money isn’t it Tom. When it’s all over it’s who got the red doors isn’t it Tom. It’s always whose pension you can hijack isn’t it Tom. It’s always whose health care you can cancel isn’t it Tom.

To the rest of the commentors: Why are you accomodating this pagan?  Pray for his conversion to Christianity, but drop him like a copperhead snake. He is Hell bound and can damage you more than you can imagine.
Wormwood and Screwtape live. Which is he? It’s a toss up.

Thanks L2 and you are a true example of why I hang around.  Once you step out of ECUSA for a period, clarity occurs.  IMO there are two places for the faithful.  Either one leaves and gets on with their worship or one fights for truth.  The fight might be an outside or inside one but if you stay in the denomination it must occur.  Those who stay and do not fight are quickly becoming part of it and even those who stay and fight are at risk to the vast spiritual warfare occurring inside. 

I agree that Tom is not a troll and should be treated with respect.  I also pray for him and all clergy and laity who remain in ECUSA but will not proclaim the gospel.  If I’ve learned anything in the last several years they are staying at great peril.

I decided some time ago to use my full name for one primary reason.  I do not fear anyone in ECUSA and have lost respect for most.  My faith is in our lord Jesus Christ and he will protect me from the cowardice that prevails in the denomination.  I’m sorry for the harshness of this post but its straight from the heart.

Tom,
Sorry I did not realize that you could not get my information by hitting the member list. My name is Raymond Johnson, I live in Houston, Texas in the Diocese of Texas under the lackluster pastoral non-leadership of Bishop Wimperly. I fortunately am a member of Good Shepherd in Tomball, (an hour drive from my home because everything close is revisionist) under the great rector Stan Gerber!
As for persecution by revisionists I welcome it! If I am being persecuted by a revisionist heretic it means I am doing the right thing!
I was at the Plano meeting that became the Dallas meeting in 2003. At this meeting Bishop Stephen Jecko said that they often asked new clergy “Do you look good on wood?” I don’t know if I would or not but I am willing to find out. Viva the Revolution for a Renewed Anglican Province in America!

Raymond
“I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was feed my sheep; not try experiments on my rats,
or even, teach my performing dogs new tricks.”
—C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm

Dear Tom,

You know, as well as everyone else on this thread the problems, that exist in the Communion.  It is disingenuous to indicate otherwise.  As for General Convention did it and that settles it - what about that little thing that says General Convention shall not do anything that contradicts God’s Word Written?  The orthodox have begged, literally begged, for the theology behind the “new thing” but even the best of your scholars admit that there is no doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality. 

Tom, we have had honest and frank discussions before.  Please do not drop bombshells and then expect a pass.  Your statement was that you have “documented” proof of +Schofield’s vote.  Now you say your proof is from someone who “knows.”  A word of advice - take it or leave it as you please - but if you don’t want to play hard ball, don’t throw curves.  But I agree with Greg.  We should, can and will (right SFIF group?)  respond to any commenter in Christian fashion.  Please remember that does not include pulling punches or giving passes.
Peace.

Amen St. Anonymous!

I don’t use my name here because I am an American living overseas in a unique situation where publicity doesn’t always help.  I also have a reasonably one-of-a-kind last name because my family has been Episcopalian for too many generations and my ancestors didn’t reproduce in order to save the earth, so now there are less than 20 of us in the U.S.  Fortunately, my wife and I are happily working to fix that situation.

Tom Woodward,  I also must admit that your post above where you mention what Schofield’s “friends” have confided to you only reinforces that my decision to be as anonymous as possible.  Either that was public information that could have been freely shared (including names which I notice again you didn’t include) or you broke someone’s confidence for the purpose of scoring points on this blog.  Or then again, it never happened and its still a rumor looking for ground to grow in.

Everyone else:  I also know that I shouldn’t feed trolls, especially on someone else’s meta.  But having watched Tom Woodward in action over the past few months, I didn’t and don’t consider him to be a troll.  Misdirected and twisted around theologically, yes.  Troll?  No.

Teddy Mak,

We would do better to remember Matthew 10-28:28. And we also shouldn’t assume we know the private motivations of reappraisers. They may not know it themselves. Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is always best to be charitable and assume reappraisers hold their positions honestly, if mistakenly, and their actions follow their beliefs, not from a privately held animus.

