Has the Episcopal Church really been “Falsely Accused”? Part 1

One of our GC deputies is trumpeting the victory of “moderates” over “both extremes” at Columbus…but this same deputy, at a pre-GenCon meeting, referred to the reasserters/Windsor Compliant wing of the church as Nazis (he didn’t use that word…he just said that “Those people sit around singing Deutschland ueber alles.”)

Now, I can tell you for a fact that he isn’t calling the reappraisers “commies” or the LGBT by any derogatory street terms.  The equity just isn’t there, as shown in Matt’s initial comments and evidence.  The “moderates”, as Brad Drell pointed out the other day, tend to be institutional reappraisers.  Ultimately, they and the secessionist “TEC” reappraisers hold the same values, and are simply arguing over timing and legalities.  Both detest the orthodox.

As I said on Fr. Jake’s blog when he posted this, it’s an important topic.  Thank you for choosing to expand on it, Matt.

I second Phil’s emotion. Whatever one might think about the refuation part of Tom’s piece, we should be appreciative of his efforts at trying to hear what we’ve been saying.  By no means is his work done (as I wrote over at Jake’s Place), but it is a postive step.

I remember reading about Miroslov Wolf’s talk (maybe someone else) at a House of Bishops meeting where he encouraged each bishop to try to look upon him/herself from the perspective of the “other.”  In other words, how does my [worthy] opponent view me?  Then, I can begin to explain why his/her view is mistaken (or maybe dead on given the situation).

I think Tom’s piece is his attempt at trying to view the liberal side from the conservative perspective and explain why our understanding is mistaken.  It ain’t perfect, but it is a start.  I hope we can respond accordingly and keep this conversation going. 

I look forward to Matt’s further comments.

Father Matt:

Awesome and necessary.  If we are not clear on the theology of those being described as ‘moderate’, we run the risk of joining them in a convenient solution that really only realigns for the short-term and misses the Reformation we so dearly need for this church (and our hearts).

Moderate = Lukewarm ?

Very good point, Matt.

I would go further and say a church that truly holds to and guards the faith will not tolerate heretics such as Spong, Swing, Pike et al retaining their bishoprics.

When ECUSA failed to discipline Spong is when I wrote it off.  And that was well before I had any interest in Anglicanism.

Compare the volumes of rejection of Biblical and Christian tradition by Bp’s Spong and contrast with these words by a well known Baptist:‘Christian orthodoxy is properly defined in the context of a tradition determined by the continuity of essential doctrine,traced through a long line of theologians and saints,guaranteed through the Holy Spirit.We cannot approach the Scriptures as though the council of Nicea never met,as though Augustine and Aquinas never wrote,as though Luther never preached.While Scripture is our authoritative source,tradition acts as an authoritative guide to biblical interpretation.
Nor is orthodoxy uniquely Protestant or Catholic-or Orthodox.It is,instead,what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity”:that which was received from our fathers;that which was outlined in the earliest creeds and rules of faith;and that which is preserved-if not observed-in every major tradition of the church.’ Charles Colson

Methinks the ‘good’ bishop doesn’t even ‘get’ truth that a Watergate conspirator ‘gets’ and proclaims.

Matt

as you well know the church has not been “accused”

ECUSA has been judged and found to have “departed from the faith once delivered”

ECUSA has been suspended from the communion.

ECUSA was given a chance to present its defense

ECUSA’s statement was found so insulting it was almost thrown out immediately - but a a compromise it was granted until GC2006

ECUSA’s GC2006 dissolved into a farce, and then it elected someone who is unacceptable almost everywhere else in the communion

ECUSA is no longer Christian.  May its judgement come swiftly!

Sinner,

As you might have realized, had you cared to read the article, the word “accused” did not originate with me but with Fr. Woodward. I am responding to his article

Why O why Matt?  Because there were few men in ECUSA in the first place and only one or two left now.  Men have not and will not lead in the church. In my 20 years in the denomination I have never understood this dynamic.

“When ECUSA failed to discipline Spong is when I wrote it off.  And that was well before I had any interest in Anglicanism.”  Newbie this is a very interesting comment.  Did you get involved in Anglicanism after you realized the problems?

Lee, I’m genuinely tired at the moment so I’ll give a short answer: yes, I was aware of the problems when I became Anglican.  I did join a continuing Anglican church, however, albeit with the hope that we would eventually become part of something bigger . . . which seems to now be happening.

Sinner - Your laments are getting tiresome.  We think we have your message now.  No need for anymore such posts.  We’ll simply imagine its there.  Really give your hands a rest.

” On Wednesday, September 6, join us for Thinking Outside the Box from 7-8:30 p.m. in the Armour Room to discuss The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to More Contemporary Faith by Marcus Borg. The book is available at Missions Possible Book Store and there are two copies in our CHS library that can be borrowed. “

This is from our weekly church bulletin, no formal bible study offered this fall - but plenty of this doctrine on the calendar .....

Sorry to hear that Illiois Mom.Maybe they should try Your God Is Too Small or Ring Of Truth by J.B. Phillips,or vishnu forbid ,the Phillips NT,he was actually an Anglican Priest.

Matt,
  I would welcome sincere dialogue on the piece I wrote for Episcopal Majority. What I have read so far in your response is your throwing around some invectives without substantive engagement of the issues.
  You do not reflect well on Stand Firm with remarks such as your: “Fr. Woodward seeks to disabuse his readers of the notion that he and his fellow travellers in the Episcopal Church have led the Episcopal Church into heresy/apostasy.”
  “Fellow travellers” is, of course, one of the catch phrases used by Joe McCarthy for smearing those he wanted to destroy. I assume you will retract that phrase. I assume your readers respond more positively to content rather than random smears. Let’s engage one another with our best, not our worst.
Thomas B. Woodward

Fr. Woodward,

Thanks for the response.

There is no “invective” in this introductory article and no more rhetorical flare than may be found in your piece, especially in your (mis) charactarizations of the ACN ACC and CoN.

I think perhaps you sense that I am engaging in “name-calling” when i use words like “heretic.”

The problem is that the word, like the word apostate, does have objective content and, at least as far as I understood, your article is an apologetic aimed at denying that these two words apply generally to the “leaders of the Episcopal Church.”

Since I think they do, and will be arguing to counter your apologetic, it is not at all out of bounds for me to employ them in reference to the people in question and their teachings.

As for the “fellow travellers” comment, I was not alive during the McCarthy era and, of course, I do not think you are communists. I do think the contemporary teachings of the Episcopal Church serve to subvert the Truth of the gospel and undermine the true Church in that sense perhaps, “fellow travellers” is quite correct.

PS. I also would welcome an exchange with you respecting these issues.

Matt,
  Thank you for your irenic response. I will respond later to your article and will post your article and my responses on my own blog:
http://www.turningthingsupsidedown.blogspot.com.

    I agree that “heretic” and “apostate” have specific meanings. You and others are always free to bring presentments against any leader of The Episcopal Church with documentation of the charges of heresy or apostasy. Other than your concern that too many Episcopalians find John Spong and Marcus Borg interesting to read, I do not find anything tying the leaders in TEC to either charge. Likewise, in the ACN production of “Choose This Day” those words were thrown around with abandon, but without any reference to statements or documents. Calling someone a heretic without any basis in what they have held over against settled teaching of TEC is just name-calling, nothing else.
Thomas B. Woodward

Certainly Tom. This article, as I mentioned in my first paragraph, is a “first installment”, an introduction to what will be a series of responses. Of course I will endeavor to present far more than assertions but evidence from the words and actions of the church in question and her leaders.

As for presentments, this is perhaps the problem. After the Righter trial no one is under any delusions with regard to how far a presentment of Spong or Robinson or Swing or any of the other false teachers in ECUSA would go. They would fail because the institution as a whole has been undermined by heretics and those who sympathise with their teachings.

The fact that Spong promotes and proclaims the ideas contained in his 12 Theses with utter impunity, without ever being called to trial by the “moderate” leadership of the Church while someone like +Schofield is both charged & widely condemned by those same leaders is a travesty itself.

One reason we are looking at a church split is precisely because the disciplinary avenue of presentment is no longer a realistic option.

The temptation to respond here is almost irresistible, but space and time forbid writing the thirty-page broadside that would likely result, so a few summary points.

1) The word “moderate” is theologically meaningless since it is not a theological category.  From a theological point of view, the only center with which Christians should be concerned is Christ.  If GC proclaimed the gospel, then it is “moderate.”  Otherwise, it is apostate. 

Theologically, the choice is between (a) an understanding of the person and work of Christ as constitutive of salvation, and the teaching of Scripture as constitutive for our understanding of salvation, including both normative beliefs and practices;(b) an understanding of the person and work of Christ as illustrative of a salvation we can find elsewhere as well, and the teaching of Scripture as illustrative of general truths we can learn elsewhere as well.

For (a) Scripture stands over against and corrects culture; For (b) general truths (things we “already know”) learned from contemporary culture can and do correct the culturally-bound limitations of Scripture. (There’s an irony here in presuming that contemporary culture is infallible, while previous cultures are temporally short-sighted.)

There is no third “moderate” possibility here.  One embraces either (a) or (b).

What GC proclaimed was, among other things, the millenium goals.  The new PB has consistently steered conversation away from the centrality of Christ toward goals of social change.  It is clear that GC embraced (b).

2) The word “moderate” is intellectually vacuous because it addresses issues in terms of a sliding continuum rather than in terms of substantive agreement or disagreement.  Because those who hold any opinion can always find those who agree or disagree more strongly than they do, the winners in a political victory can always identify themselves as moderate.  If TEC compares itself with the current state of TEC, it is moderate by definition.  If TEC compares itself with the church catholic, it has embraced an extreme.

3) In terms of the controveted issue at hand (the blessing of same-sex unions) the law of excluded middle forbids there to be a moderate position.  One is either for SSU or one is not.  What those who call themselves moderate usually mean is one of two things.  Either they approve of SSU but unlike Spong believe more of the items of the creed than he does. IOW, they’re not yet atheists, and they’re not saying whether they’re unitarians. Or they approve of SSU but they think those who don’t shouldn’t make a big deal of it.  But this simply begs the question.  It assumes without argumentaton that approving of SSU is a moderate position, despite its clear prohbition in Scripture, and its rejection (until recently) by the entire Christian tradition, and its continual rejection by the vast majority of Christians—Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protetant.

4) A third possibility would be to say that SSU is an issue that should be left open and undecided by the church.  Before GC 2003, this was where things stood.  There was an official teaching (disapproval of SSU) but those who disagreed were not penalized.  With the consecration of Gene Robinson, SSU become the official theology of TEC, and those who disagreed have been penalized.  The Windsor Report actually represented an attempt to put things back to status quo ante.  WR officially declined to take a stance on SSU, but it did insist that ECUSA had acted wrongly in approving SSU without providing theological substantiation, and without acting in concert with the Anglican Communion. (Because it did not affirm clearly the historic teaching of Scripture and the Church, many of the orthodox—including myself—were not satisfied with Windor). If there were such a thing as a moderate position, it would have been represented by WR.  ECUSA was given the opportunity at GC to display its moderation by affirming Windsor.  It refused to do so.  Instead, it chose to separate itself from the Anglican Communion.

QED: GC06 was anything but moderate.

Matt,
In the Righter trial, the court found that no “core doctrine” had been violated. What the Episcopal Church teaches as core doctrine can be found in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds as well as in The Book of Common Prayer and in our Constitution and Canons. If you can find core doctrine there which you believe Bishop Righter should have been convicted, I would like to see it.

The matter of the denial of the resurrection of Jesus or of the doctrine of the incarnation, etc. is a different matter altogether. I do not know anyone, liberal, moderate or conservative who would deny those are core doctrines. Knowing what I know about the process involved in bringing presentments, the disciplinary avenue of presentments is a realistic option.

The matter with David Scofield is quite another matter. The charge there is that he and the Convention of his diocese, by virtue of their declaring themselves not bound by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church have, in fact, left the Episcopal Church. That has to do the with authority of our Constitution and Canons. I believe all +David has to do is to write a letter to the House of Bishops stating that he disassociates himself from the actions of his Diocesan Convention—then he is off the hook.

The problem when someone declares himself or herself not bound by the Constitution and Canons or the official actions of General Convention is that those acts, per se, are indications that one has left The Episcopal Church. I believe the Diocese of San Joachin and +David received some very, very bad legal advice. However, if it is their intention to remain in TEC, they can escape any consequences from their previous actions with a simple letter disassociating themselves from that action.

John Spong has never pretended to speak for TEC in his controversial statements and books: he is speaking to outsiders and to non-Christians. Even so, I know of no one who considers him speaking for TEC—its liberal, moderate or conservative wings. I also do not know of anyone whose faith has been destroyed by +John’s teaching or preaching.

The charge that Jack Spong speaks for the progressive side of the Episcopal Church is equivalent to holding that Fred Phelps speaks for those who refer to themselves as “orthodox.” I don’t have to repudiate Jack Spong because he is not speaking for me, but to me. I don’t know where you stand with Bishop Iker. He certainly stands on the fringes of traditional, orthodox Anglicanism, but he is not speaking for all conservatives and while some of what he stands for is offensive to many Episcopalians, he is not violating core doctrine. He is part of my church as is Bishop Spong—that is who we have been through the ages and will be in the future. Fred Phelps is not a member of The Episcopal Church (for your information, he used to be a very effective civil rights lawyer before he went over the edge. He represented me and 114 students at the University of Kansas in a civil rights case in 1985—if you doubt my credentials across the board, I have helped to found four Integrity Chapters around the country AND I was featured on Phelp’s web site as “Shame on you Gale Sayers (my cellmate who later became an NFL superstar with the Chicago Bears) and Thank You, Tom Woodward”). Again, for what it’s worth, last month my wife and I hosted the former Chief of Police of Berkeley, California (he was chief of police during the whole of the 1960’s in Berkeley. He told me that Fred Phelps (again, of http://www.godhatesfags.com) served his police force in the late 50’s, just before going to law school. I give this to you as a scoop.
with respect,
Tom Woodward

Dear Mr. Witt,

Thank you for a helpful response. As you would expect, I have some quibbles and disagreements with much of what you write. I would urge you to reread H. Richard Niebuhr’s “Christ and Culture” for the several relationships between Christian doctrine and experience and Culture. It is not an “either/or,” or “a” or “b” but seven different traditions, each with support in Scripture and in history/tradition.

Also,with SSU (a new acronym, for me)it is not a simple yes or no, just as with traditional marriage between a man and a woman, it is never a simple yes or no. When clergy make decisions about whether or not to offiate at a wedding, they (should) explore several issues with the couple, including some kind of informal review of the presence of the Holy Spirit in their relationship (see Galatians 5). It is not enough that they are male and female—concerns about spiritual maturity, emotional maturity, their commitment to absolute fidelity in the marriage, etc. are key. No one in TEC advocating the blessing of SSUs would consider such without raising the same questions. I believe the justification, in either setting, is that we clergy will bless only what we believe God has already blessed. I, for one, would never bless a tank, battleship or fox hunt.
Blessings,
Tom Woodward

TBWSF,

No time to comment at length, as I am in the middle of sermon prep. Two short notes.

1. Can you imagine any orthodox bishop inviting Fred Phelps to speak to the clergy of his diocese for a clergy training day? What do you think would happen to that bishop? Would he EVER be elected PB? Of course not. Ideas have consequences no proper shepherd would ever allow a heretic like Phelps anywhere near his sheep.

And yet +Schori herself invited Spong to speak to her clergy at just such a forum. Again, ideas have consequences. What sort of shepherd allows a wolf like Spong himself equiped with a shepherd’s crook and a collar into his or her diocese to preach destructive heresies to your sheep? Like I said, Borg is a rock star in ECUSA and Spong is a close second. Phelps is universally condemned in conservative circles and had he been bishop, the orthodox bishops would have signed the presentment themselves.

Again, why is there no moderate action against false teachers like Spong who deny the resurrection?

As I will show, the problem is that false teaching has corrupted the Church as a whole.

