Tuesday, 19 September 2006

Bishop Duncan interviewed

There is a fascinating video interview with the Bishop of Pittsburgh, Robert Duncan. It can be found here. (changed URL)

It is almost 26 minutes long, and so takes a while to download. However, it is well worth watching if you wish to understand what and how he thinks.

It includes more “colour” on the New York meeting and also discusses briefly this week’s Camp Allen meeting.

Update
Greg Jones has commented at Anglican Centrist Response to Bob Duncan.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 10:02am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Duncan speaks up for "the vulnerable", "the unprotected", "the minority" and "those that are being exterminated."

Posted by: laurence roberts on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 11:57am BST

I think they changed the link:
http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm/2006/9/18/Interview-with-Bishop-Duncan

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 2:54pm BST

Some Duncan Interview Notes / Podcast 1

1st expected: No possible resolution of our differences, as we have ever believed
2nd Unexpected: better listening – message of unbridgeable chasm was maybe heard for first time

ACC Kearon opening statement: invitation to a long-term listening process

Duncan remarks:
1. Iker: Rejected process in favor of action, last mtg to attend, shifted nature of mtg

2. God is always reforming the church, backwards to the original revelation

3. Church pension fund is obviously well-endowed

4. No future mtgs anticipated in this series, because our appeal isn’t agreed as the sole, dominant frame

5. APO partly stands on Forward In Faith definition that PB Elect Jefferts Schori is not a bishop; partly alternative pastoral care from non-TEC primate, partly oversight from non-TEC primate. Otherwise common new conservative cause to link to Canterbury outside TEC.

6. Jack Iker & I are both agreed – no resolution is possible, either we get what we want and need, or else whatever happens will just have to happen

7. GC now exercises ungodly authority, so no new conservative can submit

8. Our next initiative must focus on the unprotected churches who do not have an orthodox bishop sitting, leading, caring above them – their souls are at stake

9. new covenant must be mainly theological, and Archbishop Gomez will be a great convenor of the drafting committee – but that covenant drafting is a long process

10. GC failed the Windsor Report call for godly conformity, historic Anglicanism

11. Jefferts Schori is an accurate symbol of the revisionist walking apart and thus dramatically changed our situation

12. The situation is thus one of unremitting hostility towards orthodox Anglican believers

13. We are now sorting out this changed landscape: GC has not turned back to our orthodox standards – the pragmatic efforts at GC were hardly sufficient, because the conformity of Windsor is rejected, and none of the old institutional rules any longer apply so we are all sorting this shift out

Posted by: drdanfee on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 3:31pm BST

Some Duncan Interview Notes / Podcast 2

14. The most important thing now is to get unprotected parishes into our orthodox network so that the liberalisms or non-orthodoxies of the rest of the provincial church are not a risk to their eternal souls

15. No more business as usual, everything is not just fine, peoples’ souls are at stake as long as they are outside the network and related protective umbrella entities

16. Orthodox bishops are here (in the consecration of new Bishop Love) without vesting, and no photos are to be taken of our participation – as a symbol of just how awful things are, this new bishop is leading outside the orthodox faith and order – we are trying to protest against this bishop without making a scene, not to do anything to sour this consecration

17. Very hopeful since things seem to be moving in our direction, very rapidly – God sets the order and speed of these changes

18. The problem of separation is not coming from the liberals, the problem is that good conservative families in the pews tell us they cannot raise their children in this unorthodox sort of parish environment – so we have to listen to them and find ways to separate from the liberal agenda

Posted by: drdanfee on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 3:34pm BST

New url for interview: http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm/2006/9/18/Interview-with-Bishop-Duncan

Posted by: Kevin Kallsen on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 3:35pm BST

So far as I can hear, so far: the rest of us need to get the point: No more negotiations, Our Neocon Anglican way or the highway. Our Neocon Orthodoxies cannot coexist, institutionally. No matter what. Any institutional or theological accommodations that leave room for non-neocon orthodox views and practices are by absolute definition a danger to we who remain Christians in this difficult, difficult era. Follow Bishop Duncan or Bishop Iker or whomever as they follow Jesus, or else you are not following Jesus.