BTW I didn’t mean to imply that if any of you remain anonymous that it cowardly.  There are many reason for anonymity.

Lee Parker,

I didn’t think you implied it.  But it soure sounded like Tom Woodward did at the end of one of his recent posts.  I hope I was wrong, but its better to state my reasons than lurk around in the dark.

And that word “soure” should be “sure”

I sign my real name since I have been safely in the LCMS for 28 years!  However, I was brought up as a Episcopalian at St. Paul’s in Westfield, N.J.  Tom, what you are pushing bears very little resemblance to the faith I was taught at St. Paul’s in the 50’s and 60’s.  So from my limited experience what you state as traditional Anglicanism is anything but that.

There are two reasons I originally joined the LCMS:

1. My wife’s whole family is LCMS.  She has two uncles and a grandfather who were LCMS Pastors.
2. The doctrines, hymns, and liturgy of the LCMS matched very well with what I experienced at St. Paul’s.
3. The local Episcopal church I attended when we moved to Seattle (1978) was very flakey and bore no resemblance to St Paul’s.  It seemed to be a prime example of the results of the theology Tom represents.

Given the current state of ECUSA (TEC, etc.) I am very glad to be watching from the sidelines.

As Greg reminded us, Tom Woodward is not a troll.  Most of us disagree with him on almost everything he says but that does not make him a troll.  He is an intelligent, well read, educated indivdual.  Please treat him as such.

Tom Woodward may not be a troll, but he loves to use words like “crypto-fundamentalism” and “neo-puritanism” to describe those who disagree with him.  As I recently reminded Grannie Gloria, I only insist that people call me Dr. Witt when they use words like “fundamentalist” to refer to anyone who believes more than the Current PB.  Fr. Woodward, you may call me “Dr. Witt.”

The problem with Tom’s posts here is that he’s asserted so many false premises, and brought in so many straw men:

Access to the sacraments, access to voting on all levels of our governance are open.

Well, no. Access to the sacrament of marriage is not open to those who don’t want to get married. Indeed, it’s not open to people of the same sex who DO want to get married. Access to the sacrament of ordination is not open to those who have been denied access by their bishop. So it’s simply false to assert this premise, and imply that what naturally follows is that gays should be allowed to be married, ordained, and consecrated as bishops.

No one in the church has ever been guaranteed a Presiding Bishop with whom they will agree on all matters.

A straw man and a red herring. What Tom says is true as far as it goes, but his implication is clearly that if you disagree with your presiding bishop on sexual morality as described in Scripture; with the role of Jesus Christ in our church; indeed with the very definition of Christianity… then you have no choice but to sit down and shut up, and go with the program. This could not be less true. Liberals like to remind us that a hallmark of Anglicanism is tolerance of varying theological positions, but there is a finite range to that tolerance. It is not open on all sides. For example, it does not extend to the notion that Jesus is only one of many ways to salvation. It does not extend to the notion that the Bible teaches us that God smiles on homosexual behavior.

Surely Tom would agree that while the laws of this country require citizens to submit themselves to the authority of the government, if one day he woke up to find that the government was rounding up homosexuals and shipping them to “re-education camps,” then he wouldn’t feel patricularly bound by those laws, and he wouldn’t be find very persuasive a demand to sit down and shut up because the law requires submission to the authority of the government.

His side likes to cast this gay debate in terms of civil rights, so this concept shouldn’t be too hard for him to understand: You can’t expect folks to obey the law that they can’t sit at the lunch counter, when the reason they’re there in the first place is because there’s a law that prohibits them from sitting at the lunch counter.

C.S. Lewis wrote that “The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden—that is what the State is there for. And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a waste of time. In the same way the Church exists for no other purpose but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time.”

To many Episcopalians, and men like Bishops Duncan and Iker and Schofield, the Episcopal Church has simply become a waste of time, and worse. They believe it endangers people’s salvation. That’s why they’re not terribly concerned about the relative minutiae of the constitutions and canons.

The issue now is property—and that was decided a long time ago by all in the Episcopal Church.