2. Heresy is not defined by the canons and constitution of the Episcopal Church nor is it defined by the prayerbook. Heresy is the rejection or denial of essential Christian doctrine. As Hooker pointed out so long ago, doctrine is determined 1. first by what the scriptures plainly deliver 2. (within the limits the scriptures define) the tradition of the church and 3. godly reason informed by scripture and tradition.

The Church cannot on the basis of tradition or reason act in a why that the scriptures clearly forbid, for to do so is heresy and spiritual apostasy.

“I would urge you to reread H. Richard Niebuhr’s “Christ and Culture” for the several relationships between Christian doctrine and experience and Culture”

As much as I admire H. Richard Niebuhr, I regard Christ and Culture as a virtually useless work.  The Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder summed up its central weakness properly when he commented that he had never heard anyone who’d read the book who did not say that their own model was Niebuhr’s “Christ transforming culture.”  Just like everyone claims to be a moderate.

The essential problem with Niebuhr’s categories is that they are not theological.They do not derive from the subject matter of revelation—there is no analysis of what Scripture teaches at all. Certainly there is no reflection on Jesus. They simply reflect various abstract possibilities about how Christians might respond to culture.  In that sense, the book could have been entitled Religion and Culture or Jews and Culture or even Atheism and Culture.

And, of course, this exemplies TEC’s current problem.  Rather than asking what Scripture actually says about SSU, the starting point is various abstractions borrowed from the dominant culture—love, justice, inclusion, diversity.  TEC then reinterprets Scripture in light of those abstractions, and declares, lo and behold, “We value Scripture too.”

If one of Niebuhr’s models did apply in the current discussion, he would say that TEC had embraced the “Christ of culture.”  But again, the categories are enirely inadequate.  Christian ethics must be informed theologically by the subject matter of Scripture.

Besides, I don’t believe Niebuhr was suggesting that the purpose of the book was to give Christians clear options from which to choose the most comfortable.  If I remember, he did suggest the two (wasn’t it from 5?) most likely in his opinion to be faithful to the Christian mission.

But it was and still is helpful, WW, in order to help Christians see how far away from the radical message of Jesus the Church could (choose to) fall.

Tom,
I’m not sure if you meant it in any other way than suggesting you were familiar with the bishop before he became a bishop, but I’ll just take the opportunity here and remind folks that the name thing with him is the same with how people have been reminded about our PB-elect’s name, +Katharine, or +Jefferts Schori, or the whole thing (Matt).  Similarly, +John-David, or +Schofield, or +John-David S-c-h-o-f-i-e-l-d (Tom).  He took on the name “John” at consecration and chooses to ask that he be recognized in such manner at least in public forums.  And, (peeve time) geez, Tom, it is “San Joaquin.”

As well, you have rehearsed allegations re: DSJ constitutional amendments that go beyond their purpose, meaning and intent.  You should go back, read what the constitution says, and then amend your comment.

Dear Rob+,

Thank you for this note. I apologize for the misspellings! I know better.

Actually, +John-David and I were classmates at General Theological Seminary. I was much more conservative than he during those years—we have had different paths in our ordained life. He has become more conservative in most things and I less so. I am well aware of his many gifts in ministry, as I am of yours.

As one diagnosed with ADHD, I will not post again while listening to music I really like in the background! I do appreciate you corrections.

I will certainly go back and read the DSJ amendments. The first two times I read them, it seemed obvious to me that the effect was to remove the diocese from its Constitutional obligations to acceed to The Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. (period). If you can help me with this, I will sure pay attention.
Tom Woodward

Tom,
Well done.
Hmmm, after you mentioned MY gifts I started looking around for the hidden video camera!

Anyway, DSJ followed suit from Pitts’ constitutional amendment (and others) where the issue was one of, let’s say, Anglican common sense.
  Let me put it into an absurd hypothetical illustration (I don’t like hypotheticals, either, but it may be helpful here).
  Let’s say GC passed a resolution that said “The Episcopal Church presumes every and all doctrinal teaching of the Roman Catholic Church to be its own.”
The fact that it might have passed notwithstanding, I can’t imagine a single diocese in PECUSA that would agree to accede to such a doctrinal resolution.  And THAT is the nature and intended essence of the constitutional amendment.
  It makes us honest; rather than Bp Chane, for instance, immediately after voting for B033 in the HOB saying publicly that he would not abide by any “moratorium” intended by the resolution.  He was unilaterally doing something of the same, but without any canonical verbiage to authorize him to do so.
  Back in the real world, if any doctrinal teaching passed by GC is refuted by scripture, then DSJ is saying it is not bound by that doctrinal teaching WHILE STILL REMAINING AN INTEGRAL MEMBER OF TEC.
  The gray area for so many people would be how one decides what is a doctrinal teaching within Anglicanism (in general).  But we are not so presumptively setting those kinds of confessional lines.  AFter the required two readings and approving votes, the constitution now states that we need to have the room AS EPISCOPALIANS to do what John wrote, “test the spirits”, and (intended) choose correctly. 

The allegation against Bp Schofield was really a combo reading of these changes, along with the mis-reading of the diocese’s upgrading of the articles of incorporation.  In a nutshell, missionary dioceses use to have their bishops chosen by the HOB; that was the import of the old incorporation verbiage from 1911.  The new Californ-eye-a incorporation language says that we (DSJ) get to choose our own bishop, like any other diocese in TEC gets to do.  That’s all.

Hopefully, the Review Committee will see that mis-reading on the part of Swing, et al, and “not agree” with the allegation of Abandonment of Communion.  And that would be the end of it.  Perhaps they will suggest some other verbiage in order to make it more clear, or less able to be misunderstood.  Who knows.  But that’s it.

I think one needs to distinguish between:
(a) finding Spong ‘interesting to read’
(b) regarding him as someone whose teaching is in general terms approved by TEC.

To give a rather extreme example of the difference, I find Richard Dawkins interesting to read. His books may have helped some Christians into a deeper understanding of their faith. But he’s not a Christian teacher.

Martin B.

The Spong factor is not primary to the case for ECUSA’s heresy. It is only supporting evidence.

However, let’s say you are a bishop charged with defending and building up the faith.

Spong teaches that the biblical accounts of the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension are fictional and that theism itself is suspect if not false.

Do you invite him to your clergy training day? Do you give him your pulpit?

Now, if you were hoping to train your clergy to be good apologists and invited Spong to debate an apologist or if you were to spend the remainder of the training day teaching your clergy how to combat his heresy, that would be one thing.

But that is not what happens when Spong visits diocese to speak. Rather he is lauded for his revolutionary and inspiring ideas and celebrated for upsetting the fundies.

Or, at best, he is treated as an equally valid voice “within” the church when, according to NT standards he is clearly anathema. Believers are not even to extend hospitality to men like Spong (2nd John 7-11) much less invite them into their diocese to “train” teach or speak to their flock as if the Church of Jesus Christ is a lecture seminar for college freshmen.

“7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.”

Evidently the Rev. Thomas Woodward does not read “Episcopal Life”, the Official Publication of the Episcopal Church, because if he did he would realize this is where we get these ideas about our church.
As a woman I think the thing that woke me up about our leadership is their OFFICIAL support of Pro-Choice(pro-abortion)organizations but there are many other articles presented in “Episcopal Life” that give me the impression that our leaders are leading us and vulnerable children in the Church away from Scripture into a very dangerous life style.
The election of Bishop Shori and her sermon about “Mother Jesus” certainly confirmed that we are being lead astray by the very leaders we should be able to trust.

Dear Betty See,
I not only read “Episcopal Life,” I write for it from time to time. It is one place to get one’s ideas about our church. Surely if you have been reading it, you will be proud of our church for its faithfulness in mission and ministry around the world, for its unique spiritual witness in the life of the whole church of God.

The vote to which you refer is far less than what you understand it to be—and you seriously misstate the matter. There was an instance when our Executive Council expressed support for ONE organization, but that was not an overall endorsement of it.

I assume you know that the Episcopal Church is broad enough to encompass people dedicated to “pro-life” organizations as well as “pro-choice” organizations.

Please read your Episcopal Life magazines again. The Episcopal Church is one of the leading churches in protecting our children and in creating educational and spiritual opportunities for them.  We are also leaders in supporting families and women.

That we elected a woman who both liberal and conservative bishops acknowledged was the best qualified confirms that we are being led astray? You have got to be kidding!!! She is a fine priest and has been a fine bishop. Do you believe that women are incapable of serving as bishop? if that is the issue, say so.

Apparently you have not read Katharine Jefferts Schori’s sermon. When she mentioned “Mother Jesus” she was quoting Julian of Norwich, a saint of the church revered by the very people who have made such a stink about our Presiding Bishop elect’s use of her writing!! Does that hint of an unthinking smear to you?  It does to me.

That is what makes me uncomfortable about your posting—“leading astray,” “leading our vulnerable children away,” do not represent the life of The Episcopal Church. Repeating baseless charges you have heard from someone else repeating the same charges does not make it true—it just smears good people doing the will of God.
Tom Woodward

Tom:

Some of the things you reference do, in fact, point to big, big leadership problems.

As far as the affiliation with the abortion advocacy group, “The Episcopal Church” is now placed on that group’s documents as a supportive organization…not “some Episcopalians.”  Further, when folks from San Diego tried to get the matter before GenCon for “the body” to discuss it, procedural means were employed to keep that from happening.  On an issue as contentious as abortion, how is this “making room for all points of view”?  Why, and under what authority, is the denomination’s name plastered on advocacy junk for some interest group that many do not support?

As far as the “mother Jesus” quote, I’ve read “Showings of Divine Love”.  It is a great book, and I understood exactly what the PB-elect was saying.  But, how many of our people (and people beyond the church, hearing the words reported) have read 14th century mystics?  How does a tangential source with possibly loaded language help a conflicted group of people seeking some common ground (the ostensible purpose for B033)?  It is an immense leadership gaffe.  It does bring up the question of the PB-elect’s lack of leadership experience.  This is a big question given the bad shape of the denomination.

What I see in TEC is a fairly closed, ingrown leadership that do not reflect the breadth of the church, and who assume that because they (the elite) all agree and talk the same jargon, so must everybody else.  It p—s poor leadership in any organization, and the state of the denomination only reinforces that perception.  And moving 815 to some city won’t change it if the same people are calling the shots.

My goodness Tom, baseless charges!  This is simply the pot calling the kettle black, Tom.  You make assertions with out making your argument!  It is exactly what you accuse others of doing!

Clearly, you see evil motives in the AAC and the ACN.  If that is true then do more than make assertions.  Make the case or stand down!

There is plenty of evidence available through the internet these days.  No one has to take another’s word on it any more.

You minimize what is happening and deny the clear implications of them.

We listen to the words of he current Presiding Bishop about meeting in the “Diverse Center” when there is none.  We have those who clearly embrace pantheistic theology, eastern mysticism, and new age beliefs as consistent with the doctrines of the Christian Faith. 

You know this but you seek to deflect the seriousness of the matter by minimizing and misdirection!

There was a time when this might have worked.  Those days are passed. 

This article by you is neither honest nor fair.  I am afraid you have now done what you accused others are doing.  What would Christ say about your actions, Tom?

Apologetics is one thing but your articles fails if this was your intent.  And like your last sentence in your response to Betty Sue…“it just smears good people doing the will of God.”

Hmmmmmm, not good is it.

Creighton

First, in response to Timothy Fountain -

I understand completely the concerns you have for the action of the Executive Council, which was not well interpreted when passed—and I have lost my copy of the rationale. When you take steps like that, however well intentioned, without adequate press coverage of your intentions you are going to take a hit. The EC is taking its hit, though their action is not nearly as controversial as you make it out to be.

Re: the sermon. As St. Paul writes: all things are lawful, but not all things are edifying.

Based on your observations, I sure understand your frustration with the leadership in TEC. I look at so many other things and I draw a different conclusion. Thanks for the irenic tone of your posting.
Tom Woodward

Dear Creighton,

I thought I was being careful in my attributions. The most outrageous language of ACN is taken directly from their DVD, “Choose This Day.” I didn’t create those smears. I do attribute evil motives in the production and distribution of that video: it is scurrilous and scandalous and to attribute benign motives to its production involves mental gymnastics of which I am simply incapable.

Likewise, the militaristic language of Bishop Bob Duncan (which he has toned down a bit in the past month) speak for themselves. There is documented evidence that the IRD has been working for decades to destroy The Episcopal Church—while I do not claim Duncan, Iker et. al. are part of that, the effect of much of their actions and their language has that effect.

I disagree with you about the “diverse center.” It has been there all along. It is in our pews every Sunday, in people who attend their church, say their prayers, work and give for the spread of God’s kingdom and who do not read what you or I write.

In my article I addressed your catch-all of the liberals being tainted by all these movements or religious practices you don’t like. Every religious faith has its fringes—sometimes we are enriched by them (where would we be without the Celtic spirituality that came as two faiths encountered one another - where do you think we got our celebration of Christmas?) and sometimes they are destructive. Are you aware of the many hate-mongers among the “orthodox?” I have not and will never claim that they represent the core of the “orthodox” in the way you and others insinuate that the liberals in TEC have been captured by pagans, etc..

I believe you miss the point when you cite me for smearing others. I identified specific behaviors and language which have the effect of slandering others. That is not the same as wild charges about TEC leading our vulnerable children astray. Check it out.
Tom Woodward

Awwwww, Tom, as you well know, methinks thou dost protest too much.

Again, the pot calling the kettle black.  Haven’t missed a thing.  Simply disagree with you entirely.  But you already knew that, didn’t you!

I have to admit that I’m vaguely reassured when I hear Bob Duncan and ACN being described with such colorful language.  After years of wondering when these folks were ever going to stop talking nice and actually take a stand, it seems that they finally have someone’s attention.

TBWSF+,
I am just a mere pew sitter.  One who would much prefer to rejoice in the community of Christ without the dissension?  I have been uncomfortable for years as the pews heated up and admit that GC03 was culmination for me in that my pew seat finally got hot enough to wake me up. 
 
I am so weary of hearing our leadership defend the culture and the apostate actions of ECUSA.  I am pained to the core that it took the homosexuality issue for us to stand and defend our faith.  (And woe to those that decided to throw our homosexual brothers and sisters under the wheels of the train for the purpose of advancing a cultural agenda.)  At the latest, it should have happened over abortion or divorce.  I resent with every fiber of my being having my name through my membership in ECUSA connected to RCRC.  If you truly believe our membership in RCRC is about diversity, why aren’t we a member of Right to Life?  Why aren’t we linked to Exodus as we are to Integrity?  Why are we electing Bishops who are on their third marriage?  Why are we electing individuals to the episcopate that are in a sexual relationship outside of marriage?  Why - because you cannot serve two masters.  What a shame ECUSA leadership cannot see which master they are choosing to follow.

And why as a church is our CORE message the MDG?  Shouldn’t our first priority be to fulfill the great commission?  Yes, feeding the poor and tending the sick are important tasks where the church should absolutely lead the charge but don’t you believe these things would be accomplished through works if we were truly about the business of making disciples for Christ?  I have not seen the new PB elect say even once that putting Christ first is the answer.  Heck, she can’t even say that He is The Answer.  I have friends who require their children to go to church and Sunday school as long as they live under their roof.  When badgered by the children for an ease in the rule, the response is we require you to go to school and we value your salvation much more than your education.  Oh but would our leaders adopt this attitude!

As to the PB elect’s reference to Mother Jesus - had she first taken a strong stand for Jesus and disassociated herself and the church from the pagan rituals that seek to worship Sophia, etc. this probably would not be an issue.  Surely, she knew the confusion these unexplained words would have?  These feminist pagan practices are required subjects in some of our seminaries so I know you are not a stranger to them.  They even made an appearance on ECUSA’s Women’s Ministries website thanks to an Episcopal priest who held dual membership with the Druids.
 
No, Fr. Tom, this road is very wide that ECUSA is on and all too many will miss the narrow gate if the leadership does not begin to fulfill their call.  It is unfortunate that our priests and bishops are all too quick to defend culture and slow, slow to defend Christ.

No Rev. Woodward I have not read much about Julian of Norwich but I do read the Bible.
No, I am not opposed to women in leadership positions in the Church but I am very disappointed in the kind of leadership our current leaders are providing.