So, maybe, we need to start taking effective TEC institutional actions to preserve/protect us from these folks' determination to either save us from ourselves by cocercing us into conformed structures which are ill-advised and deny our possibilities of agreeing to disagree without crisis or violence, or to at least raid resources like the TEC pension fund. That gorgeous conference table just cannot be allowed to remain behind, untouched by neocon orthodox hands.

PS. I suggest: No more meetings among selected bishops behind closed conference room doors - all meetings must be podcast or otherwise available to all of us, so far as they concern the controversies which are supposed to make us unremitting enemies, an Us. vs a Them. Like the televised McCarthy hearings, this stuff needs to be as widely and deeply aired as our technologies permit.

Posted by: drdanfee on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 3:48pm BST

Wrote drdanfee is perceptively:

"So far as I can hear, so far: the rest of us need to get the point: No more negotiations, Our Neocon Anglican way or the highway. Our Neocon Orthodoxies cannot coexist, institutionally. No matter what. Any institutional or theological accommodations that leave room for non-neocon orthodox views and practices are by absolute definition a danger to we who remain Christians in this difficult, difficult era. Follow Bishop Duncan or Bishop Iker or whomever as they follow Jesus, or else you are not following Jesus."

Also, shut down the Theology Faculties of Oxford and Cambridge and all liberal seminaries, which spread the critical-historical approach of 19th c German scholarship. Like the Quran, the Bible is univocal. +Bob and +Jack Leo are the true prophets, proclaiming the 'pure' faith once delivered to the saints. Let's shut down all institutions that promote 'relativism' rather than religious certainty.

And "that violates the Second Commandment", to quote a profound Jewish philosopher, the late Max Horkheimer, because they are "creating God in their own image and likeness". God/Christ is always the question rather than the answer! The neocons have been fooled by the bumper stickers in the Bible Belt states, reading: "Christ is the answer!"

Posted by: John Henry on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 7:51pm BST

Someone was asking me if there is a transcript of this interview. Anyone know?

Posted by: Randy Elliott on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 10:02pm BST

Drdanfee's 18th point "The problem of separation is not coming from the liberals, the problem is that good conservative families in the pews tell us they cannot raise their children in this unorthodox sort of parish environment – so we have to listen to them and find ways to separate from the liberal agenda..."

From personal observation, this is a problem. One of the reasons I left my last parish is that the conservatives would fret that the parish was becoming too liberal (i.e. I looked happy) and so there would be a hate sermon to prove they were not being "too" inclusive. It is terrible training for new ministers - they are being demanded to teach hate to placate narrow minded covert power brokers. It was easier to walk away than battle against such power politics. And it wasn't just my imagination, I had reliable witnesses who confirmed the slandering and white anting of myself was going on - and they did not just restrict it to the parish community but also took it to my childrens' school community.

Many years ago, I realized this kind of behaviour can not be cured in the normal organisation reform - because it is to do with theological constructs and what is considered acceptable behaviour. The idea that one group in a church have the right to slander "unsuitable" members behind their backs within the parish is one thing, but then when they took it to the broader community they crossed a line. It is forming a kind of apartheid - of being labelled as from the "wrong side of the track".

They might complain about what I have done on TA, but I have never named names except when it is obviously misuse of power by someone in an appointed position - in which case it is the position that is being defended against the corrupt person misusing the office.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 10:06pm BST

Suave, sincere, but complacent. His use of "godly" is heavily tilted -- it excludes people he thinks are undesirable in a family-friendly church. Schori is written off as a "revisionist" but Jesus and Paul were written off as that too, so it is not a category that one can throw around complacently.

Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 10:58pm BST

re Cheryl Clough's Tuesday at 10.06pm BST piece.