Another false assertion. If that were the case, then we wouldn’t have all of these lawsiuts over property. Jon Bruno would have kept those three parishes he lost. If there is one single, true statement than can be made about property in the Episcopal Church, it is that it’s anything but a settled matter.

Property belongs to all the Baptized and you can’t take it away into another denomination or out of the structure of The Episcopal Church.

Another false statement. Tell that to Jon Bruno.

Anyone can leave the Episcopal Church because of a dislike of the music, the color of the Prayer Book, the theology and its openness to women in ordained ministry. Not a problem. No one is making anyone stay. Bishop Schofield does not like the theology of The Episcopal Church, so he is free to be obedient to the church or to leave. He just can’t take the church with him if he leaves.

What this boils down to, Tom, is your saying: Bishop Schofield can’t take diocesan property with him when he leaves. Which is ironic, coming from someone who accuses Schofield of being “all about property.” If the people in the diocese of San Joaquin want to leave, and take their property with them, why should you have a problem with that?

Why is for you revisionists, that when it comes to cannibalizing the liturgy, departing from the core tenets of Christianity, and defying the parts of the constitution and canons you don’t care for (the several diocese that have declared their intention not to abide by B033 come to mind), there’s dead silence, or mumbling about “autonomy” and “local context,” but when it comes to property, oh, we have strict rules, and they must be enforced?

If, for the revisionists, this is not about property, then what possible problem could you have if the people who want to leave the church, also want to take their property with them? Why may they take their Anglican theology and identity, but not their buildings? Who’s going to occupy them once these folks are gone? Or is it that, if they took their property, your side wouldn’t be able to swoop in, sell it, and use the money to fill in the gaps where pledges used to be?

I consider a troll to be someone who lobs a comment into a thread for the sole purpose of provoking a reaction from the regulars. An example would be someone who dives into a Linux forum and declares the supremacy of Microsoft, knowing it will provoke a firestorm. Auburn/Alabama. Michigan/Ohio State.

Tom is trying to defend a position. I think he’s unconvincing, but he’s certainly not here just to yank the chains of the regulars. Feel free to pile on, just pile on politely.

(P.S. - for all you verbose type, I just doubled the number of allowed characters in a post from 5,000 to 10,000)

Greg is right: strictly speaking, a “troll” is someone who makes incendiary comments in a forum for the sole purpose of inciting a negative reaction.  It’s immature, sociopathic behaviour.

I don’t agree with Tom Woodward, Fr. Jake et al but they don’t appear to be trolling, just expressing an opposite viewpoint.  We might wish they’d phrase things differently, but we would do well to read and analyze their arguments, the better to develop our own counter-arguments.

Well, Greg, that said:
War Eagle and Go Big Blue!  Or is it
‘round the bowl and down the hole, roll Tide roll’?

(the plainsman troll LOL)

And I , for one do appreciate Fr. Woodwqard’s remarks.  We have cross posted many times, e-mailed directly and followed him on the HobDee, and responded to him there. Fr. Jake, well I have a hard time with Fr. Martin sometimes, just following his thread, but both are good resources in this continuing debate.

Advent Blessings, all.

I wiegh in as one who lurked for quite some time until I had the nerve to actually post something and show the world all my short coming of writing (sorry my hapless victims).

First, I’ve missed all of his other posts. Not logged in, I really didn’t keep track of ‘recent comments’ thus all I have is this thread. I’m also partly going by what others said was there experieces. All due respect, they were starting to be proven right. Tom begins a debate over issue which we could disagree, but in short order his post degenerate into unsupported accusation then ad hominem attacks.

I thought the pie thing was cute. I liked it. People picked it up and used it on their own. In a short bit we get:

“Iker, Duncan and others do not represent traditional Anglicanism but a kind of crypto-fundamentalism mixed in with neo-Puritan ideas. Gone is the comprehensiveness and respect for Biblical scholarship. If that makes me a TROLL, I am proud to wear the title.”