Well, to paraphrase someone: I have read Julian of Norwich.  Theologically speaking, Julian of Norwich is a friend of mine.  The PB-elect is no Julian of Norwich.

It is quite stunning how popular Julian of Norwich has become of late. There is only one reason for it…he refers to Christ in the feminine.

The problem is that Julian of Norwich was referring to Christ as giving birth to salvation and the church did not intend or mean to convey that addressing Christ in the feminine liturgically or as a matter of proclamation was acceptable. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in a very foolish bit of anachronistic thinking.

No, ECUSAn revisionists have taken his work and poured/projected/injected their own radical agenda into it. IT is the same pattern of deconstruction you see with regard to the Creed.

My mother and law just returned from oregon where she heard retired bishop Thornton preach on the feast of Mary (last Sunday). The bishop opened by telling the assembled how tired he was of being “blackmailed” into believing things like the virgin birth.

Nevertheless, have no doubt that the good bishop stood and said, “born of the virgin Mary” with the rest of the congregation when the Creed was said.

Why? How? Because the Creed, like the writings of Norwich, like the prayerbook, like the scriptures themselves, have been deconstructed and subverted. Meaning is now the property of the reader rather than the author.

He is a She above!

Tom Woodward, this is a note about the RCRC situation that was referenced in the above discussion.  You say of the Executive Council’s alignment with the RCRC in our name (and without our consent) that “their action is not as controversial” as we think—that writers here, on this website, have made more of it than it is worth.  I can tell you that I, long a very active teacher and worker in my parish and diocese, am here on this site precisely because of this “inconsequential” action.  I never supposed I would be seeking a way out of my beloved ancestral church, the Episcopal (now TEC), but if the Archbishop of Canterbury will provide a way, I will follow like a shot over this issue, perhaps above the other issues. (Anybody who saw the live-blogging of the committee meetings involved at GC should be concerned, furthermore, about general procedures that are the opposite of democratic and that, indeed, cross the line into manipulation and abuse of justice and even distortion of doctrine.)  Granted, I now see other issues of great moment regarding the church—issues that are vital for salvation and faith.—I am shocked to stand back and see how far the church has fallen into these other errors, too.  But nobody should think that this particular one is “not as controversial” as we say.  It is to me and to some others like me.  Like Betty See (above), “I resent with every fiber of my being having my name through my membership in ECUSA connected to RCRC.”  Notice also these words introducing a prayer in that feminist liturgy we’ve seen so recently:  “For all those who must make the life changing decision about an unwanted pregnancy, including birth control and abortion, especially when there is cultural, religious, spousal, partner, and family pressure against the choices a woman must make about her own body and future.”  I’m afraid to go to my church any more, lest something like this be on the agenda.  And you think that “adequate press coverage” should have taken care of the RCRC situation?  —Paula (Ph.D., Full Professor, discoverer of this site during GC 2006)

Excellent point Father Matt.This morning before church I was reading Bettenson’s The Early Church Father’s and came across this by Iranaeus,I think it fits well:‘When then heretics are refuted from the Scriptures they turn to accusing the Scriptures themselves,as if there were something amiss with them.They impugn the authority of Scripture on the ground of “inconsistency” and because,they say,only those who have the tradition can discover the truth;and the tradition has been handed down by word of mouth,not by the written word….Each of these heretics claims that this wisdom is what he has discovered by himself-or rather invented.‘pp89-90
Reminds me a bit of an old song by Larry Norman of Jesus Movement fame called Nothing Really Changes.
Old Gnostic,New Gnostic not much difference?
‘It is truly astonishing that so many of our latter day prophets can go on punctually producing their revised versions of the Christian faith,even without noticing that these polished novelties of theirs are just the same old mildewed heresies which the ancient Church exploded eighteen hundred years ago.‘James Stewart
So much for innovation.

[off topic] Paula, it’s good to understand a bit more how you have come to read and comment on Stand Firm.  I think you just made a whole lot of us “reasserting” / orthodox Anglican bloggers’ day!  Thanks for sharing how this site helped you.  I thank God we have these ways of connecting and sharing information.

TBWSF,

Here is a challenge.

Show me your diverse center that you indicate are sitting in the pews. Show me a revisionist parish, or Diocese, that has grown.  Call it what you will, the diverse center, via media, cradle Episcopaleons, thinking Christians, etc., it is shrinking. The power is gone. Wonder why.

Timothy,

You’re right. The glory has departed.

Timothy, first. St. Bede’s in Santa Fe, NM is a progressive Episcopal Church and it is growing so fast there is not enough space for people, even in the summer. St. Paul’s, Salinas, CA has grown significantly since the consecration of Gene Robinson. Both those parishes are fully inclusive.

Most church bodies are shrinking, including some of the more fundamentalist, or self-defined “orthodox.”

I’ve been around TEC for a long time—and most congregations are peopled by middle of the road Episcopalians who do not read this blog or mine. More and more are shifting significantly towards full inclusiveness in the church.

Paddy, there has been an enormous amount of revisionism over the last 40 years: we now have women sitting on vestries and who can be ordained, we no longer have Black churches isolated from White churches, Black people can sit on vestries of predominately Anglo parishes and even serve as bishops, girls can be acolytes, couples can use birth control with clear conscience, women are treated as equals in the Marriage service, lay people have significant parts in our liturgies. Even the crypto-fundamentalism that is driving so much of the “orthodox” movement in TEC is a recent innovation or revision in our church.

Are you against those things? They are at the heart of any revisionism. What for me is not revisionist is our Baptismal Covenant which, it seems to me, makes caring for all people equally at the heart of our Christian responsibility. It is a better world and calling it revisionism is to insult, it seems to me, Jesus who cared for all with a full heart. Do you have some on your list that should not be invited into the church?

Paula,
I believe General Convention is the most democratic institution in the USA. All hearings, with the exception of one or two each GC, are open and anyone can address the committees, whether or not you are even Episcopalian. The committees are balanced and nothing goes to the floor of convention until it has been reported out of committee. In the House of Deputies, a call for a vote by orders allows lay deputies to nix any measure or clergy deputies to do the same. All three orders - clergy, bishops and lay have to agree on any piece of legislation.

I do not dispute your being offended by a measure supporting RCRC. Had I been on Executive Council then I may very well have voted against the measure, for some of the reasons you shared. As you know TEC does not support Integrity. I am offended by stridency on the part of “pro-lifers” for some of the reasons you are offended by RCRC. There are times when churches have to make stands but I have always been in favor of treating those on the short end with graciousness and care. That more was not done for you and others in that way is regrettable—but it’s not my fault!

Jackie, I can assure you that +Katharine’s spirituality has Jesus Christ at its center. She is a real believer—and if the two of you were to sit down to pray together or to share your love of Jesus, you would know immediately that you have a spiritual sister.

No, the MDG are not core doctrine for KJS or the moderate or liberal side of the church—at General Convention they were celebrated by all parts of our church as an exciting and effective means of carrying out the imperatives of Matthew 25 and the Sermon on the Mount. PLEASE don’t hit on the Millenium Development Goals: they are one thing that is holding the church together (actually we are held together by the Creeds, The Book of Common Prayer, a common love of Jesus Christ, an inherited spirit of generosity and comprehensiveness, too. Don’t let anyone fool you, we are part of the same Lord and part of the same church.

I’ll continue in a minute.
Tom Woodward

Thanks, Paddy, for the good quote from Irenaeus.  Sounds to me like a bit of evidence for “Scriptura sola” in the early Fathers.

The loonies are trying to get free mileage from Julian of Norwich.  Wait till they find out that John Newton, in his splendid hymn “How sweet the name of Jesus sounds,” in Stanza 4 had a line
“Jesus, my husband, guardian, friend, my prophet, priest, and king.”  The editors of Hymnal 1940 delicately changed “husband” to “shepherd.”  Think of what Louie Crew and his gang could do with the original!

That hymn has another stanza I wish I had discovered in order to quote during the recent discussion on Justification:
“By thee my prayers acceptance gain
Although with sin defiled;
Satan accuses me in vain
And I am owned a child.”

An evangelical Anglican can sing that.  An RC cannot.

Wm. Witt:  Of course, +KJS is no Julian of Norwich and for that I am glad. JofN did not have the gifts to speak to the likes of Akinola, Duncan, Williams and Iker the way KJS does. While the women have much in common, each has been chosen by God in different centuries for quite different work. As Clarence Bouyer says in introducing “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” “Ray Charles would probably not want you white people in his choir and you probably would not want him in yours!” That is not to put down either group.

We could be good friends.

Matt:  Likewise, we could be good friends—and that is probably true with most who have posted on this thread.

I do not understand your charges or concerns about deconstructing the Creeds or Scriptures. I understand how those on the “orthodox” side are doing both—demanding a litmus test for choosing the correct understandings of “the Virgin Mary,” and theories of the atonement, the Second Coming and the resurrection as well as undercutting what had been a communion-wide consensus on the status of the Purity Code in determining doctrine in TEC.

I also understand the confusion of many people in dealing with religious language, which is often metaphorical rather than propositional. I think of “sitting on the right hand of God,” which refers, I believe, to the core of the doctrine of the Ascension rather than to a physical event (a man disappearing into the clouds may be an enormous “Wow” but does not mean much without the meaning attached. Your citing the question about belief surrounding “The Virgin Mary.” I do not believe it is a matter of core doctrine that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus—that His birth was at the divine initiative is important, but the history of the phrase, coming from a questionable interpretation of Isaiah, particularly its function at the time it was inserted into the creed indicate that it is the divine initiative that is important, not the nuts and bolts of it. We get to differ about the nuts and bolts—unless that is defined for us at General Convention, in a new Book of Common Prayer or in a common agreement in a new (and pretty scary) Anglican Covenant.

I do not know what you mean, Matt, about the meaning now residing in the reader, not the author of Scripture. Are you arguing for a more common acceptance of the work of the Jesus Seminar, which has done very fine work in uncovering the meaning and intentions of the Gospel writers? Or are you arguing for a new form of Gnosticism where only the initiates are to be trusted with true interpretations?  I sense it is neither, but I also sense the possibilities of a wonderful dialogue.

I apologize for the length - and apologize to anyone who addressed me with something to which I haven’t responded. I am not pretending to respond with the truth, just my own best judgment. As the therapist said to the couple meeting with him: there are three truths - your (husband’s) truth, her truth, and The Truth. The only one we do not have certain access is the third.
Tom Woodward
http://www.turningthingsupsidedown.blogspot.com

Fr. Tom

The Jesus Seminar, and I mean this kindly, is an academic joke.

Raymond Brown, +NT Wright, ++Rowan Williams, Luke Timothy Johnston (who actually agrees with you on many issues), Richard Hays, and every other notable NT scholar and theologian have dealt with and debunked the ludicrous claims of the seminar

“the likes of Akinola, Duncan, Williams and Iker “

Listen to the snarl!
I’ll bet this guy can preach a heck of a sermon on charity and courtesy.

Matt,
  I believe you are well over the top with “every other notable NT scholar and theologian.” I do not think there are better NT scholars that Bernard Brandon Scott on the parables and Robert Funk. John Dominic Crossan, Dan Via, Marcus Borg and slews of others are of the stature of those you cite. Even the very conservative Hultgren cites the Jesus Seminar with reverence, borrowing many of their conclusions.

Now I would agree with you that any ludicrous claims of the seminar,along with ludicrous claims of your blog and my own, should be debunked. I welcome any and all debunking—who wants to be laden down with a lot of bunk.
Appreciatively,
Tom Woodward

Laurence K. Wells,
  I don’t remember the context for the quote (and I have read and reread this whole stream about four times). I did refer to the effects of some of the actions of Bishops Iker and Duncan—and I believe my words are fair comment. Given the destructiveness of those actions (I believe Bishop Duncan has regretted some of his militaristic language), naming them is neither uncharitable nor discourteous.

  I expect to be held accountable for my language and my public acts. I have yet to hear anyone accept responsibility for the slurs and the smears of “Choose This Day.” It is McCarthyism at its very worst and below the dignity of the leaders of the Network.

“The Episcopal Majority” has been organized to hold accountable those who claim orthodoxy for their exclusive possession—check it out. http://www.episcopalmajority.blogspot.com
Tom Woodward
http://www.turningthingsupsidedown.blogspot.com

The interesting thing about your reference to the JS is that if you hold to their conclusions then, in fact, as a “moderate” you deny the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, and the ascension.

By any standard Fr. Tom, this takes you far outside the “moderate” camp.

As for the scholars of the JS. The vast majority were no name scholars (not that they are not good, just unknown) with the exception of Crossan and Funk et al.

What made the enterprise an academic joke was

1. the methodology: voting on the historicity of gospel passages

2. The acceptance of later and clearly gnostic works like Thomas as earlier and purer traditions than those found in the gospels

3. the utter disregard of the pauline epistles

4. their 19th century modernist (anti-supernatural) a priori working assumptions (based on lessing and troelsch) that God does not supercede natural or physical laws.

Fr. Tom,

Please name, specifically, the “slurs” in Choose this Day and provide quotes so that we can be sure which sections you are referring to.

Father Woodward,‘McCarthyism at its worst’,seems that I remember recent diatribes by by several of the leading lights in the Gay-Lesbian lobby that fit that criteria substantially better.
And let’s not forget the thinly veiled racism(and here we thought that liberals couldn’t be racist or anti-semitic)of Bishop Spong and company toward the African Bishops,when it came to their education(the truth being the Africans had earned higher degrees and had much more pastoral experience than some of the recent Episcopal powers that be).

Yet another example of ECUSAn orthodoxy from 815 second Ave, NYC:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1084/

TBWSF -
I am friends with many individuals.  My friendship does not make them Christians.  It is their commitment or lack thereof that makes that determination.

Matt,
  Whoops, this was never represented as the teaching of the Episcopal Church—and dragging this dead cat back in is not up to your standards.

  There is an obvious difference between using the insights of the Jesus Seminar in doing one’s own Bible study and believing the different faith conclusions of the authors. By benefitting from the work of John Dominic Crossan, I do not have to share his views on the Ascension, just as you do not have to become a Roman Catholic because you trust the work of Raymond Brown! How about we learn to appreciate one another’s path instead of trying to pin one another into a corner?

Paddy,
  There may very well have been some racism in earlier references to the African bishops. Since then most commentators have focused on the actions and words of the several African leaders—and the viewpoints and actions of the various leaders are enormously diverse. ++Peter Akinola’s race does not bother me—however his hate-filled words and actions are of great concern.

Matt,
  Here are some of the slurs in “Choose This Day:”

Narrator: were a forgery

Louis and Deborah Ropp: The Church has been hijacked.

Kendall: a different Gospel that has smuggled its way into the church

Les Fairfield: and the leadership have embraced a foreign and alien and pagan religion

Narrator: At General Convention 2003, our masterpiece, God’s Holy Scripture was deliberately altered….77 million Anglicans world wide were shown a counterfeit and told it was the real thing

The Rev. Canon Henry Pendergrass, St. Nicholas Church:  In 2003 we voted to go insane.

Fairfield: General Convention, alas, in 2003 opted for revisionism, namely, the desire to reject the Christian faith and embrace a non-Christian religion.

Murdoch: The forgery that is being presented to us

Duncan:  We believe that 2000 years of church teaching, because it doesn’t suit our sexual appetites, our general appetites, we think, we can remake it in our own image. 

Narrator:  The Episcopal leaders at General Convention no longer viewed Holy Scripture as the trusted authoritative word of God..

Murdoch:  The leadership of the Episcopal Church, in voting to confirm the election of Bishop Robinson, consciously, deliberately repudiated Scripture and tradition and embraced a pagan religion.

Narrator:  The blatant denial of Scripture at General Convention was only a by-product of deeper on-going problem. 

Deborah Ropp (parishioner St. Michaels and All Angels):  I think that Episcopalians today have to choose between following current culture or following scripture.

Fairfield:  The choice facing the laity in the Episcopal Church is to choose between authentic Christianity and this alien religion which has permeated the leadership of the Episcopal Church in the last generation.