I wanted to say this has moved me deeply. It is a very important contribution. I too, can testify that this kind of character assassination, blame and attack-in-various-forms does go on. It has delusional depths, beyond all rational thought or discussion; and feels mad and of 'demonic' depths.

Further historical examples are the Salem 'Witch' Hunt Trials, the McCarthy 'Communist' trials and the whole craziness of the AC Primates and their sayings and doings.

I note how Patriarchy is central to all this. White, heterosexual males must control and be in control.The non-masculine, no-striaght, non-white must be controlled, brought to submission. Gay men are ideal for Patriarchy's moral line drawing, as in fantasy femininity is vanquished along with the queers. The stigmatisation of queers is such that they 'know' no-one will lift a finder much --afterall they never have before--whether in Nazi Germany, Poland & France, or in the penal codes of Sharia, of Nigeria, of Iran and the UAE --and of Europe the day before yesterday.
Jo Ratzinger is as keen on all this as Duncan, Iker, Akinola and Williams.

Ratzinger apologies to Muslims --they have clout--- but lgbt people can go get lost.

BUT WHY apologise or dialogue with one group and not another ?
The dialogue in the AC has the various theological and churchpersonship groups talking to EACH OTHER, but didnt Lambeth 1.10 (and Issues..) mean talking to and listening to the experience, feelings and thoughts of lgbt people ?

Posted by: laurence roberts on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 11:09pm BST

As events move forward it becomes more obvious there are very complex layers and alliances being formed, there are many hands now at play in the intrigue that is developing within Anglicanism.
We have long past the time of simple choices.
Many of those who have kept in the background up until now are making their play. The Canterbury machine is trying to play catch-up but is being finessed as the coup gathers force. There are attempts to recapture the initiative, such as the New York meetings, and the appointment of Drexel Gomez to head-up the Covenant Group, but others clearly have different and firmer plans and are working towards a different outcome.
Even if TEC were to find a way to appear even more “Windsor Compliant” over the next few weeks (and I believe they will try), I think the game is up and the agenda is moving on.
Homosexuality has been the presenting issue but as we see in the discussions here on TA there are far more (if related) issues in contention here and my guess is we will see these moving to the top of the agenda imminently.
Just how this coup will come about remains unclear. My guess is the first firm step will be announced at the Global South Meeting and that this will move forward by seizing the agenda at the next Primates Meeting and then taking control of Lambeth – if there is resistance then there is a plan B.
Those who argue the time for nuance and compromise is at an end do intend to act, that is clear, but those who have stayed in the background up to now and see others play leader are equally determined to have control over how the chips will fall.

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 12:39am BST

I think this interview exposes more about Bishop Duncan and his own personal insecurities than it does about any particular reality of the Church. It's been obvious for a long time that the Network, at least at its leadership level, is uninterested in anything but power and division. The real questions, which again come back to sexuality and what we discern to be the will of God, are conspicuously absent from the bishop's long list of complaints and accusations.

Posted by: J-Tron on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 2:30am BST

Cheryl, I was moved by your story as well. What you describe goes on elsewhere and has happened to others. People have tried to do it to me. Someone is trying to do it to Father Jake right now on TitusOneNine -- see http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=15271#comments

You are right to say: "The idea that one group in a church have the right to slander "unsuitable" members behind their backs within the parish is one thing, but then when they took it to the broader community they crossed a line." I'm not even sure they have the right to slander people within the parish community. It is hurtful and wrong to do this kind of thing, and decent people know that it is, Cheryl. You have their prayers and support.

Posted by: Charlotte on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 3:18am BST

I warrant to guess that Bishop Duncan and other neocon believers presume, definitively, that they already know just what the life experience of LGBTQ believers (or unbelievers) patently is: nothing but filth, danger, and self-delusions to the point of near madness. What other sort of human would dare to step outside of patriachy in our own century?