That’s no agruement at all, just mudslinging. Im one sense I appreciate your sensitive. However even Jesus was on the case of Pharisees & Sadducees when making arguement for the sake of arguement. Recently we disagreed about a boundry of satire, but I do believe even frustrated Tom can make valid arguement and not resort to attacks. At T19 you have “Fred” and “Brian,” I disagree with both, but one is engaged in debate the other just throws stuff out there - on this thread I believe Tom moved from Brian to Fred and should be treated as such. Good arguement met with true debate, ridiculous mudslinging with ridicule.

I’m out here on Stand Firm making a fool of myself because of my dyslexia. NOT a soul has poked fun at me, included truly embarrassing posts with Jesus “concurring” instead of “conquering” death. However when in passion I make some error, I’ve been corrected.

If I can keep from name calling and mudslinging when reading a JAF Family Retreat manual and you come to “cognitive disabilities” and you read, ‘low frustration tolerance. can jump to conclusions,’ and other fun stuff that I don’t want to admit, but is true—I think Tom can share in the debate with manners. Recently ALP and everyone has a huge disagreement, but never once was more than a foot out of bounds.

The rest of you know better than I, but it seems from what I pick up that Tom starts off in debate then frustrated ends up name calling and mudslinging.

Well, I don’t know what to say, I still think the Richard Schori post was tastless, Greg & others do not, I don’t read the responsesor the “letter to ‘W’” becuase I personally think the joke was taken beyond where I want to go but others do not, so I just don’t go there. I respect and actually honored and humbled Greg & St. Anon’s defence, but I also believe there is a measure of personal responsibility on Tom—I know revissionist don’t like personal responsibility, but the Scripture do teach it.

“Well, Greg, that said:
War Eagle and Go Big Blue!  Or is it
‘round the bowl and down the hole, roll Tide roll’?

(the plainsman troll LOL) “

Actually, it is none of the above.  It is GO GATORS! Tomorrow’s SEC championship game.
I have an old man’s problem, indeed, many of them.  One is that I have a problem with people who are whizing on my back, and telling me that it is raining.  This is how I see Tom Woodward’s defense of Dr. Schori, and the her demand that we bend the knee or hit the road.  She ain’t the Pope yet!  Jim Gilmore+

Jim,
I agree, well, not about the Gator’s.  I lived and pastored for several years in High Springs, so I am well acquinted with the Gators.  Half of my congregation was USF, the other half FSU, needless to say, I never entered into scholastic discussions! 

Our liberal ECUSA diocesan leadership whizzed several times and I am now Anglican, so I understand the ‘old man’s problems’, and while we might need a Pope before it’s over, she ain’t it.

Thanks, Chip.  I understand the tension.  My youngest son went to FSU, my daughter went to USF and grad school at FSU, and my wife went to FSU and UF.  As I am an alum of UF, I am in a siege mentality during football season.  I have heard horror stories about the current ordinary of Florida.  I grew up in that diocese and it breaks my heart to see what has happened.

Tom, my brother priest now in the DRG, I am an Anglican Communion Network priest and licensed to the chapel of our ACN Bishop Steenson. I chose this because of my convictions.

If even one of us in the ACN listens to you respectfully and doesn’t attack you personally, but like Greg, Lee, Matt, Sarah, Jackie and others, please stop the broad stroke attacks against the ACN and speak to a specific behavior or position. We all know how to do that –well, most of us here do. 

I’ve seen you treat people writing in public places that hold a view on their relationship with Christ that you think is ‘off kilter due to being a new faith’ with so much good pastoral sensitivity. I’ve commended you for it face to face. There are many of that person’s brothers and sisters here. I am one of them.

You treat me and other ACN clergy in our diocese differently than you do people on this blog. Perhaps it is that we took the time first at Convocation last year and this to intentionally listen, talk, eat, laugh and worship with each other. Perhaps it was at clergy conference and our personal time of late night fellowship while I was reading and posting on SF and you were finishing your book. Most of the people here are just like us, comitted with set world views.

To use an old term, we ‘witnessed” to each other.

I found a priest who loves God and man. I confirmed for me that I don’t agree with you on much of what you hold about TEC and I believe about ECUSA. I found a man who prays and I asked and have continued to ask and respect your commitment to pray for my beloved with her health problems. I know you do. I found a person marked as Christ’s own forever. I may think you’re almost a maverick, but you still have the brand! I don’t know what this means for the long term, but we’ll probably be in different pastures before this is all over.