Narrator: It’s time to make a choice.  Will you hold on to the authority of scripture, or allow God’s holy word to be dismantled to fit the trends of our time?  Will you find ways to invent new sacraments, or will you uphold true apostolic teachings.  Will you trust your future to a drifting alien religion, or will you remain faithful to the one true Lord.

Those have been cut and pasted from the transcript supplied by the Network. If you deem those “fair comment,” then we are different planets. I prefer this one.
Tom Woodward
http://www.turningthingsupsidedown.blogspot.com

forgive me Tom. You seemed to imply that the findings of the Jesus Seminar were solid with regard to the intentions of the gospel writers. Did I misunderstand you?

Slurs? I see no slurs. I do see accusations. And, in fact, the accusations are true.

+Robinson’s election, consent, and consecration, was itself an heretical and apostate act based on an understanding of the Christian faith that is alien to both the bible and tradition.

GC2003 revealed ECUSA to be an institution that while perhaps “one” in the sense that many seceeding parishes have been litigated into submission, it is neither catholic, holy, nor apostolic.

TBWSF -
I live on planet earth and find those statements to be a fair and accurate representation of what has happened in the Episcopal Church. 

You have now stumbled on the elephant in the room - ECUSA’s actions have made us two different religions.

In my profession, when the witness starts trying to distinguish propositional from metaphorical truth, we say case closed.

The ever courteous Raymond Brown, after a stern (by his standards) critique of the Jesus Seminar and its leading figures (he refers to PT Barnum)concludes: “their views of Jesus would make traditional Christian belief illusory and traditional proclamation irresponsible.”

He is less restrained about Spong: “Some are not formally scholars, e.g., Episcopal Bishop John Spong, whose works stripping Jesus of Christology Johnson, Real Jesus, treats under the heading of “Amateur Night.”  In [Birth of the Messiah]I comment on Spong’s Born of a Woman(San Francisco: Harper, 1992)including the observation, “I do not think that a single NT author would recognize Spong’s Jesus as the figure being written or proclaimed about.”  Brown concludes by quoting a withering review in The Tablet [The Tablet!]: “My advice for his next book… is is to let some real experts check the text before publication.” (Elipses in Brown.) (From Brown’s An Introduction to the New Testament, pp.822,29.) The late Raymond Brown, well known fundamentalist from Union Theological Seminary.

“I believe General Convention is the most democratic institution in the USA.”—Tom Woodward
Honestly, Tom, I think this may be a jest?  First, let me say that I do not believe truth and right can be determined by vote, in any case.  But let’s consider democratic procedure since TEC often refers to it:

The Executive Council affiliation was not really “passed,” was it, but just continued from year to year and successively tabled or discharged? Bishop Ihler confirmed that, although it was never placed before the deputies, it has been operative for years.  Is this democracy?  Moreover, when questioned (on the Social and Urban Affairs Committee) by D. Lorne Coyle why the parishioners have not been involved in this decision, Elizabeth Kaeton is reported saying, “We are deputized to follow the Holy Spirit, not the wishes of the folks back home.”  (Yes, I understand the rules for deputy participation.)  I submit, nontheless, that this is a travesty as democracy and a falsity as doctrine.  Now that I am on this subject, I must mention that a number of other measures and failed measures at GC concerned me.  One of the latter was DO58 (discharged), which dealt with “unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God . . . ‘the way, the truth, and the life’”; and I was further offended to read of the comment by a committee member (who could be named) that language like this had contributed to the Holocaust and other atrocities.  Add to this my chagrin at the wording of CO40 (adopted) which, similarly, stated that the Bible had been used to “justify offensive institutions and practices.”  Of course, Scripture has certainly been misused in some instances, but is this really the main thing we can say about it?  Why was Kendall’s resolution about the Bible completely rewritten past being recognizable?  What I am pointing out is the EMPHASIS that emerges from all this.  It’s easy to rationalize and say that the Bible is so obvious it doesn’t need emphasis at GC (I’ve already heard this); but when has this Church ever before, historically, had such an attitude about the Bible (or any flourishing Christian church)?  It is always good for us to hear truth over and over; that’s a main point of liturgy. Why are we this eager to blame and repudiate our founding document and principles—to join with opposing forces? Only our demise lies in that direction.  And why are we so eager to do all this without regarding the people back home in the pews? Do we know, then, that those people would not stand for such measures if asked directly?  Now that I know more than I did, I have to say—just wait till the parishioners, in general, do learn more.  Obviously, I don’t speak for them all, but I would not be surprised if they would, someday soon, want to know what all the money (the cost of GC over recent years) has purchased for them, the people of the flock back home.

Folks, this is a “postscript” to my last note, just above.  The Executive Council measure mentioned was the one about the abortion-related RCRC to which EC affiliated on behalf of all of us.  I see that many other topics had intervened in the conversation above, so I should have mentioned this when resuming the theme.

This has been an amusing conversation to observe.

It appears, Matt, that Thomas Woodward’s primary argument about the accusation that numerous ECUSA leaders are not orthodox in their teaching . . . is a change in the definition of orthodox.  ; > )  Orthodoxy doesn’t require belief in the virgin birth or the physical resurrection or the ascension or any number of other things.  So Matt, no matter how many specific examples you bring up of the rank heresy of many of the leaders in the Episcopal church, it won’t matter.  There isn’t a thing you can bring up that will provide evidence for “unorthodox” belief.

A few quick observations.

1) I gladly accept and revel in the excellent work of the Choose this Day video.  The quotes that Woodward mentions from the video are accurate.  I’m thrilled that reappraisers are upset over the video and consider that it should be compliment to the producers of that video that they’ve got heretics so riled up.

2) Which means something pretty unsurprising.  Thomas Woodward and I are on different planets.  ; > )

But . . . that’s what reasserters have been saying for the past three years. 

Two gospels. Utterly opposed to one another.  In one institution.

3) And everything so far that Thomas Woodward has stated on this thread nicely illustrates the above point.

4)  Re: “We could be good friends.”  Sure.  I’m good friends with all sorts of pagans, and atheists, and raging liberals.  But . . . they don’t claim to be Christians.  I’ve always said that I would probably greatly enjoy coffee and conversation with various reappraising commenters over at Kendall’s blog.  We could have all sorts of great chats about sports and books and movies and such.  But we have zero in common in regards to religion, save for the fact that we are in one organization.

I personally believe that will change—the one organization part, that is.

5) Finally, I look forward to the constant and predictable insertion of the Episcopal Majority blogspot link into various comment threads of large-volume blogs.  I’ll give the readers of Stand Firm just one guess as to why the link will be inserted at various orthodox web sites over and over in the coming weeks.  ; > )

The first person to guess will get one of those beatiful gold beribboned medals that we’ve been working on with the words “Episcopal Bottom Feeders” engraved on it.  ; > )

Matt, you have got to be kidding. That I and the rest of the Episcopal Church are a “forgery,” are “pagan,” etc.  Those are not slurs, but “accurate.” If you really believe that, it is time to change the title from standfirminfaith to standfirminconfusion. None of the accusations is true—they are just slurs and thus the need for my article.

Bishop Robinson’s election, consent and consecration were all done in accord with The Book of Common Prayer and The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Those are the rules, Matt, not what you want them to be. The words “heretical” and “apostate” are sexy words, but they have no meaning in this context. For them to be heretical they have to violate core doctrine—and there is nothing in our core doctrine that has been violated—in the core doctrine of a make-believe church, OK, but not in the legally constituted Episcopal Church. So, please, drop the invective. That you don’t like the consecration or find it offensive is OK, but that doesn’t make it heretical or apostate.

Of course TEC is one, holy catholic and apostolic. The new church consisting of those who no longer want to belong to TEC may very well partake of those qualities—we’ll have to wait and see; your throwing around words like “heretical” and “apostate” doesn’t change reality.

Tom Woodward

Ah yes “context”

I’ve been waiting for the ++Griswoldian contexts to make their appearance

Tom, the prayerbook and constitution and canons are not the normative measures of heresy and truth in the “context” of Christendom.

That would be the bible.

Followed by tradition.

In keeping with godly reason.

With the election, consent, and consecration of +Robinson, ECUSA has broken with all three willingly and unrepentantly.

The Episcopal Church has committed herself to heresy. That is not a sexy word at all.

It is a horrible word. It is horrible because it is true and because it means that the Church is leading people away from Christ and into sin and death.

This is not invective. Words have real content. I am using them in accordance with their objective sense.

Jackie, no action by GC has made us into two religions or two denominations. If you choose to leave the Episcopal Church because you disapprove of actions of GC, you are free to do so.  I disapprove of several actions taken by GC, but I am staying. I have always disapproved of some of GC’s actions, but none of them have forced me out. You are welcome to stay. However, if you leave, my guess is that it won’t be too long before the church you form will split over and over again—or die. That has been the pattern. It is sad—much better to stay and witness to your beliefs. Bishop Ed Little wrote an inspiring piece for the “orthodox” in Christianity Today in which he advocated just that for his fellow Networkians.

Mark, I believe Raymond Brown is wrong in the quote you supplied. Some of the Jesus Seminar members are about as orthodox as any of the regular posters on this list—probably more so, if the truth were told. Some of their academic work will stand the test of time, some will not. When has that been any different with major scholars with, perhaps, the exception of my own books (just kidding, though you can get them from amazon.com and check it out for yourself).

I would remind you of something you already know: Jack Spong is not a NT scholar and to judge him by those standards is wrong—and to identify him and his works as standard fare for Episcopalians is way off the mark. Read my article again and you should get the distinction.

Paula, you are confusing the actions of the Executive Council and GC. The EC resolution is not binding on GC and is not part of the doctrine or discipline of The Episcopal Church.

Second, the resolutions to which you refer were submitted for a less than charitable purpose. A longer article on the details is at http://www.episcopalmajority.blogspot.com. No deputy can be elected who has not already affirmed the basics of those resolutions—they are superfluous. It is like asking the members of the American Legion to vote that they are, indeed, American. This kind of jockeying is way, way beneath the dignity of Network people—and a waste of GC’s time.

Yes, the “nobody comes to the Father but by me” in the hands of fundamentalists and newly “orthodox” represents a triumphalist theology. It is wrong, theologically, Biblically, and morally—and yes, it was a contributing cause of the Holocaust and will be for others until the “orthodox” do their Scriptural and theological work. Again, check out the original article, “Falsely Accused” on http://www.episcopalmajority.blogspot.com.
Tom Woodward

PS to Matt—good start and great idea for a series.

I get a lot of requests for this sort of thing from those who are just waking up to the situation in the Episcopal church.

This will be a good series to email to moderates in the church.

Sarah,

re: your #5

heh…how many times has EM been linked in the thread so far?

Ms. Hey,
  I find your personal attack offensive. I remind you that the slurs in “Choose This Day” are just that. If the authors believe heresy has been committed, they can show that in clear detail: repeating slander does not make it true, it simply reflects poorly on the slanderers.

FYI, my remarks about friendship have to do with what I perceived in the other’s ability to share perspective in a context of mutual respect. You have twisted it to slander me. Your approach is one of the impetuses for creating The Episcopal Majority: the church deserves better than invectives.  I, personally, am comfortable with my friendships with Kendall Harmon, John Liebler (President of the Standing Committee of Central Florida), Don Perschall, and a raft of other Network people. I am a great admirer of +Jeffrey Steenson, +Ed Little and other Network bishops. I do not receive invectives from them, nor do I give them. We are part of the Body of Christ, though we disagree about important issues. You and I also share in the Body of Christ and I grieve your and others invectives.

Matt, you are absolutely right—in some interpretations and readings of Holy Scripture the consecration of Gene Robinson violated that Scripture (though no one was bold enough to stone him during the consecration). It is equally true that in other legitimate interpretations and readings of Holy Scripture the consecration of Gene Robinson was perfectly consonant with Holy Scripture. We have means of arbitrating whether a particular interpretation of Scripture is within agreed upon norms for interpreting it—those means supported the consecration, but failed to convince you. That means that it is not heretical though it is offensive to you and to your own understanding of Scripture.

I believe I referenced an article in The Christian Century about the debate concerning the interpretation and meaning of the Bible during the debates about slavery. The author carefully did not draw comparisons with our current struggles, but it is very clear that those supporting slavery used your approach while those opposing slavery reflected the approach of the majority of Episcopalians and me.

Can we remain in the same church? Of course we can if we can hold the tension as former Anglicans have. I am not saying “My way or the highway.” You are. I’m sorry about that.

Unfortunately you have some tradition on your side, much against you. We do have a long history of marginalizing and demonizing homosexuals, as we have, in the past, women and people of color. We have a long history of discerning the gifts of the Spirit as key to valuing leadership—as related to valuing relationships, we have often drifted into mirroring Hugh Hefner’s Playboy (magazine) Philosophy, focusing on body parts instead of relationships—this has resulted in the shredding of our incarnational theology and any sense of sacramental theology. The important thing here is that we should be in dialogue on these matters instead of blasting one another on blogs. I have approached my presence on this blog as trying to do that.
Tom Woodward

Tom:  I am a member of the American Legion.  We recite the Pledge of Allegiance at every meeting, and we recite the preamble to the Constitution of the American Legion.  In so doing we reaffirm our belief in the United States and what it stands for, the Flag under which we served, and the principles for which the American Legion was founded.  Every state and district and national convention has some kind of “Americanism” issue offered; we have an officer at each post with this title.  We also open and close each meeting with prayer.  Now, I realize that we don’t vote on the pledge and the preamble at each national convention, but there is no need, as there is no internal challenge to either of those items.  However, referring you to Matt’s+ comment preceding, in voting to approve the election of a non-celibate homosexual, GC presented a direct challenge to Holy Scripture.  Reaffirmation of Jesus Christ as “The way, the truth and the life” are offensive or superfluous only if you disagree.  It is a “no-brainer” to ask the TEC at large to reaffirm a bedrock principle of our faith: the supremacy of Holy Writ as the basis of our knowledge of God’s salvation.  If we continue to whittle away at what Scripture we will affirm or accept, then what are we doing here?  What’s the point?  If we are not sinners, then what need have we of a Savior?  How long would it take to bring that resolution up and vote on it, and be done?  Perhaps some were afraid that the resolution would fail, and expose the apostasy of TEC’s leadership.  (I do not know this last point, I am merely speculating).  Finally, after reading all the exchanges more than once, I can only conclude that ++Duncan is spot on: there are two religions.  The foundational beliefs are so different, I doubt TEC’s reapprasiers and reasserters will ever meet in the middle (and not on ++Griswold’s mystic plain with the Sufi Rumi).  All I can do as a layman is to watch, bide my time and continue to search Holy Scripture, while I pray and engage in discernment.  I hope we can all find peace without the Lebanese solution.

Charles Nightingale
CW3, USA, (Ret)
Chaplain, American Legion Post 52

Dear Chaplain Nightengale,
Thank you for this response. The supremacy of Jesus Christ was affirmed every day at GC in its worship. There was no challenge to that at GC.

As to the verse in John about “The way, etc.” There is no evidence that the verse excludes people from other religions from access to the Father - their access is through the Risen Christ who, apparently, follows other words in John about other flocks.We do not have a disagreement here.

Matt, in your response to Sarah you ask: “heh…how many times has EM been linked in the thread so far?” My response would be “Not quite enough.” Seriously, I referenced it for the article your people are teeing off on—important to go to the source, right? rather than just pile on invectives.
Tom Woodward

Re:  “I find your personal attack offensive.”

I am, of course, Utterly Shattered. 

Re: “I remind you that the slurs in “Choose This Day” are just that.”

You may, of course, make assertions all you like.  And I can make assertions.  And we can all make assertions.  You’re making statements repeatedly in your comments about what you believe about reasserters.  So why can’t I?  Both parties are stating their beliefs about the others theology and practice.  Those beliefs are refreshingly clear and straightforward.  Your beliefs about reassserters don’t particularly matter to me—I don’t really care what you think of reasserters.  I appreciate, though, your being honest and clear about your theology and your beliefs about reasserters.  It’s good to have the clarity . . .