When you already know that much, that deeply, in such a closed and final fashion, about somebody else, it makes little sense to bother talking with them.

Ditto, for progressives, liberals, educated women, and oddly enough that list is still intentionally open, despite the neocon penchant for closing things down as soon as possible.

If coming out as a mature queer person hasn't innoculated you against just this sort of domination arrangement, you are in for quite a wild ride. We have already met this essential patriarchy, and it is not us unless we let it prevail in its realignment of all resources and people that matter.

Come to think of it, certain fundamentalist iterations of Islam are perfectly positioned to duke it out on doomsday with certain fundamentalist/neocon iterations of Christianity.

The odd thing is, they are both idol makers who replace the real God with their graven images/understandings of their scriptures. That is, they are already fighting like dear brothers. All of which makes Rene Girard's core anthropology insights more relevant and timely than ever.

Can this new Anglican neo-orthodoxy realignment exist, even, without a target or a scapegoat?

Posted by: drdanfee on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 4:04am BST

I don't think it is helpful to demonise Duncan or the Network. Perhaps they should also be "listened" to and treated with some generosity - which, as I have said before, does not mean anyone has to agree with them. They too must listen to you but do not have to agree, having listened.

The labels ("neocon" etc) do not make sense or add any value.

Pls remember, probably 99% of the 77m Anglicans in the world do not find Duncan et al to be extreme, so there is little to be gained by labelling, insulting Duncan et al as extremists.

The ABC certainly does not treat Duncan et al as extremists, does he?

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 10:05am BST

drdanfee asked (rhetorically, I hasten to add)
"Can this new Anglican neo-orthodoxy realignment exist, even, without a target or a scapegoat?"

Just wait for the 'Real Anglican Network" to issue a statement denouncing the "Provisional Anglican Network", while "The Popular Front for Real Anglicanism" (membership of two) declares itself out of communion with "The People's Anglicanism" (membership three).

With apologies to Cleese, Idle et al, but we've seen this fissiparous purification thinking so many times before - look at all the reformed reformed free Presbyterian Churches in Scotland.

Posted by: David Rowett (= mynsterpreost) on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 10:57am BST

I peruse this site, TitusOneNine, Blog of Daniel and other sites and must say there is astonishing insularity. There are always one or two outsiders but mostly it is mutual "we are so much more enlightened/truthful than they are" kinds of discussion. For your consideration and reflection I offer the use of the word "neocon" in this particular thread. It is meaningless. It is nothing more than an epithet.

If the prototypical "neocons" were leftists who "switched sides" how on earth is Duncan a "neocon". Was he at one time a Wiccan who came to Christ? The use of the term adds nothing to the debate but certainly asserts a "superiority" on the part of the user.

For my part, I know that representatives of the many sides of this issue are committed to their stances out of a sense of deep conviction that that is what they are called to do. Calling liberals "pagans or unitarians" and conservatives "homophobes or slaves to patriarchy" just means you are not listening. There is a great deal of pain on both sides and we seem to be thriving on the idea that the "other" is relishing the opportunity to "win", whatever winning is. We can't leave out that both sides claiming the other is "all about the money".

It is tragic, but the two principal sides in this dispute have likely reached the point of irreconcilable differences. We waste more time pointing fingers at each other than trying to do the work we believe we are called to do.

Posted by: Bob on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 11:40am BST

I think Martin is correct in his analysis. The only point to add is that for the coup to be effected they need to take Canterbury along with them. So far +Rowan is giving every indication that he will play ball with them, giving them added moral authority. The analogy one can draw is with Thailand: the King of Thailand has no political power as such but a coup cannot be effected without his passive connivance.

Posted by: AlaninLondon on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 12:34pm BST

If, as Duncan claims, the Network etc are not all about power and property, how come they don't willingly give up property and power and leave TEC? If I recall a meeting a while back, this was a question Archbishop Akinola put to them, too.

Posted by: Cynthia on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 1:43pm BST

I think the irreconcilable differences have existed for a long time.