I sometimes forget and get triangled, so, I don’t post on our epidioriogrande site on the issues anymore because almost all the minds posting there are made up. That’s true of the minds of most of the posters here as well. It’s treating each person with the respect and care that Christ and our bishop treats each person that I seek to live wherever I am. Blogs are easy places to forget that intention.

The gulf exists and is ever widening between our basic worldviews. Yet, I maintain the hope that by seeking the grace of our Lord to shape my life more like His, and to be transformed more into His image so that when we write now, or talk tomorrow or need to pray for anyone that ask for my prayer and care, I will serve as I write or talk with the care of my Lord Jesus.

SFer’s, Tom Woodward is more than you know. He is not a troll. He is a pastoral priest who believes what he believes just as sincerely as we do. Don’t let anything Tom says pass that you believe is not accurate or fair. Pray before you post. Let’s hope that when this is all over, while some of us will still disagree and be in separate camps . . .some of us will still be able to remain friends.

Mr Maxwell:

I can not speak for anyone else, but I do not believe that my commentary here has been anything other than respectful of Mr. Woodward. I have not accused him of being a “troll”-totally wrong and misguided, but not a “troll” or any other abusive term. Wrong beliefs sincerely held are none the less sincerely wrong. What I received in reply is not a discussion of the points raised but a sideways insinuation that I am a coward because I have not used my name. I use the name “cannyscot” as a convenience and because I happen to have some Scottish ancestry I am fond of. Mr. Woodward’s personal attacks are simply a manifest sign of the total bankruptcy of his indefensible opinions. I believe the following is attributed to the Roman orator Cicero:  “If you have no basis for argument, abuse your opponent.” Mr. Woodward, I am not afraid to use my name-I have said nothing here that I am ashamed of. If it makes you happy, here it is.

James P. Sartain, Jr., Esquire
Attorney at Law
Chattanooga, Tennessee

P.S. Mr. Woodward is not the only intelligent, well educated man posting on this site.

There is still the outstanding issue of the fact that Woodward claimed +Schofield’s vote was “well documented”, then only said he had heard it from anonymous sources.  Not a troll, but not entirely honorable, either.

I had no one else in mind as I was writing to Tom for most of my post. His statements, beliefs and posting are his responsibility to back up, take back or clarify. I think he’s 180 deg off on lots of things! He believes the same of me. I also know him a lot better than two years ago. Tom is more than his writing, as are we all.

Speaking to us regulars, I wrote this:
SFer’s, Tom Woodward is more than you know. He is not a troll. He is a pastoral priest who believes what he believes just as sincerely as we do. Don’t let anything Tom says pass that you believe is not accurate or fair. Pray before you post. Let’s hope that when this is all over, while some of us will still disagree and be in separate camps . . .some of us will still be able to remain friends.

A point of clarification: I did not mean to imply that anyone is a coward for not posting his or her name along with a response. I noted that it was curious that very, very few did. Take it for what it is worth.
Don’t worry: I am fully orthodox. There is more than one way to be fully orthodox and I am well within the camp as are most, but not all on the list. My beliefs are well known throughout the church and I have been published often by various official organs of The Episcopal Church and Roman Catholic Church on matters of liturgy, theology, ethics and Christian education. Some of you were probably raised on some of the materials I wrote!!
  Third, don’t take or reject my word for it. Write to Bishop Schofield and ask about his vote for Presiding Bishop. Whatever I tell you will not make a difference. I suppose if I provided a videotape you would say it is faked.
  Lastly, I take the Scriptures as seriously as any of you do. We come at Scripture from different places—but I firmly believe that Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation and that God is revealed in Scripture, most powerfully in the Scriptural witness to the life and continuing resurrected presence of Jesus Christ in the world/universe/galaxies.
  I am on the Board of The Episcopal Majority. You can catch me there, despite Matt Kennedy’s warning you off. We may be different sorts of Christians, but we all belong to the Lord Jesus. It really is OK if we disagree on things.
  Sorry I haven’t responded to every invitation—I will catch up when I can.
Tom, the Troll, Woodward

The Griz has said the ecusa is orthodox.  TBWSF , are you fully orthodox in that kind of way?