Re: “FYI, my remarks about friendship have to do with what I perceived in the other’s ability to share perspective in a context of mutual respect. You have twisted it to slander me.” 

I’ve no idea how I slandered you.  I merely state—again—that I’m friends with loads of people, of all sorts of beliefs and persuastions.  That, however, has little to do with whom I believe should be leaders in a Christian church. 

Re: “Your approach is one of the impetuses for creating The Episcopal Majority: the church deserves better than invectives.”

So when do we start getting anything better than invective from you? 

We’re all waiting eagerly, but so far . . . you have not started off very well.  ; > )

Re: “You and I also share in the Body of Christ and I grieve your and others invectives.”

I have good news for you!  I don’t grieve your invective a bit! 
; > )  It’s good to have honesty and clarity on both sides.

That clarity continues to demonstrate—as has been made so starkly evident on this thread for all to see—the two gospels that are within one organization.  The conflict, as a result, will continue.

But that’s a radical improvement over 5 years ago, when so many of us were unaware of what leaders believed.

I am curious about why Episcopal Majority is having a national gathering in Washington in November when they just had one in Columbus in June?

Respectfully,

Re: “I am curious about why Episcopal Majority is having a national gathering in Washington in November when they just had one in Columbia in June?”

Oh. My. Word. 

ROTFLMDEAO

Andy.

You are awarded the Blog Comment of the Week award.  A handsome gold be-ribboned medallion with the words “Episcopal Bottom Feeder” is even now winging its way across the miles to your place.

But I am still waiting on one of our readers to state why it is that Episcopal Majority’s web link is and will be inserted into comment threads on various high-traffic Anglican blogs . . .

Honor, garlands, and strewn roses await the winning response.

Hey, ... I mean, Hey!, uh… oh, well…

Sarah,
I already thought that what Andy said but I didn’t write it….. so what’s MY prize…oops.. award?!
And if I don’t get one, I will think less of you….which of course you’ll tell me you are less than heartbroken…

oh, forget it.

brother.

Thanks a lot, Andy.

“Paula, you are confusing the actions of the Executive Council and GC. The EC resolution is not binding on GC and is not part of the doctrine or
discipline of The Episcopal Church.” —Tom Woodward

Are you sure there’s no connection here?  See Mary Frances Schjonberg, “Executive Council Proposed budget heads for General Convention” containing this item:  “NAC 017: Approve the Episcopal Church membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” (ENS, Jan. 12 2006).  Wasn’t the money allocated? 

There was an attempt to bring this whole matter to the floor in Columbus—to bring it to light and to a floor decision—and that’s what I have been discussing.  But this arrangement looks as bad as I feared. So then, it appears as though this arrangement in the hierarchy provides a subterfuge by which the “powers” go ahead and do whatever they wish and then claim that there was no decision by GC and that the Episcopal Church did not decide?  So GC did not make the substantive decision but did allocate the money?  And surely this is not democracy?  And not openness to the laity and the tithers who are presumably paying, regardless who approved this? 

Not only that, but who in the real world—who “on the street,” so to speak—would really distinguish between the actions of the Episcopal Executive Council and the Episcopal GC and the Episcopal Church?  Did RCRC fully distinguish?  I believe it is a fact that they list “Episcopal Church” among their endorsers—that this is how we are presented to the world.  Are you content with that?  Believe me, I will go out of my way to disassociate from that designation and from others that could be shown as clearly.

Of course, I did go and read at “Episcopal Majority” and read whatever else I could find.  The more I’ve seen in the months since GC, the more troubled I’ve become; and that is why I am here writing.

By the way, Thomas, I don’t think we all belong to the Network, as you believe; I may be wrong, but I believe there’s a broad spectrum here.  I do see you as having tools of civility and diplomacy which we welcome.  But you may not realize the exremity of this situation: we can not but tell the truth as we see it, not at this juncture in our history—not with so much at stake and after we have learned so much that was once hidden.  I understand that you have risked yourself, with some courage, but so do we, all of us.

I would like to add something—experience from years of teaching an adult church class.  You would be surprised how often people bring up Spong as their authority for various lapses of faith.  True, they often don’t even see them as lapses of faith—this is the saddest thing.  Yes, he’s influential, theologically, much, much more than I believe you understand.

I know, I know, I know -

Could it possibly be that the liberals don’t have any traffic and they are trying to up their numbers so they can claim the fictional yet vast middle that FTG speaks of so often is actually awake and reading? 

Can I request a special color for my ribbon?  If that answer is yes, I have other requests too.

Breathlessly awaiting your reply.

Re: “I already thought that what Andy said but I didn’t write it.”

Rob, are you saying that you actually had this clever, brilliant thought pass through your mind . . . but did not have the courage to say it, as Andy did????

Well!!!

That is a dreadful admission. 

No garlands.  No roses.  No acclamations.  Only dreadful scowls and reproaches.

Now Andy will get two medallions, since it is clear that he has exhibited exceptional bravery and cleverness.

; > )

Jackie, you win!  ; > )

Congratulations!!!!

What color do you want for the ribbons?  What other requests do you have?

You are showered with respect and adulation and esteem.

We will have our first StandFirm vesting ceremony for this special reward.  Slats Lennedy will be liveblogging it for everyone. Craig Crag will be the official media spokesman.  And Bishop Howard Change-Piranha will be Master of Ceremonies!

oh my - I am overcome with emotion to win this coveted and very colorful award.  Well, I really wanted pink but I am afraid I might be linked to the Women’s Ministry…... This is all so confusing for my southern and orthodox mind. 

I hereby abdicate the color selection to Rob. 

P. S.  I’ll have my people contact your people about the ceremony.

Fr. Woodward,
You have not amended your comment which I challenged and corrected by explanation.  You need to do that.

I…...(head hanging)...yes, Sarah, ....I was afraid.

Jackie, I am moved by your compassion and generosity, but to receive your ribbon would be temptation against any little humility I hope to gain from this moment of self-revelation afforded by the Maestra.
Might I offer another worthy who would wear the ribbon well….DHR.  It would be good for a head covering for him.

Oh…..you’re not giving me your ribbon—you just want me to pick the color?

Never mind.

Rev. Woodward,

For them to be heretical they have to violate core doctrine

Is there a core doctrine to the Episcopal Church?

From what I have read in the back and forth of the discussions above, you believe that TEC has a core doctrine.  However, that core doctrine is very loose and malleable.  I and my parishioners have always understood the virgin birth and the literal physical resurrection of Jesus as being essential to Christian faith- part of the core doctrine, if you will.

But if I’ve read your replies correctly, then you’re saying that these concepts are not part of the core doctrine. 

So what constitutes the core doctrine of the Episcopal Church?  What, exactly, does the Episcopal Church teach that is considered unchangeable and non-negotiable?

Hahrump.  (Loudly clears throat)
Why I never!  Try to throw a bone and look what happens!

I’ll just have to form a committee to determine the best color.  I know - I’ll use the ECUSA method of committeedom.  If I want a today color, I simply will have the Executive Committee make the determination and refuse to allow the remaining peons - uh I mean people - to have a voice.  If I just want a regular color from the standard box, well I can just let anyone who can read the instruction book to pick the color!

Dear Fr.Woodward,Regarding John 14:6 and the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only way:
I’m sitting here with numerous Bibles in reach and ‘no one comes to the Father but through Me’(except through Me,ESV) is very exclusive in plain English.Reads that way in all of them.I don’t see any addendums stating but if you’re (place favorite alternate religious view here)it’s all right.In fact,if we look at John 10,alternate entry points mark out thieves and robbers.Now that may not be pleasant in a pluralistic higher logic but then God always has had a Gospel that,to use the words of Phillips NT,‘explode the pretensions’(1 Cor.1:29).
I guess there’s no place for the Buddha or Brahman or some folks’ prophet in the Kingdom.

Tom,

I believe that I belong to a church that is a member of the Anglican Communion and that church broke the faith with the majority of its brothers and sisters knowingly and with malice.  Malice because they knew in advance their actions were harmful and they committed them anyway.  Now, like a spoiled child ECUSA is seeking to make excuses for its actions and lack of judgement. 

I’m not a priest nor am I a theologian - just a southern girl who happened to grow up in the Episcopal Church.  I’ve said the creeds for all these many years now and the amazing part - are you ready for this - I actually believe them and I expect my church to require its leadership to uphold these doctrines. 

I believe Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God.
I believe that He died on the cross for my sins.
I believe that on the third day He rose again - bodily.
I believe that he ascended into heaven and is right this very minute seated at the right hand of the Father.
I believe that He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe that the Father sent the Holy Spirit.
I believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. 
I believe that there is ONE way to the Father and that is through the Son.
I believe Holy Scripture is the revealed Word of God.
These are the core doctrine that I believe makes me a Christian.

What makes me an Anglican is a shared heritage with millions of other Anglicans around the world and a belief in a common teaching.  I have not chosen to leave ECUSA.  ECUSA has chosen to leave me when it decided to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.  I will remain Anglican.  The question is will ECUSA?

Sarah wrote: “Now Andy will get two medallions, since it is clear that he has exhibited exceptional bravery and cleverness.”

And don’t forget succinctness, something I don’t see much of from our more liberal brothers and sisters.  I accept, but I’d rather see an ANSWER.  These meetings aren’t free, ya’ know.

Now, I don’t want to be accused of going to bed early and abandoning communion, but, YAWN, it’s about time. . .

Andy—The Episcopal Majority group was founded after the General Convention in Columbus—it grew out of our conversations in Columbus.

Ms. Hey—your sarcasm does not suit you well.

Paula—I have not heard people bring up Spong in the context you mention, though I have heard from people who characterize some of the arguments folks have been making in this string as coming from Nazis. I tell them to can it, perhaps you can do the same with those who give that much power to Bishop Spong who is not mainstream Episcopal Church, no matter how often “orthodox” people say so.

Rob—I remain convinced that your diocese, with +John-David’s leadership or complicity, has stepped outside the bounds of the C&C of TEC by attempting to subvert the accession clause. That is easy to fix if +John-David really is sincere about his loyalty to the C&C.

Michael B+  Our core doctrine is expressed in the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds and in The Book of Common Prayer.

From which Gospel do you get a “literal physical resurrection?” There are several theologies or experiences of the resurrection in the Gospels. I don’t believe any of them are reflected in your statement.  Do I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Absolutely - I stake my life on it.

Paddy—John 14:6 refers to the Risen Christ. As many if not most commentators note, much of John’s Gospel is the church’s experience of the Risen Christ. On that basis the whole spectrum of the Episcopal Church, including you and me, can rejoice in this. However, Scripture is often in conflict with Scripture, as with this verse and the earlier discussion about other flocks have I. Anglicans have traditionally lived with the tension and the paradox. Some now are wanting a litmus test, insisting that true believers pick the right one. Wrong one means you are a heretic!

Jackie—we have no disagreements in your list of core doctrine. I am glad for you—you are not a heretic or apostate. We can worship together and no one will consign you to hell. Actually, the last thing I would want to do is to call you or any of the others heretics or apostate—God cares for you and accepts your sincere wish to serve and worship the Trinity. I wish you and others well as you attempt to live out your Baptismal Covenant.

Tom Woodward
http://www.Godapprovesmyinterpretation.com

Sarah - OHHHH Please, can’t I have a ribbon too???

(stomps foot)

I really did TRY to figure it out - it isn’t FAIR that she gets a ribbon and I don’t.  Surely we should all get ribbons, I mean we’re HERE aren’t we?  We CARE, don’t we?  Isn’t that enough?  Shouldn’t that just be enough?

(really whining now….)

I want to be included too, and you should make sure that I am…. (veiled threat) 

just because I wandered off on YOUR threads to read about the magic books over at the Episcopal Bookstore…..if I had stayed here,  surely I would have gotten the right answer….....

(pouting)

Janine

Tom Woodward,
Did you even read what I wrote to you about what was taking place in the constitutional and incorporation changes in DSJ?  That was not speculation I was sharing with you!

Looking back at your intermediate comment, here’s what you said at the end,
“I do appreciate you corrections.”
and
“I will certainly go back and read the DSJ amendments…. If you can help me with this, I will sure pay attention.”

So, without any other discussion or dialogue between us, your only comment is that you are convinced of what you said originally, with the implication that your request for help in understanding the situation was a patronizing pat on the head, a wink, and a yeah, yeah, whatever?
In some areas you take correction, but in other others you are immovably “convinced”?

You said you would “pay attention”, but there is no evidence here that you did.  And to think I spent the time authoring that comment of explanation engaging in what I thought was going to be authentic dialogue with you.  Now I have to wonder, and I will ask you, Do you even care?

Quite honestly, this may make it difficult for us to be the good friends you say you want to be.

Rob+

At its last convention, the diocese changed its constitution to read that the diocese would accede “to the extent that such terms and provisions, and any amendments thereto, adopted by the authority of the General Convention, are not inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin…”

Rob, if this isn’t limiting the accession clause, what is it? I am paying attention—are you?

Your constitutional and incorporation changes were not about expanding the diocese, were they? about improving the grammar of the old incorporation because some schoolteacher was upset? an attempt to garner one of the prizes Ms. Hey is offering? I don’t want to seem insulting, but how dense do you believe I am?

If a partner to a marriage contract asserts, “I will continue to support you in our marriage but only if you allow me to fulfill myself sexually whether or not you are in town,” I would say that is a significant alteration of the marriage contract, enough to void it if not to threaten it. The assertions of DSJ are not any different in scope.

Why spend that time in Convention, why use the language you did if not to screw around with the accession clause and to claim superiority to the national church? Isn ‘t that the place where the dialogue should begin?

I would trade the possibility of friendship for some honesty and accountability.
Tom Woodward

Maybe DSJ is seeing the Episcopal Canons with “new eyes” and God is doing a wonderous “new thing” and speaking to DSJ in ways that the rest of ECUSA does not yet hear. DSJ wants to be more “inclusive” and include some 75 million Anglicans from around the world who have been excluded from the Episcopal Church in an unseemly act of “geographical discrimination”.

We need to listen with humility to our brothers in the DSJ and not be so “orthodox” and “judgmental” about more traditional readings and interpretations of the Canons. We need to be tolarant of divergent points of view of the Canons, because who are we to say what they mean? Particularly when rigid intrepretations of the Canons have been the cause of so much hurt.

Tom Woodward,

At each stage of this conversation, you continue to dig yourself in deeper:

“JofN did not have the gifts to speak to the likes of Akinola, Duncan, Williams and Iker the way KJS does.”

This is laughable.  At the end of a GC in which TEC had failed to do the one thing the Anglican Communion had requested of it—and now stood on the verge of expulsion, Katherine Schori stood up to give the most important sermon of her life.  If there were ever a time when there was need for a careful thoughtful attempt to reach out to those who disagreed with her, this was it.  If there were ever a time when there was need for Schori to confirm that she was not the radical revisionist she was already being portrayed, this was it.  If there were ever a time to make the case to the Anglican Commuion that TEC intended to walk together and not apart, this was it.  What did Schori do?  She gave a rambling meditation about jogging with rabbits with a zinger about “Mother Jesus” that she had to know would offend.  Oh, yes. This is a woman who knows how to speak to Akinola, Duncan, Williams(!) and Iker.  I’m just not sure that “Up yours” was the best message to convey.

“Even the crypto-fundamentalism that is driving so much of the “orthodox” movement in TEC is a recent innovation or revision in our church.”

Five points off for using the F-word—“fundamentalist,” or any variation thereof.  In this context, “fundamentalist” is simply a slur that means anyone who believes more than I do.  But the comment itself simply confirms my claim of the short memories of revisionists.  What you call “crypto-fundamentalism” simply is historic Anglicanism. For revisionists, historic Anglicanism begins some time after the publication of John A. T. Robinson’s Honest to God, but before the 1979 Prayer Book.

“From which Gospel do you get a “literal physical resurrection?” There are several theologies or experiences of the resurrection in the Gospels.”

The answer is: From all of them. There are no gospels and no epistles that do not teach a “literal physical resurrection.”  I’ve discussed this at length here:

http://www.willgwitt.org/Resurrection1.htm

“It is equally true that in other legitimate interpretations and readings of Holy Scripture the consecration of Gene Robinson was perfectly consonant with Holy Scripture.”