If they can't be reconciled, then surely it makes sense to look to move forward not continuing to try and create something which just isn;t going to happen ie a united denomination.

Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 2:16pm BST

As an unfortunate dialup user, I would like thank drdanfee for his summary.

Well, I've pointed out all along that the Network (et. al.) have said all along that there is nothing to talk about, so this simply reinforces that. In fact, the ABC's continued emphasis on talking things through is about the only way in which he does not appear to have "sold out" to the conservative evangelical extremists.

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 2:34pm BST

NP and Bob:

Excellent posts. Your points are well taken.

Cynthia:

The "property" argument works both ways.

Steven

Posted by: Steven on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 3:17pm BST

About Necon 1

I use the shorthand tag, neocon, advisedly to connote two explicit background claims.

First, it is short for new conservative, at least. Easier to type fast in a post.

Second, in our religious believers and global contexts it has a possible rather technical meaning as an initiative in critical theory. It means: historically beholden to one or more foundational claims made by R. J. Rushdoony and similar precursors or founding figures of religious/Christian new conservatism.

There is variety within new conservatism, yes. But as a rule of thumb the common theme is the narrower, privileged approach to scripture - as incapable of needing or sustaining a hermeneutic or interpretive frame that is intentionally discerned and chosen and applied; as inerrant or infallible in ways that seem to presume that we can confidently read some piece of modern biology, psychology, anthopology and so forth, directly from scripture without much need for critical care (especially when it comes to our Queer friends at the heated moment); and more or less as a doomsday or apocalyptically urgent repeat form of religious proclamation that mainly preaches its good news through Either/Or definitional or presuppositional framework which carefully select and misconstrue our range of real intellectual and spiritual possibilities.

Thus, so far at least, I do consistently read and hear a coherent set of claims being made for the going new conservatisms, according to a consistent set of unquestioned starting presuppositions or uncritically pledged definitions.

As an outsider I am more or less typically responding: Gee, of course you will carry on that new conservative way, if you start there, with those unquestioned new conservative definitions/presuppositions. But why in the world of best practices would you ever intentionally choose to start there in such a know-it-all manner?

Posted by: drdanfee on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 3:50pm BST

About Necon 2

The sad mischief is in all these new conservative technical details. Two other functional or effective consistencies appear to be, so far, that it mainly serves to close inquiry and conversation down (i.e., narrow and conform any diversity which it addresses, but not always, just mainly in things connected with power or resources), and it readily offers its understandings as a foundation for scapegoating somebody who is defined negatively from the start of whatever paragraph you are reading.

Most instances of so-called new conservative inquiry reliably reach destinations or conclusions which can be easily predicted from the unquestioned starting presuppositions in play.

It is never too long after the work/good news is being applied that the targeting or scapegoating of someone emerges. So far that list includes: modernity and everyone who cares to inhabit some piece of it for critically informed reasons. The list overtly includes Queer Folks most of the time. Even Rowan Williams acknowledges how important that denigration is at the moment, and says that saying negative things to totally define ones queer neighbors is a hallowed right and privilege of both new and old conservative allegiance. From time to time, women get on the list, too, especially it seems if they are educated, gifted, and/or uninterested in playing the little womens' role to support patriachy. (That is, maybe, that they think leading for good in the world and the church is at least as important as changing diapers and having dinner on the table, always at seven.)

The real rub, you cannot talk and resolve things with any new conservative who sincerely believes that he or she is exclusively right, true, saved, and ethical; and that he or she is the sole holder of all the keys to power, privileges, and access to resources/goods. All the new conservatives have to do to belong happily is become old conservatives who do their conservative best while being willing to be only one part of the larger Anglican comprehensiveness that includes all the rest of us. The new in new conservative is that many believers are now adamantly refusing to agree to disagree while we continue in common worship/witness and common Tikkun.

Looking into all that is just the point. In Bishop Duncan's remarks, and in others. Maybe.