I do not believe it is the liberals or progressives who are shutting traditionalists out of the Episcopal Church. Access to the sacraments, access to voting on all levels of our governance are open. No one in the church has ever been guaranteed a Presiding Bishop with whom they will agree on all matters. The issue now is property—and that was decided a long time ago by all in the Episcopal Church. Property belongs to all the Baptized and you can’t take it away into another denomination or out of the structure of The Episcopal Church.

Tom, I would suggest you are wrong. TEC GC 1997 indeed tried to shut some of us out. They decreed that anyone objecting to WO should not hold an office. They sent out task forces to whup up on the bishops who resisted it. I am always amazed that the liberal left is always dependent on their “worship” of C&C at the expense of focus on scripture and the Gospel message. The “vote” you seem so allied to is a political process foriegn to the spirit of the church catholic.
It’s a damned shame that the timing of the American Revolution influenced the remnants of the English church to adopt a democratic polity and thereby endanger the church catholic. The bicameral mimicry of the new government was pathetic. Giving the laity and priests a vote on electing Bishops has been a subtle form of self-poisoning. Just took a couple of hundred of years to play out.
The vast majority of Christianity (Rome and the Orthodox) have it right. As do most of the Anglicans. We - the democrats of the West- have strayed.

I want to respond to my friend, Bob Maxwell, and to all on this list. I apologize for name calling—especially in lumping a lot of people together in what should have been directed towards a few (though without the generalizations). As I wrote Fr. Maxwell, off list, I have the greatest respect for him, for Bishop Jeffrey Steenson and so many others in the Anglican Church Network. They are among the best in the Episcopal Church. My own frustration and anger are really towards a few who I believe are more interested in their own grab for power at the expense of the people they serve. I will be judicious in the future—and I will always address Dr. Witt by name when I speak of him (another person for whom I have great respect even though we have much upon which we disagree (and, of course, much much more on which we agree)).
  I post here from time to time because I think you deserve a progressive in your midst once in a while. While we may disagree on some matters (most of you believe John 14.6 is doctrinal, I believe we cannot limit God’s grace and love and find Jesus testifying to that over and over again), we agree on almost everything else in doctrine, worship and living out God’s love in the world.  I am very grateful for the kindness of so many of you (I was touched, as usual, by Jackie’s kindness earlier today) and hope that you all can search out my intentions in engaging you.
  One last, minor thing, to correct something severl posts ago. Regarding the Pension Fund, those leaving the Episcopal Church do not lose their pensions. They are vested. I would fight any change in that.
Tom

Fr. Woodward wrote:

While we may disagree on some matters (most of you believe John 14.6 is doctrinal, I believe we cannot limit God’s grace and love and find Jesus testifying to that over and over again)...

Fr. Woodward, if you believe what Jesus says about God’s love and grace, why don’t you accept it when he says that no-one comes to the Father except by him?

As many NT scholars have noted, there is a different quality of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the synoptic (M,M,L) and in John’s Gospel. The latter are often seen as the Church’s reflection of their understanding of the Risen Christ.
Jesus’ witness in MML is that there are those outside the fold whose faith is sufficient. That occurs with the Centurion, the Syro-Phoenician woman, his parable of the Good Samaritan, and on and on.
  The Church’s testimony is that for us there is no access to the Father except through Jesus Christ. That is my own understanding as well. We can not legislate what God will or will not do—and, as I have noted before, Paul assumes a continuing relationship of the Jews as the people of God, whose access to the Father is not through Jesus Christ. The church has consistently refused to limit God’s action and being through its doctrine.
Tom Woodward

RE: “As many NT scholars have noted, there is a different quality of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the synoptic (M,M,L) and in John’s Gospel.”

And as many other NT scholars have noted, the documentary hypothesis is utter claptrap, coming to its full, er, “fruition” in the Jesus Seminar’s assertions about which ones of the “Jesus sayings” were historic and which not.

We’ve had this discussion about Tom Woodward’s “orthodoxy” on another thread.  He’s as “orthodox” on this thread as he was on the other.

Tom Woodward’s “orthodoxy” directly contradicts the orthodoxy of the Christian gospel, with utterly opposing beliefs and foundational worldviews.