Again, wrong.  There is a scholarly consensus that Scripture forbids same-sex activity, full stop.  At this point in the conversation, it is irresponsible biblical scholarship to continue to echo those like Countryman or Boswell, whose exegesis has been shown to be fallacious. Rather, the debate has now shifted.  While agreeing that Scripture forbids SSU, revisionists try to find a way to get around the prohibition. But in this case, Robinson’s consecration is not “consonant” with Holy Scripture.

I’ve addressed this here:

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/homosexual_hermeneutics.htm

“it is very clear that those supporting slavery used your approach while those opposing slavery reflected the approach of the majority of Episcopalians and me.”

Another five points off for a tired and hackneyed variation on the “shellfish” argument.  I would suggest reading Hooker.

“However, Scripture is often in conflict with Scripture, as with this verse and the earlier discussion about other flocks have I. Anglicans have traditionally lived with the tension and the paradox.”

And, again. Wrong.

“[I]t is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” Art. XX, 39 Articles.

But once again, a “traditional Anglican” means someone who has been educated at General Seminary, EDS, Seabury-Western or GTU sometime after 1965.  John Maquarrie and Norman Pittinger are the church fathers.

I have been playing around with an idea for a blog called the Anglican Majority, just to contrast the two religions that are being presented here.

What do you think?

Oh, yes. And what do real “historic Anglicans” believe about the uniqueness of Christ?  Here’s a test.  Identify the sources of the following quotes:

A) “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?

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.”

B) “They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature.  For Holy Scripture doeth set unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby man must be saved.”

For extra credit.  Which quote is really historic Anglicanism, and which is TEC’s new improved version?  Five points off for using the words “fundamentalist,” “exclusivist,” or “intolerant” in your response.  Automatic failure for using the words “inclusive,” “diversity” or “contextual.”

ROFL - If I had awards to give out, BillS would win something for his post this morning.

Dear Tom,
Thank you for your blessings.

A few questions if you don’t mind -
If Spong is truly out of the mainstream as everyone in ECUSA power claims, why hasn’t he been sanctioned?  Why hasn’t he been renounced?  Why is he being asked to attend clergy conferences and is one of the most popular speakers for Diocese?  And just in case anyone forgot the reason my objection is so strong - other than the pure garbage he manufactures when he opens his mouth - is the fact he is still a BISHOP in the Anglican Communion.  Remember that part about a bishop is a bishop is a bishop - in ALL of the communion?

So if you agree with my points of core doctrine, why did you argue with Matt about a “literal” ressurection?  And why are priests who do not believe in a physical resurrection, or a virgin birth or, heaven help us, in the diety of Christ tolerated in ECUSA?

You did not answer why ECUSA is not a member of Right to Life or Exodus or why none of their books are listed in the ever so diverse bookstore sponsored by ECUSA?

I ask these questions because I truly believe that the time for conversation is over and the time for real answers is NOW.  We are on the brink of a break that will likely leave ECUSA as a smoking rubble of ash (from my experience that is all the lawyers leave behind.)  Time for sly answers that don’t see the reality of the picture is over.  Time for slight of hand and wink of the eye are over.  And for the record - why should any diocese agree to follow ECUSA blindly.  If ECUSA were to truly repent and begin to be a Christian organization once again, these issues would never arise.

God speed.

Thank you, Diet of Worms, Keep up the good work exposing, contrasting the two opposing minds of the Anglican and Episcopal ‘Majorities.’

Thank you, Dr. Witt for another useful contrast in the form of a multiple choice test!

Thank you, BillS, for using a different kind of contrast and wit to do the same.

What a privilege, challenge, theological education, and very often, what fun, even joy, reading the orthodox blogs and bloggers can be.

Well dang, take the weekend off and the place goes crazy.  With all due respect to the very passionate posters above, I am not sure any of the above has been all that helpful at bridging our differences.  (I know, I know, some of you think that there ain’t a bridge in the world that can cover this chasm, but with Christ all things are possible, right?)

Tom and Matt, I think the better approach to this discussion is not “We were right and you were wrong” with regard to the false accusations/refutations.  I think you two have tried to steer away from that but it can be quite difficult in this blogosphere so let me provide additional pressure on the wheel.  I think the better approach is to engage in the discussion, “Why did the conservatives come to see the leadership of TEC in this way?  Why did the liberals/moderates come to see the leadership of the Network/ACC in this way?”  First, discuss the factors, which are more objective (did Spong really get invited to speak at place X by bishop Y? did Akinola really support resolution X that said Y? did Duncan really say G on video H?)  Then, put yourself in the other’s shoes and ask, how would I feel about the particular factor if I were on the “other” side? Finally, reassure the other side that they shouldn’t be concerned about that particular factor because [insert really good reason here].  Obviously, step three is the hardest part.

I hope that at the end of the conversation, for example, Tom would appreciate why a bishop’s invitation to Spong to come speak would be a concern for a conservative just as Matt would appreciate why Duncan’s use of particular “loaded” terms would be a concern to a liberal/moderate. 

Just my two cents.  Spend them on what you wish.

Jackie,
Spong is popular because he does think about reaching those the church is not reaching and he is engaging. Best of all, he is helpful in wrestling with what it is we believe and why we believe it. I know a lot of liberal clergy around the country and I don’t know any who, after reading or hearing Spong, have accepted his theology.

There are a lot of bishops around the world who should not be functioning as bishops in the church. You have your list, I have mine. That a bishop is a bishop for the whole church is a myth. No bishop may enter another diocese to function as a Christian minister without the express approval of the bishop of that diocese. As a priest I may go into any American diocese and function for 30 days without permission.

I argue with Matt and William Witt about a “literal physical resurrection” because that is not the doctrine of the church and is not part of the gospel tradition. A physical resurrection, yes. But “literal?” The resurrected Jesus walks through walls, remember? and is rapidly transported over great distances. Let the story and the reports be as they are. I say proudly, And I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without having to literalize the resurrection, robbing it of much of its power.

William Witt,
If you are interested in a dialogue, you’re on, but this blog is not a friendly place in which to carry it on. I have appreciated the generosity of spirit, most notably in Jackie’s last post, but the attacks are bothersome. If you or anyone else is really interested in genuine dialogue and listening, you can find me at my blog:
http://www.turningthingsupsidedown.blogspot.com
you can post your email as comment after “Falsely Accused” or begin the dialogue there.
Tom Woodward

Widening Gyre, I’d like to ask if you understand that this whole thing involves The Church and is a theological matter not a political one.

Settling a theological difference is something that only conviction, not compromise or conversations can settle. 

One cannot divide a baby or a pearl without destroying it, nor can anyone divide or pollute the Gospel of The Church. 

Jesus is Lord and Christ is THE foundation of the Church.  He IS the Word Incarnate. 

One’s attitude and reverence of the Holy Scripture, toward His Holy Church exactly replicates, actually IS, one’s attitude toward Christ.

Floridian,

Good question.  Here is my answer: I think that we conservatives can do a better job explaining to our liberal/moderate brothers and sisters in Christ why we think this “whole thing” (as you put it) is a theological matter. 

I like your comment about the baby and the pearl.  It is strikingly similar to a point I made not many years ago at a church down your way (in Gainesville, Go Gators!).  To many of us on the conservative side, TEC seems to be headed in a direction that will require that we change our understanding of the Gospel and that new understanding (in our minds) is of lesser value not only to us but the world.

[Part One] Whew!  Reading this whole thread in one sitting is exhausting.  I found, in doing so, a simple statement that seems to clinch the whole issue.
 
Mr. Woodward (who, by the way, must be commended for his fortitude in so painstakingly responding to his many opponents; he’s almost as persistent as Matt Kennedy, but then we all know that Matt is actually the Energizer Bunny) . . . as I was saying, Mr. Woodward said this: “I do not believe it is a matter of core doctrine that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus—that His birth was at the divine initiative is important, but the history of the phrase, coming from a questionable interpretation of Isaiah, particularly its function at the time it was inserted into the creed indicate that it is the divine initiative that is important, not the nuts and bolts of it.  We get to differ about the nuts and bolts—unless that is defined for us at General Convention, in a new Book of Common Prayer or in a common agreement in a new (and pretty scary) Anglican Covenant.” 

This is quite simply heretical.  If, as he claims, the so-called Core Doctrine of TEC does fail to specify that Jesus was born of a Virgin, then TEC is heretical.  There can be no question.  No true apostolic Church has or can consign that doctrine to its list of indifferent matters. 

I’ll readily agree that Matthew’s Gospel uses the Septuagint’s Isaiah 7:14 to seal the truth, and that the Hebrew, apparently, did not so specify “virgin” in the verse.  So what?  Matthew finds the verse because he already knows that Jesus is virgin-born.  It’s noteworthy that Luke, who seems to disagree with Matthew on so many other points of Jesus’ birth-story, agrees on this one. 

It is quite permissible to expose this claim to all the historical scrupulousness we can muster since the Church fully intends the doctrine to be historical and since God is author of all truth, not just the truth found in Bible and creed.  Since our two best sources on the matter, Matthew and Luke, agree on this, it’s hard to see how any other information could possibly come to light to overthrow this doctrine on historical grounds.  Which means that we can only overthrow it on the grounds that it offends our idea of incarnation.  Perhaps we don’t like miracles.  Maybe it offends our sense of what’s “important.”  Maybe we don’t like God mixing himself up with the “nuts and bolts” of life here on earth.  All that simply means that we’re not orthodox, believing Christians.  (I hasten to add that we might still be very nice, caring people who respect the dignity of every human being.) 

Mr. Woodward seems to think that he knows what the doctrine of the virgin birth (virginal conception, actually) really means.  Something about “the divine initiative.”  That’s fine as far as it goes.  I’m actually much more stumped than he is: I’m not sure what it means or why it’s there.  I find it an unfolding mystery that continues to feed—and stymie—me.  Unfortunately, Mr. Woodward seems to think that he can substitute his divine-initiative interpretation for the doctrine itself without actually departing from the faith.  That perfectly epitomizes the movement of our Episcopal Church into heresy: we exchange our birthright (in apostolic Christianity) for a mess of watery porridge.

I actually disagree with Mr. Woodward’s (and the Righter verdict’s) substitution of creedal and Prayer Book forms for the Scriptures as the Church’s authority.  As our own formularies, our Reformation history and the Lambeth Quadrilateral all confess, the Scriptures—in their entirety—are the Word of God.  Thus, creeds operate to elucidate the Scriptures in the Apostolic fashion.  They do not serve as a summary of the Scriptures and even less as a substitute for them.  Nevertheless, here Mr. Woodward is hoist on his own petard, for the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is indeed in the creeds, both in the beloved Baptismal Covenant and in the church’s ecumenical, Nicene creed.  That he can, having argued that Prayer Book and Creed, not Scriptures per se, determine our “Core Doctrine”, still argue that Jesus’ virginal conception is not required makes it clear that, for him and for the new Episcopal Church, nothing is required.  There is precisely no mandatory doctrinal content to the faith.

[Part Two] Yes, I realize that Mr. Woodward will deny this conclusion.  I suspect he’ll argue that we all will agree on his “divine initiative” interpretation even if we can’t agree on the “nuts and bolts” of actual, historical virginal conception.  He’s right here in this sense: people will not affiliate with the Episcopal Church unless they already have some desire to honor or even worship Jesus Christ (although I have heard a bishop pander to those skittish about actually worshipping Jesus by warning against “an idolatry of the 2nd person of the Trinity”—Bill Black, Southern Ohio, late ‘80’s).  OK.  We’re a group who generally recognize Jesus as someone worth honoring.  Who, then, could argue with the idea that his birth occurs at some unspecified “initiative” of some unspecified “divine”?  If, furthermore, I’m instructed that saying “born of the Virgin Mary” every Sunday really means nothing more than that I think Jesus’ appearance in history is the providential work of a divine or God-like force, I will start saying it, recognizing that the Episcopal Church does not actually believe that Jesus was (necessarily) born of a virgin.  Sure, some benighted folk in the Church, and especially those Africans, might believe in an actual virgin birth, but since I know what is “important” (as Mr. Woodward has carefully directed me to “important” things) I don’t need to commit myself to anything so repellent to my notion of how things are. 

Perhaps Mr. Woodward considers that self-selection of persons in a church who agree among themselves that Jesus was a good force in history rather than a lunatic or a wicked force constitutes some Core Doctrine.  I am saying that, in fact, it removes all doctrinal content from the church.  What’s left is not doctrine.  What’s left is the assurance that all doctrine is infinitely malleable to adjust to the core beliefs of any given individual.  This may feel like a church, with all sorts of table-talk and ritualism and fellow-feeling.  Jesus didn’t invent comraderie. His enemies had comraderie.  Those who would deny him had comraderie.  Those indifferent to his claims and unwilling to turn to him for salvation can have plenty of comraderie, even in buildings and institutions dedicated to his name.

(One final point.  Mr. Woodward repeats his virgin birth performance later with the ludicrous argument that no Gospel insists on a literal, physical resurrection of our Lord.  Doesn’t Jesus showing his hands and feet and saying that he has flesh and bones and eating a piece of fish in Luke 24:39-43 count?  We so-called orthodox folk really do understand that many people do not believe that Jesus was actually raised from the dead in every possible way.  Really, we do.  We even respect and love such people.  We try to appreciate the reasons they find the apostolic pronouncement unconvincing.  We just do not consider them Christians.  When they insist on calling themselves Christians, saying prayers, acting as though Jesus is alive—but not really, not in that way that’s offensive—we simply, out of charity, need to identify their version of Christianity as heresy.)

Tom,

I am very disappointed to hear someone claim the name of Christ and say that they are ‘orthodox,’ only in the next breath to deny that belief in the bodily resurrection is a necessary feature of orthodoxy.

Throughout the 2000 year history of our faith that position has NEVER received a serious hearing until the latter part of the 20th century.  It seems as if those who could not believe that supernatural intervention in history was at all possible took theological refuge in a metaphorical sense of resurrection, when the Church has never, ever meant that.  It is a modern form of gnosticism and the Church has always, rightly and in accord with Holy Scripture, condemned gnostic denials of the both divine and bodily nature and activity of Christ.  It was part of the early Christological controversies, where heresies were controverted, where the Church universal denounced as heretical language that was inconsistent with the plain meaning of Scripture. 

As it stands, the Creeds that you claim to embrace as you say them burn up the ‘merely metaphorical’ sense you attribute to them.  It is very, very sad that you cannot understand the difference between plain meaning and a new, revised, metaphorical meaning that, in fact, does not proclaim the truth but some other vision of Jesus Christ. 

I am sorry, but if that is the ‘Episcopal Majority,’ then you have shown exactly why we are in the crisis we are.  The physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ has been, and always will be, a non-negotiable feature of orthodox Christian faith.  Please, I will now leave it to you to categorize your true views for yourself.

Steve
http://drlake.blogspot.com

WG,
I disagree that the ‘new understanding’ merely lessens the value of the Gospel. 

Instead, revisionists render the Gospel worthless, by worshipping a form (their own invention and substitute for God)and denying the power of Godliness.  It is a matter of supressing, distrusting, refusing, avoiding, hiding from the power of God to heal, deliver, enable them change and overcome their sin (which they are protecting) and ‘old man of the flesh’ identities (to which they are clinging).

“William Witt,
If you are interested in a dialogue, you’re on, but this blog is not a friendly place in which to carry it on.”

Well, no.  I’m not intested in dialogue.  I’m really not, and I haven’t been for some time.  In this discussion, “dialogue” has become a code word for wearing down the orthodox until we give in.  There was a time (probably ten years ago) when I thought dialogue between the orthodox and revisionists was possible, and that if we just sat down together and treated each other respectably we could reach some kind of undertanding.  Events at that time (already) convinced me that the time for dialogue was over, and that the future of a church was at stake.  With GC03 (now confirmed at GC06) TEC/ECUSA made official what I anticipated ten years ago.  It no longer wants to be a Christian church.

