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?  Wil