So there are only a few options.  Either *both* orthodoxies are “not orthodox”.  Or one of them is, and the other is not.

Fr Woodward said:

The Church’s testimony is that for us there is no access to the Father except through Jesus Christ. That is my own understanding as well.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you said in the previous post. What did you mean by contrasting your position with a belief that John 14:6 is doctrinal, if you didn’t mean that there is access to the Father other than through Christ?

The language used is sometimes quite orthodox- the problem is that it is nearly impossible to figure out what the speaker/writer actually means when using said language.

One example of this is the language about the Virgin Birth used by some reappraisers. I think both ALP and Tom have stated here that they assented to this part of the credo, but at the same time they don’t believe Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived or born. The nearest I can figure is they hold some sort of metaphorical view that probably has more in common with Joseph Campbell’s writings than orthodox Christian theology. (Of course, if either of you are reading, do correct me on any mistaken assumptions I have about your views).

I could give many other examples. Such as, the way the creeds are parsed by some. For example. the emphasis placed on ‘we believe’, in the sense that the church has historically affirmed the credo, but not necessarily individual reciting the words. Another, promoted by Marcus Borg I believe, parses the latin word for ‘believe’ as having to do with the heart, so one might cherish the words without intellectually assenting to them.

The language used by many reappraisers appears orthodox, but the semantic contents have often been gutted and shifted to something else. If I am to trust a priest with the pastoral care of me and my family, I don’t want them hiding their true theological views behind a smokescreen of familiar words.

Tom Woodward sounds like another “Orthodox” person.  Can you say, “pluriform truths? Jim Gilmore+

Jim+, what do you mean by “pluriform truths?” The word is not in the dictionary.
Sometimes truth can be paradoxical. Some times two contradictory thngs can both be true, as with wave and particle theory in physics.
Some of the truth we both believe seems on the face of it to be impossible, as the Chalcedonian description of the Person of Jesus Christ as fully human and fully divine.
I find most people on SFIF uncomfortable with any notion that there may be more than one interpretation of the meaning of a Biblical event or a saying of Jesus—an odd stance given the experience of the Christian church over the past several centuries.

  To clarify an issue: I did say that Jesus encountered several people who he affirmed as having sufficient faith, though it was unrelated to him or belief in him. That’s in the Scripture. He seems to be saying that there are avenues for some to the Father which are independent from belief in him. All I am saying is, “There it is—in black and white (unless you have a red letter edition of Christian Scriptures, then it is in red, black and white).” In these various encounters Jesus SEEMS to contradict what is attributed to him in John 14.6. That is not a problem for me: it seems to be a real problem for many who have responded to me.

Are any of you aware of an official church doctrine which enshrines belief in a literal interpretation of John 14.6 as necessary for salvation?
Do any of you believe, without the slightest of doubts, that the marytrs of the Holocaust, such luminaries as Martin Buber and Abraham Heschell, and the Holy Innocents and their brothers and sisters through the ages slaughtered before their age of reason are excluded from an eternal destiny with the Father?
I am not mocking you, but interested in the content of your faith and belief. I don’t think it does to fudge by holding out some form of Purgatory or Limbo where the dead get a second chance.
Tom Woodward

Fr Woodward wrote:<blockquote>To clarify an issue: I did say that Jesus encountered several people who he affirmed as having sufficient faith, though it was unrelated to him or belief in him. That’s in the scripture. He seems to be saying that there are avenues for some to the Father which are independent from belief in him. </blockquote>

Specifically, where does Jesus say that, and to whom?

Just surfing around, and my oh my, I see that Old Wormwood Woodward is still “trolling” for suckers. Getting in arguements or exchanges with him (and his boss Screwtape) is dangerous business for the gullible. He can and will damage your faith, figuratively taking it over like he does these threads. What? you thought They had horns and hooves? Sorry. Most of them look like someone’s kindly old Grand Paw. They’ll give you a spoonfull of rhetorical sugar just to make the poison go down. 
It’s not PC to believe there are organized evil spiritual intelligences out there preying on the unaware. What the heck, it is kind of fun watching them from the sidelines as they work on their sophistries with their “patients.” They slip up a lot, being who they really are. Every now and then the mask slips and what they are really about pops out. i.e. “If you don’t like what we are doing with the Church, just leave. Oh and leave the checkbook and the buildings of course.” Paraphrase of Wormwood W.‘s advice to us earlier on.