Once in awhile I ask myself if I have overreacted, if I have not been listening as carefully as I should have.  Then I find that evem those who call themselves “moderates” in TEC reject the virginal conception, believe that finding the bones of Jesus in a grave outside Palestine would make no difference to their faith, make excuses for unitarians like Marcus Borg, and praise the virtues of the Jesus Seminar.

What could we possibly have a dialogue about?  Whether we prefer jazz to 70’s classic rock?

Floridian,

Let’s not speak in terms of disagreement.  The exercise is to put oneself in the “other’s shoes.”  The new understanding of the Gospel in the minds of the liberal/moderate (if we can get them to understand why we see it as new) has value TO THEM.  What we have to do is show them that we have something much more valuable.  More importantly, we have to show them that the Prayer Book shares our understanding and that by accepting their “new understanding” they will have to give up some (if not all) of the Prayer Book.

But “literal?” The resurrected Jesus walks through walls, remember? and is rapidly transported over great distances. Let the story and the reports be as they are. I say proudly, And I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without having to literalize the resurrection, robbing it of much of its power.

It sounds rather as if you are afraid of its power. You want to confine it into something that operates within natural laws that you understand. But God transcends what we perceive as natural laws - or he is no God.

Steve—I hope my later words clarified matters. I certainly believe in the resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ and as promised to the faithful. As Paul would note, we already participate in that resurrection (we are ambassadors from heaven, our home/permanent address is in heaven). I would never have said the resurrection is “merely metaphorical.” I would say that its meaning is not exhausted by the language we use.

Oscewicee—The last thing I or any orthodox Christian would do would be to confine the meaning of the resurrection or the event itself in natural law. My favorite way of conceptualizing such matters is reflected in Karl Heim’s “Christian Faith and Natural Science.” Heim speaks of the Holy as in the Fourth Dimension which is always present but not visible to us in the way things are in a three dimensional universe—but enters the world of our perceptions in different events. Please, everyone on this blog, don’t attack a brief summary unless you know Heim.

I believe in the Resurrection of the dead. I believe in the Resurrection of the Church. I believe in the resurrection of our world—and look forward and anticipate and work for the liberation of all the oppressed. How about the others who post here? How do you see your lives spent in mission in response to Matthew 25? I rarely hear anything about that from conservatives.
The Very Rev. Thomas B. Woodward

Rev Woodward, your gratitious insult suggesting that “conservatives” care nothing and do nothing for the “oppressed” is rather obscene…  What this usually means is we don’t share your radical left-wing political agenda.

Fr. Would you care to document your charge that the orthodox do not care for the poor or do anything to serve them, or are you simply making an assertion?

Fr. Woodward, some of us take seriously the model of the widow with her mite. Are you, on the other hand, keeping score?

I echo somebody’s comment above – take one weekend off, and look at what you miss.

Tom Woodward’s gracious engagement here has been fantastic.  We need to have this dialogue within the burning remains of the Episcopal Church, if only for posterity’s sake.

And, with all due respect, Rev. Woodward, the dialogue has been quite fruitful in debunking, as a self-described moderate, your own essay.  We’ve seen you now throw cold water on both the Virgin Birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, only to reverse yourself after it’s become obvious you’ve undermined your own position.  (Not strictly true, of course: I’m not sure you have fully reversed yourself on your disbelief of the Virgin Birth.)

In the course of things, we’ve been presented to such self-contradictory gems as these:

“I do not believe it is a matter of core doctrine that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus”

“Michael B+ Our core doctrine is expressed in the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds and in The Book of Common Prayer.”

All three of which, of course, affirm the same doctrine you deny.  So, an admitted heretic (strictly by the definition) is chastising traditionalists for accusing ECUSA of fostering heresy.

All of this has been commented upon above.  What really shouldn’t stand is the implied calumny, “I rarely hear anything about [mission] from conservatives.”  Sir, I have attended both churches both faithful and progressive, and I can assure you, mission is part and parcel of everything many faithful parishes do.  It is not unusual – not unusual by a very long shot – for these conservative churches to have many of their own members in foreign lands preaching the Gospel, feeding the hungry and caring for the sick, with many parallel activities going on at home.  But, shall we stereotype?  What activities I’ve seen predominate, by contrast, at the rich, liberal, urban parishes I’ve attended have been architectural tours and organ recitals, book-ending the Adult Education classes on Spong, Crossan and Borg.  It’s all very intellectually stimulating, you understand, but it ain’t, “mission.”

Matt, et. al.
  I raised the concerns about Matthew 25 in a genuine way. It troubles me to see so little about responding to the call of Jesus to serve the poor in a blog with your title. I was hoping to be disabused of this.

  I appreciate the privilege of posting on your blog, but do not appreciate my words being taken out of context. I will match my orthodoxy and that of the bishops, priests and laypeople in The Episcopal Majority against any of your posters—literalism in doctrine or Biblical interpretation is not always a blessing. Again the purpose of EM is to provide a positive assertion of the Episcopal Church’s and Anglican doctrine without the “Gotcha” that I have experienced in your articles and in the postings. I have learned my lesson. You are not interested in genuine expressions of the Episcopal Church’s and traditional Anglican faith—it seems better to rant.

That you all continue to focus on Spong and Borg when the majority of Episcopalians do not know who they are and have not read their writings. This is the straw man I was noting earlier. I will take my stand with Desmond Tutu and the heroes of our church and let you have the nit pickers. God’s call to His Kingdom is too important to deal with disparaging remarks and actions against faithful gay and lesbian people and people like our PB elect.  Even the Reformed and Conservative Jews have ditched the Purity Code as related to homosexual people as incompatible with what the rest of Scripture teaches us about love and the presence of God in faithful people. I fear the folks of the Network, Standing Firm etc. are going to drown in their fear and their unwillingness to let go of a few proof texts. That is sad, because we do share the same Risen Lord.
Tom Woodward
over and out—I will be on:
http://www.turningthingsupsidedown.blogspot.com where you will find other things to take out of context.

On Matt. 25:

For four years (1990-1994) I was the IT administrator at Hartford’s largest homeless shelter.  St. John’s, Bristol, where I was on the vestry, and to whose building I was summoned on the day in which Bishop Andrew Smith invaded our building, hijacked our computer, and changed the church locks, had been working for several years with the city of Bristol in converting a home donated to the parish into a halfway house for homeless teenagers in the city of Bristol.  In addition, the congregation actively supported an orphanage for handicapped children in Haiti.  To the best of my knowledge, both the halfway house and support for the orphanage were casualties of Bishop Smith’s introduction of “inclusivity” to our parish.

Before folks go postal over the good Mr. Woodward’s parting comments, I suggest kindly that those who have ears, hear.

Listen to what he has said (or read what he has written) carefully.  What do his comments say about us?  Forget about what they say about him. 

I especially found his comment about Borg and Spong helpful.  In my parish, full of all kinds of interesting Episcopalians, less than a third have probably heard of Spong, much less Borg.

Whoops, the years I worked at the homeless shelter should be 2000-2004.  Advancing age places havoc on the memory.  I do vaguely remember having to deal with something called Y2K.

Fr. Tom

Part of the problem with your assertions v. Matt 25 and serving the poor is that you seem to be simply regurgitating a revisionist stereotype of traditionalists created to serve as a strawman in these little exchanges.

So we’re simply asking for evidence to back up your accusation that the orthodox have failed to live up to the call of Christ to serve the poor and feed the hungry.

At my small parish we do quite a bit to serve the poor. In fact, if you take a look at the people who attend you could make a good case that they “are” the poor. But while we do quite alot, we don’t announce it with fanfare and trumpet blasts as is generally the case in the Episcopal Church.

The message of ECUSA seems not so much, “feed the poor” but “look at us as we feed the poor”  or “watch as I go out of my way to show you pictures of starving children I took from the inside of my UN SUV on my day trip to the slums in Haiti before returning to the 5 star hotel” or “witness our generosity as we host 1000 dollar plate dinners for the poorest among us.”

Sometimes it seems that the Episcopal Church is far more concerned about being seen feeding the hungry than actually feeding the hungry. Not that good work is not being done, certainly it is, but you must ask…why the incessant need to be seen as altruistic?

As far as genuine exchanges go, I’m all for them, but it does not seem that you are willing to recieve what you give. On the one hand, you charge us as narrow minded fundamentalists bent on proof-texting and hating gay people. On the other hand, when we accuse TEC of heresy and endeavor prove it with genuine evidence, you say we are resorting to “invective” and “gotcha” journalism.

It seem, Fr.Tom, that you are far more familiar and comfortable with the idea of “dialogue” and debate, than the actual substance of it.

WG,

Whether or not it is true that the majority have never heard of Spong and Borg, is beside the point. Their ignorance is despite not because of leaders like +Jefferts-Schori.

WG, sometimes, your irenic impulse goes too far.  What his comments say about us is absolutely nothing.  Rev. Woodward, an admitted heretic, was engaged substantively on his claims in the course of this thread.  Like many so-called “moderates” who are anything but, he stumbled and bumbled his way around, getting himself into more and more trouble until he picked up his ball and went home.

What is really becoming laughable is the apparently now de rigeur charge among the Left that their comments are being taken, “out of context,” even on a thread spanning 120+ comments.  Woodward wants to slip and slide around debunking the resurrection (the undivided teaching of the Church since ca. A.D. 33) and the Virgin Birth of Jesus (the documented undivided teaching of the Church since A.D. 325) and be free to still call himself, “orthodox.”  The only response to that from the standpoint of the church Catholic, WG, is, “no, you’re not.”  That does not make one a, “literalis[t],” bent on installing a, “Purity Code.”  Rather, Woodward’s charge in the first instance is yet another in the growing list of examples of the disconnect from reality of the Episcopal Left, and their complete embrace of a through-the-looking-glass anti-world in which those standing in the mainstream of Anglican thought prior to 1968 are the ones machine-gunning the traditions of Anglicanism.  To which the appropriate response is not to hear, but to laugh.

To the men and women who serve our country admirably delivering our mail through rain, sleet, snow, and dark of night, please accept my apology for the inappropriate and demeaning use of the word “postal.”  You have my deepest appreciation and heartfelt apology.

Oh no, I’ve done it again.  D&#* that irenic impulse!  Man, I hate these inborn effects…

If the Phil posting just before Widening Gyre above, is our beloved kindly, meek and mild-mannered prince of charity, Phil Snyder, then I can attest and witness that the time for ***dialogue*** is now officially over!!!

And so, let it be said that 8/28/06 was the moment in time when ALL patience with heretics was removed from the orthodox camp. 

Revisionists beware: do not ever say the *D* word again.

Why does someone who considers himself orthodox call his blog site turningthingsupside down. Most folks around here are trying to keep things right side up.

Floridian, I am a different Phil, and I obviously have not yet reached the level of charity as has Phil Snyder, whose comments I also enjoy.

But look, seriously, Tom Woodward was mostly enagaged with substance and politeness here.  (Not every post falls into that category, of course, but they never will.)  There does come a point, I think, when not every topic can be viewed as something up for redefinition among us Christians.  Although Episcopalians deny it, like 2-year-olds, with screams and tantrums, there really are some bright lines and distinctives to our Faith.  Why is it mean to say so?  Isn’t it just the opposite?  I’m not asking that we be a confessional church or burn people at the stake, but where does it end?  Anywhere?

Actually, it’s a serious question, WG.  Is there a point at which you’re willing to tell somebody, “No, that belief is not orthodox?”

Fr. Tom I hesitate to write this as to you it will sound less than charitable.  It is not meant to be. I have monitored your comments for some time at HoB/D as well.  I was one of those ignorant pew sitters of whom you speak.

The problem is that you and almost all of ECUSA clergy do know who Spong is.  You are also aware of ECUSA’s almost militant stand and support of abortion.  You and almost all clergy knew about the politics of the Gene Robinson election.  I can go on with the list.

For me its is more personal.  I have had several clergy lie to me and one do so in my home at my kitchen table.  I have been threatened by clergy as well.  Trust me, I have removed my children from the church but it has likely cost me my parish and my denomination. 

I have been observing and reading now for more than three years.  To the best of my understanding, The Windsor Report gives you a way back.  Please take it.

Phil,

I can’t speak for Tom Woodward, but I would guess (he may prove me wrong) that he firmly believes that there are bright lines to our Faith. I would bet that if Tom were ever to visit us again, he could give us some examples of these bright lines.

All of which begs the question, which is after all the $64,000 question, who gets to set those lines?  Windsor came to a conclusion that a bright line had been crossed and invited TEC to come back across that line.  It is still up in the air whether TEC has moved back across the line.  I guess that will be up to the Primates/the ABC and his advisors to figure out whether we have returned and if not, what to do about it.

Whether you or I think there are bright lines is, unfortunately, irrelevant (unless the ABC has put you on his advisors’ list—I’m still waiting for the call).  We can debate what you and I think are “orthodox” positions until the cows come home but it won’t help us resolve the Windsor issues.

Speaking of Windsor, what do the folks over at EM have to say about Windsor?

WG,

The lines between orthodoxy and heresy do not depend on the decisions of the IU’s. At best they will only recognise the heresy has already taken place. They do not define orthodoxy or heresy.

The most worthwhile comment I have encountered lately re: *dialogue* and *conversation* is this from editorial by John Buchanan, Christian Century, Aug.22, who quotes Cardinal Walter Kasper saying the ‘goal of ecumenical conversation is not conversion to one church but *deeper conversion to Christ*, and that it is through that conversion that “we move closer to one another.” 

Contrast this with worthless TEC ‘dialogue’ which aims to move the hearer away from Jesus as Lord and Saviour of His Church and affirms of other monotheistic religions, personal and plural ‘truths’, the supreme right of the individual’s right of ‘personal choice’ to determine moral values and sexual practices, reducing Christ to A way, not THE Way, dissecting and discarding Scripture at will.

Matt,

Let’s play this one out. So if the IU’s don’t determine orthodoxy/heresy lines for Anglicans, who does? 

Or maybe I should rephrase, “If the IU’s don’t determine when a position crosses that bright line between orthodoxy to heresy, who does?”

Tom,
You missed my point but then I have become use to that when dealing with Moderates and Reappraisers.  These core doctrines are truly core to us Orthodox.  If we were interested in a multiple choice religion we would have picked the LDS or the Unitarians.  And how do I know that it was the Holy Spirit and not some other spirit that acted at GC03 and GC06?  Because alot of people who wanted that to happen say so?  No, not likely.  There must be a way to test the Spirit especially that which flies in the face of any reasonable reading of the plain meaning of Scripture AND the majority of the Anglican Communion. 
And as for Spong and Borg, I don’t want my clergy or fellow laity reading or listening to them.  If it is mind expansion they are seeking, try Julian of Norwich, or Blackaby or Stout or Watchman Nee or Matthew Henry.  There are libraries and libraries out there written by people who actually believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.  Saying reading their works is necessary, is like saying it is necessary to buy pornography in order to understand it.  Excuse me, but Oscar Meyer has a best seller named for that one.
Words can not express how appalling I found your comments about the good works of the Orthodox.  Have you actually checked into an Orthodox church?  I have and the good works these folks are doing with grace and generosity is beyond comprehension.  And what’s more they do it in quiet preferring to seek their reward in heaven.  I belong to a very small parish but I can tell you we support the local food bank with contributions of goods and money, sponsor about 70 children with the Angel Tree project, contribute to the Heifer project, have an active inreach and outreach program - just to name a few - oh and we commit 10% of our revenue to foreign mission. 
I am so disappointed that you chose to run away rather than face the facts of why we are in this dilemna.  The problem is that the Reappraisers are not willing to back off in anyway while asking the Reasserters to - just learn to love.  What you are failing to understand is that if you were asking us for more money, more time, more participation - something we could give, then we would have something to negotiate.  But you are asking us to compromise our faith and that is something we are not prepared to do.  You will not like the analogy but I think of it in the same way I think of the two reporters who converted to Islam at the point of a gun.  After all, there really is no difference between Islam and a watered down Jesus - neither one is Christianity.

Hey, everybody! I do read your comments and take them probably more seriously than you have taken mine. I remind us all that our stridency and arrogance mask the reality that the full truth is hidden from us all, unless we are Gnostics, of course. I am not a Gnostic and do not believe those who post are.