Posted by: drdanfee on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 3:58pm BST

re #16 in the summary - what was this protest of Bp Love about? Any newspaper coverage of that?

Posted by: Cynthia on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 5:09pm BST

"For my part, I know that representatives of the many sides of this issue are committed to their stances out of a sense of deep conviction that that is what they are called to do."

I agree, Bob: there is profound conviction on both sides.

The only *concrete* difference I that I can see, is that TEC (and TEC *alone*, BTW), is trying to negotiate a delicate balance between its own Constitution and Canons (which are de jure, public, and haven't signficantly changed in the last 10 years), w/ the DEMANDS of the AC (which are de facto, largely implicit---*who* is "Windsor Compliant"???---and EVER-CHANGING).

Is there equal "good faith" on both sides, as far as the PROCESS (not the theology or sexual ethics)?

You be the judge.

Lord have mercy!

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 5:54pm BST

I had no idea "neocon" had such a complex pedigree. Over here (Washington DC) it's generally short hand for "conservatives I really don't like", honestly, much like the term "fascist" used to be. I had never heard it associated with hermeneutical positions. Thanks for the info.

On other comments, being religiously "orthodox/traditional/conservative" and fully realizing all those terms are quite loaded, what frustrates me is that we seem to be speaking different languages and even worse, speaking different languages with the same words.

For example, I was in Mexico City listening to a very liberal gay priest from the Diocese of Los Angeles. After openly denigrating conservatives from the altar he talked about his plan for "church growth in a loving, inclusive and tolerant way." During his subsequent talk he stressed his parish's focus on catechesis in the "gospel" this and the "gospel" that. So I raised my hand after he was done and asked,"If I were to approach a catechised member of your congregation and ask them what "the gospel" is, what would they tell me?" I got a cold stare and no answer.

I have no problem being in communion, debating (in love) fellow believers. We can disagree about everything. But are we fellow believers if don't have the same gospel? When I ask my liberal interlocutors whether Jesus of Nazareth really bodily rose from the dead the reaction is generally to dismiss the question as irrelevant. "Oh, you're one of 'those', isn't that quaint." If they believe it is irrelevant then there is no common ground. I believe in the centrality of that event. Everything springs from what happened on that first Easter.

I can overlook a multitude of sins, because mine would make quite an impressive list, if we agree on some basics. But I never really get the sense that there is even a minimum of consensus on the basics of christianity anymore.

A Side Note: I gently confronted the pastor of the parish afterward by commenting,"You never know when one of those 'narrow-minded, intolerant, right-wing bigots' (the precise words used by the visiting priest) may be sitting in your congregation." To his credit he apologized for the behavior of his guest.

I'm sorry if this is meandering a bit and seems overly angst ridden. This is all deeply painful and frustrating. I'm desperately looking for any common ground and am just not finding it. Both main factions seem to be in the "my way or highway mode".

Posted by: Bob on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 7:53pm BST

And so the news from KIGALI (Reuters) - Conservative Anglican bishops largely drawn from developing countries are expected to agree on a pact condemning the ordination of gay clergy, Nigeria's archbishop said on Wednesday.
(snip)
"In order to put to rest this issue of homosexuality, we are working on an Anglican covenant with provisions that very clearly say what it means to be an Anglican," Nigeria's Archbishop Peter Akinola, told reporters.

"Who ever subscribes to this covenant must abide by it and those who are unable to subscribe to it will walk out."

And so the end begins ....

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 8:05pm BST

Duncan is quite a piece of work, isn't he? It's time he faced presentments.

Posted by: Kurt on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 8:38pm BST

Bishop Duncan only mentions his criticisms or doubts about Bishop Love in passing. He describes the bishop as out of bounds, in rather brief and mild tones which nevertheless connote final disapproval and maybe some implicit sense of some sort of spiritual danger. Given the operative subtexts of not being defined as biblical enough, or of being too soft on queer sexuality/committed partner relationships, one tends to guess that these might be involved in Bishop Love's alleged unorthodoxy. But who knows?