Oh well, carry on kiddies. Don’t burn your fingers.

Reading the various comments of Mr. Woodward puts me in mind of my ex-wife.

Despite all factual evidence you might have in your favor, you could never win an argument with her, either.

That’s one of the reasons she’s now my ex-wife.

Get the point, ++Rowan?

Karen, Jesus told the woman who touched his garment, “Your faith has made you whole”....  OK

What “faith” was that?

IMHO, it was faith in Christ, as Redeemer, and Saviour… Trying to twist it to make it sound like she might be “just a Jew”, or a muslim, or any other “religion”, or maybe just a deist, is a trick! 

Its most amazing at the twisting of Scripture that goes on under the guise of “scholarship”...

Grannie Gloria

I believe Tom Woodward is referring to Romans 11:26 and 27 where Paul discusses Israel’s salvation.  As with all revisionist theory, it takes a bit of mental gymnastics to understand.

And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
  “The deliverer will come from Zion;
    he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is my covenant with them
    when I take away their sins.”

I may be incorrect in my assessment here but I believe Tom’s interpretation is weak in that he appears to be disregarding verse 23:

And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Now I don’t even pretend to know how God will redeem His chosen nation, Israel.  Maybe they will be allowed a moment of clarity a split second before dying.  That is not my business to know.  I am only a member of the grafted in.  But I do know that the redemption will include their abandoning their unbelief. 
Matt or Bill Witt or one of our more theologically trained readers can probably shed much more clarity on these verses than I.

RE: “Jim+, what do you mean by “pluriform truths?” The word is not in the dictionary.”

All good Episcopalians know what “pluriform truths” is.  It’s the favorite phrase of our beloved Dear Leader [ex] Bishop Griswold.  It means that if he says it long enough, the two utterly contradictory, opposing versions of the gospel that are currently duking it out within one organization may someday meet on the plains of the Sufi Rumi beyond good and evil. If he says it enough, maybe at least the moderates in the church will all squeeze their eyes shut and “Imagine” a place where contradictory “truths” can all hang out together in happy oblivion of the laws of logic and consistency—except, of course, when it comes to the Utter Consistency and One Interpretation that All Must Have with regards to that sacred text—Canon Law.  *That* we can all interpret perfectly and in lockstep uniformity.  *That* is where “words mean things”.  But the scripture? 

Nah . . .

RE: “I find most people on SFIF uncomfortable with any notion that there may be more than one interpretation of the meaning of a Biblical event or a saying of Jesus—an odd stance given the experience of the Christian church over the past several centuries.”

No, the orthodox merely recognize certain interpretations of scripture as false and therefore heretical.  Not uncomfortable—just making judgement calls about interpretations of scripture.  The Christian church has always made those judgement calls over the centuries and will no doubt continue to do so.

RE: “In these various encounters Jesus SEEMS to contradict what is attributed to him in John 14.6. That is not a problem for me: it seems to be a real problem for many who have responded to me.”

Well, it’s not a problem for those who don’t think that those various encounters with Jesus are at all contradictory to John 14:6.

So contradictions that Tom Woodward perceives are not important to Tom Woodward.  But why should that bother us, when we don’t see the contradictions that Tom Woodward sees [and hopes that others see in order to add weight to his notion of the Bible as a patchwork quilt of somewhat truthful, somewhat non-truthful, somewhat historic, and somewhat non-historic “sayings” by various and sundry writers and mythologizers].

Sarah, clearely stated, IMO! My not seeing the contradictions in the Scriptures like those that Tom mentioned was very difficult for Worthy Opponents on the Epidioriogrande Yahoo Group to handle. I would not be baited into the trap of invitations like ‘just accept that there are contradictions and tell us how you would argue against them or why they might be truly contradictions.’ That’s what it appeared to be to me.

Having thought it through and inhaled of such heady fumes too many times in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, I decided over 25 years ago to just say, ‘Thank you but no, thank you,’ to such ‘dialogues.’