Lee—I would be happy to respond to an email and would like to converse with you. This blog is not an appropriate place to have those conversations (the same is true with anyone here). Please drop me a note at my email, (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) so we can try to move ahead, each in our own way.

A note to all: be kind and generous towards those in TEC you treat as your enemies. We are just as dedicated to Jesus Christ as you are and we are just as dedicated to the kingdom and orthodoxy as you are—we see things differently and some of that has to do with how we have been raised in or out of the church, as well as several other things. Some of you have expressed the opinion that the time is past for dialogue—I believe any real dialogue has not even begun.

Another good reason to be kind and generous to people like me is that church property will remain with us in any split, no matter how many schemes are trotted out like Province X, ALPO. The rules are very, very clear. If you want to leave TEC without the property, you will find people like me wishing you well in every way and praying for you daily. If you prefer to call names and scoff as though we are idiots caring nothing for Jesus Christ and the cause of righteousness, it will be hard to be generous—not a threat, that is just the way it is. I suspect I will be generous no matter what the name calling - but what would you expect from others you slander (Choose This Day, for instance).

I wish you all well. I may be back to catch up on Parts 3 and 4. I read them with great interest and wish there were an easier way to set the record straight.
Tom Woodward
P.S. My blog is named “turningthingsupsidedown” because that was the title of my second book, written for The Episcopal Church back in 1975. $10 gets you a copy or you can go to amazon.com and pay up to $75 for it.

WG,

The line exists whether anyone recognizes it or not.

This is really a philosophical/theological point rather than the ecclesial one you seem to want to make it.

Let’s say you murder someone publicly in cold blood. Whether or not society or the Church sees or understands your act as “crossing the line” you have, in fact, crossed the line in an objective sense.

The subjective recognition of that fact by the authorities will hopefully follow. But even if it does not, you have still crossed the line.

In the same way, the Episcopal Church in the consecration of VGR crossed the line in an objective sense between heresy and orthodoxy whether or not the ABC sees this to be true because it was an act in direct violation of the eternal laws revealed by God in his Word.

Wow!  Just back from a weekend at Camp Allen where my son’s journey took a huge step forward at Happenings, my daughter served on the staff of YES (sorry, proud Papa), and my wife and I sponsored a wonderful couple at Cursillo - and my friends, you have been busy at work. 

Praise God for Fr. Doug, Matt+. William Witt, Jackie, Lee (we need to hear more from you), et al.  My heart is so calmed by your true orthodox voices.  I think Matt’s+ “The lines between orthodoxy and heresy do not depend on the decisions of IU’s ...” says it all for me.

Amen and Amen.

As Garrison Keilor said about attending a Uniterian funeral, “The deceased was all dressed up, but with no place to go!”

Whether the property rules are clear remains to be seen, but the fact that Tom names his blog site after a book that he wrote that no one has read (how can us poor people afford $75?) back in 1975 hardly explains his claims of orthodoxy. He and the rest of ECUSA leadership is only orthodox in the sense that War is Peace, Oceana has always been our Ally, and other Orwellian twists of language.

Again, it is amazing to this middle aged pew sitter that the liberals find infinite variation and malliability in the Bible, yet are most hard core and uncharitable when invoking the most man made part of ECUSA, their beloved Canons.

The lines are clear. It is time to leave ECUSA and their Wiccan ways as quickly as possible.

Tom
We are not trying to call others names but we are trying very hard to call them as we see them.  As for the name calling issue in general - have you checked out some of the liberal blogs - or even your own letter?  If memory serves - vindictive, arrogant and ignorant were some of your choices.  I do admit that they are nicer than neo-purist nazi.

Holding the property hostage may or may not work out for ECUSA.  So far it looks like NY and CA will go with the parishes. When whole dioceses leave I imagine the courts will be called to sit in judgement once again. 

As for me - leaving the property is not my first preference but certainly doable if it means keeping the faith.  I would prefer to make sure it is not used to shore up ECUSA’s every diminishing revenues.  I believe if the split comes, it will mean that those who remain will have no rudder or compass and will be tossed about by the winds of the ever changing culture.

Continuing the discussion is not impossible.  One really needs to look at the benefit/cost analysis.

“Another good reason to be kind and generous to people like me is that church property will remain with us in any split, no matter how many schemes are trotted out like Province X, ALPO.”

Well, that certainly says it all.  Some of us have been there, done that. Bought the T-Shirt.  TEC really does not want to go down the litigation route.  When they win, they lose.

Bills, too bad folks haven’t read it. It got great reviews from people you now admire. You won’t read something written 30 years ago and say you are an avid reader of the Bible? 
I’m offering you a $65 discount. Please read the article, first, to which you are responding, “Falsely Accused.” Your identification of ECUSA and Wicca is reducing ECUSA to two people—pretty childish.

Jackie—I asked about the outreach of conservative congregations. I got one taker. I do not mean to demean anyone. In my last parish, we didn’t have any “orthodox,” but we had a whole lot of political and social conservatives and we had a lot to do with the transforming of our city and surrounding areas. I don’t experience you’all as much involved, but that is only my experience—I am more than happy to learn more.
Tom Woodward

Tom -
I cannot think of one conservative parish that is not heavily involved in mission.  Our little parish is offering our building to those who want to come and work in the Katrina ravaged areas. I have been amazed at the generosity (spiritual and material)of the untold people who have come through our doors.  I can only think of one group that was not a network church but should I then extrapolate from that information that non-network churches are not doing mission?  No, that would be ungenerous and judgemental of me.  Is there some place we can go to see an accounting of the “works” of the non-orthodox?

First for Tom, your comment about being kind and generous reminded me of many of my first forays over onto your moderate/liberal ground.  I had to convince them that I was just as serious about Jesus (perhaps more so) than they were.  I have continually asked both sides to be more charitable in their “assumptions” about the “other’s” beliefs.  But just as there are folks over here who want to judge/prejudge you, just remember that your side has the same problem. I hope you are telling them to be more charitable. 

Now, to Matt.  If this ain’t an ecclesial problem, why are we talking about it?  Isn’t this a discussion of what it means to be Anglican/Episcopalian?  This is, in my mind, not a discussion of what it means to be Christian.  Maybe I’ve misunderstood the purpose of Stand Firm. 

Or perhaps I should rephrase it as “what does it mean to be Christian from the Anglican perspective?”  Surely the answer cannot cannot cannot be, “Whatever I say it means based on my particular understanding of Scripture,” right? 

I get really nervous with so many individuals claiming the authority to determine what is orthodox without any reference to a particular community. 

The “just me and my bible” answer is a little scary, considering Windsor spent so much time talking about the community of believers (past, present and future, or said another way, Scripture, tradition, and reason).

Tom - I count six takers on the outreach of conservative congregations to an accusation that was ignorant in the first place.

As far as church property remaining with you in any split and that being very, very clear - you’re in California, right?

WG - I said in an earlier post - I am not in this fight to save the Episcopal Church.  My prayer is to keep the Episcopal Church Christian.

Fr Woodward

With all due respect, it is not people like you who will decide property issues, it is people like me.

I say this with great sadness because I would prefer that it be people like you, indeed be you personally.  But it appears that such is not to be.

As to clarity, the situation is anything but clear.  It will be decided by the highest courts of the fifty states.  They will not all go the same way; state laws and deeds vary. Things do look hopeful for departing parishes as California almost always sets the trend for the development of state law.  I say this somewhat ruefully as a long-time member of the New York bar, the state that used to be the most influential.

But the results will be mixed, except for people like me.  We always get our share.

WG, I agree with your last paragraph.  This is an ecclesial problem, and we are reaping its bitter fruits.

I think the Anglican experiment was cohesive in an age when the “simple stuff” was held in common, by which I mean such things as the Trinitarian understanding of God; the belief that Jesus is Lord; the belief that Jesus was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary; that Jesus really suffered, really died and bodily and literally rose on the third day; that He ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of the Father; that He will judge all men at the end of the world; that we are to remember him in the sacrament of the Eucharist; that Christians are to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that Holy Scripture really is the inspired Word of God, not a bunch of error-prone musings by itinerant preachers from antiquity; that our side of the deal offered to us freely by Jesus is that we repent and seek amendment of life; and that there are standards of Christian morality that we can and should use as guideposts in our Christian walk.

Of course, Anglicanism comprehended two or three or four (not fifty) different understandings of the hard stuff – what is the nature of sacramental action, how are we justified, what is the nature of the visible Church.

Without reciting the whole sordid litany of the past thirty or forty years of Episcopal history, the simple stuff is now being attacked, overtly or subtly, nearly everywhere we turn, by clergy and laity alike.  Contra Tom Woodward, it isn’t hard at all to find preaching in Episcopal churches across this fair land that scoffs at the miracles of Jesus (talk about putting God in a box) or derides Christianity for its message of uniqueness.  Certainly nobody had to “prejudge” Rev. Woodward as a good example; he denied the Virgin Birth on this very thread.

In this environment, when the basics of our Faith – the “simple stuff” – are no longer held in common, we can expect anarchy to set in, and so it has.  In my view, we can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, but will be forced to adopt some kind of confessional basis for our common life.  What form that must take, I don’t know, but I don’t see any other way of recreating a coherent Anglican experiment.  Innocence has been lost.

Tom,

Thanks for your response. From whom that we now admire has your book gotten great reviews?  What would lead you to believe that that I would not read something from 30 years ago, when clearly I have read 1984? I very well understand totalitarian impulses and behavior now being exhibited by ECUSA (disagree with us and we will seize your property.)

I was not responding to any article, I was making the observation that by definition orthodox people are not turning things upside down, they are trying to follow Jesus and Anglicanism in a way that is consistent with 2000 years of Biblical understanding and practice.

What makes you think that you hold all the cards on property rights? My parish was founded in 1733, pre dating the formation of ECUSA by many years. While neither side has a slam dunk, that we pre date the formation of ECUSA is pretty strong argument. In the final analysis, even if you win all of the property, and have an ECUSA with 500,000 people nation wide, what have you won?

I have enjoyed the dialogue, and admire your fortitude, but there doesn’t seem to be much “listening” or “humility” going on. Despite the fact that 75 million Anglicans world wide disagree with the position of ECUSA, the attitude is one of arrogance, everyone in the parade is out of step except for me.

I’m flabbergasted, or maybe not.  I think perhaps Tom+ and I are speaking different languages, or at least different dialects of the same language.  My understanding of what he is saying changes from post to post; I understand Matt and Sarah and the others very well, but I become confused when Tom responds to Matt <ital> et al </ital>.  I consider myself fairly well-read, and I have been on this planet nearly 60 years, but I frankly have never run across some of the assertions regarding scripture that I hear from the reappraiser side.  Perhaps there is a lexicon out there that I can consult from time to time?  I recall words from an old litany, “From ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggety beasties:
<ital>good Lord deliver us!</ital> ... From revisionists and reappraisers and Spong and Borg: <ital>good Lord deliver us!</ital>

WG

You are suggesting a dichotomy I did not propose. I was simply pointing out that this is first and foremost a theological question. TEC is either in a state of heresy or it is not and in an objective sense this question is not determined by the Church.

Hopefully heresy will lead to ecclesial problems, as it has here, but regardless of the recognition or lack thereof, logically speaking the objective state of being a heretic precedes recognition of that by the church.

As far as your “just me and my bible” bit. It is a bit rediculous. Actually the position I am advocating is called sola scriptura and it is a traditionally Anglican one as you will see if you scroll down the list of articles the homepage and read the article by the same title.

Your assertion is little more than an uninformed stereotypes.

El Jefe, have you seen the illustrations with the medeival liturgy you mentioned?  They convey an almost palpable sense of the presence of the real Enemy, though couched in fear of the dark of ordinary night, which before electricity must have been truly dark.

Re: “Another good reason to be kind and generous to people like me is that church property will remain with us in any split, no matter how many schemes are trotted out like Province X, ALPO.”

Tell that to Bishop Bruno.  ; > )

No . . . property decisions will be made on a parish by parish, state by state, diocese by diocese basis.  The litigation will go on for many many years—and I’m betting that most of the reasserters are prepared for that.  I’m sure the 815 leadership is too.  Those parishes or dioceses with strong legal cases will win.  Those without will not.

Ok, Matt, I see my error about the dichotomy.  You were stressing that this is primarily a theological matter, not an either/or (should we joke now about your being a “both/and” kind of guy?).  I misinterpreted your comment about me wanting to make it an ecclesial problem (you wrote it was really a theological problem rather than an ecclesial one).

While I agree that the underlying differences are theological (fundamentally, just who is this Jesus and what did his work here accomplish), the discussion in my mind needs to be framed as an ecclesial one or it lapses into pure subjectivity.  I think we can argue with our worthy opponents about how Anglicans approach theological issues and how we resolve our differences.  There are structures and paramaters and the IU’s to guide that discussion.
I suspect at sometime next year the status of TEC will be resolved when the invitations to Lambeth go out.  This ecclesial problem is the one I am interested in.

But when people start arguing over whether someone’s particular faith is orthodox or not, I start to lose interest because it is very difficult to reach any objective resolution; it becomes much more subjective when divorced from any particular faith community.  That’s what I was trying to say, however inartfully, with my comment about “me and my bible.”  I am sure you know just as many if not more folks than I do in much more conservative American denominations who think that each individual is ultimately the arbiter of what is or isn’t orthodox.  I think sometimes some posting here more resemble those traditions than our Anglican/Episcopal tradition.  Not that there is anything wrong with that mind you, it’s just not how we do things.  Oh, and I read your sola scriptura post when it first showed up here.  Well done. 

Peace.

Widening Gyre and Matt,

I’ve been thinking on this topic a lot lately and I hope you don’t mind if I put in my $0.02.

...the discussion in my mind needs to be framed as an ecclesial one or it lapses into pure subjectivity.  I think we can argue with our worthy opponents about how Anglicans approach theological issues and how we resolve our differences.  There are structures and paramaters and the IU’s to guide that discussion. (...)
But when people start arguing over whether someone’s particular faith is orthodox or not, I start to lose interest because it is very difficult to reach any objective resolution

We need a body of defined doctrine.  Part of why we’re in this mess is because TEC was unwilling to create such a body.  Thus, there’s no objective body for establishing heresy, etc… If that doctrine is scriptura sola, then so be it.  From what I remember of the IUs- there’s a move to create standardized doctrine, which is what Rev. Woodward may have been objecting to. 

In the past there was a general consensus about the trustworthiness of scripture, tradition, and reason.  But not anymore.  If we want to avoid TEC’s example in the future we need to write out our doctrines and explicitly state our standards.

That way we could charge priests and bishops with heresy and the charges would stick.

While I’m on the topic- I’d like to see C.B. Moss’ Christian Faith used as a basis for said doctrines.  Why reinvent the wheel, after all?

Milton: It has been a number of years.  I ran across that in a book of European history during my High School years.  I believe it is from the Norwich Litany.  I recall another old litany with the line “From the fury of the Northmen: Good Lord deliver us!”

Well, Tom,
All you did in response to me was to rehearse your previous position.
And throw a lot of really unneccessary garbage my way - and everybody’s way.

So, I’m left with the conclusion - from your words alone - that you had no intention to hear from someone who might know intention and purpose, with your purported hope that your bad report might be mitigated.

Granted, after some give and take on the issue at hand - language and action - you might end up saying you were not convinced. 
Fine.  I might not be able to convince you to change your judgment.  But to refer to nothing I said with any kind of substance, except throw in tangential barbs as if that were some kind of rebuttal technique, was IMMEDIATELY contrary to what you said you were willing to receive and do.  You took correction on names, so I know you can take correction, and take it well. 

But regarding the other stuff…. well, Tom, it didn’t look like challenging dialogue; it looked like IVT.  And it felt to me like a hit-and-run.

I haven’t gone anywhere, and I’m willing to engage you in a civil discourse.  These are important questions and allegations which you stated about DSJ and Bp Schofield, which is why I challenged your conclusions.  Let’s try it again.

Rob Eaton
Standing Committee
San Joaquin