Thus, Duncan says he intentionally does not wish to wear vestments although he arrives to participate in the consecration. He tells us he checked with the organizers/leaders of the ceremony, offering to stay away if that would keep peace. They are said to have repeated encouragement for him to attend, without qualifications on his being welcome.

Nor will Duncan allow his picture to be taken as part of any pose/expression of celebration to record or publicize the proceedings. His remarks also suggest that he is criticizing the wider TEC for thinking differently from himself in controversial areas, saying, No more business as usual.

Posted by: drdanfee on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 8:51pm BST

The insularity is not as profound as it might seem, I personally would like to see a "broad tent" Anglicanism that includes a healthy representation across the spectrum. It just needs a good dollop of moderation when one extreme tries to completely shut down/out the other extreme.

The comments about neocon is an example of suppression - whatever word is used someone sticks up their hand to complain that it is being overgeneralised and they feel slighted, so people try to create a new word but are then critisized for using a non-word.

Thus this is the form of Black Noir legislation - where the "slaves" are deprived a legitimate language and means to express themselves. It keeps the power brokers in place because it hampers any attempts to organise or communicate a better vision amongst the slaves. http://www.cr.nps.gov/ethnography/aah/aaheritage/histContextsE.htm or http://www.state.il.us/HPA/lib/GenPrideAfAm.htm

It is the same dynamic that arbitrarily limits interpretations of the bible and blacklists alternative paradigms that might threaten the status quo.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 10:27pm BST

So,if Martin is right, we have to prepare properly for 'the end' and look towards the founding of a new denomination.

Or are people going to remain in an institution where they are clearly not welcome?

Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 10:57pm BST

Cynthia and drdanfee, re: Bp. Duncan regarding Bp. Love:

Bp. Duncan is not in any way expressing disapproval of Bp. Love or alleging him to be unorthodox. Pls replay the video.

The problem for Duncan and the other Network bishop there was (a) participating in a TEC episcopal ordination at all, i.e., giving the impression that it's "business as usual" for TEC (Duncan even notes that he has not particpated in a TEC episcopal ordination since before GC '03, iirc), and (b) doing so with PB Griswold presiding and being chief consecrator (again, Duncan notes that he personally has been in "broken communion" with Griswold since GC '03).

Duncan emphatically asserts the Network's confidence in Love and in the (Network) Diocese of Albany. It is getting too many TEC cooties that Duncan fears, or, more charitably, it is that he fears that any Network bishop participating fully in the ordination would be construed by third parties or spun by "revisionists" as meaning that things really aren't so bad off within TEC; "Look, they all came together in unity at the ordination (and Eucharist), didn't they?" Ergo, Duncan's references to how he would participate (he wouldn't vest, but he *would* go lay hands on Love, albeit in "street clothes") and how he didn't want to give any "photo op" (i.e., of a vested Duncan standing alongside Griswold et al. while laying hands on Love).

And indeed, Duncan states that he and the other Network bishop (I forget which) who would be visiting Albany and quasi-participating offered to (Albany and Network) Bp. Herzog and then-Bp.-elect Love that they could stay away altogether if so desired, and that they wished to do nothing to spoil the occasion, but the Albany bishops said that the visitors should come, and that the message sent by the quasi-participation would be the message of the Albany bishops as well.

Do not mistake Duncan's anti-TEC stagecraft for any impugnment by him of the "orthodoxy" of Network Bps. Herzog and Love or of Network Diocese of Albany.

Posted by: Nadine Kwong on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 12:09am BST

With the GS primates drawing up their own covenant, where does that leave the one supposedly being drawn up by +++Williams' choice of drafter?

Not that I expect there to be too much difference between the two covenants (strict literalism, strict orthodoxy, no GLBTS or women need apply).

Posted by: mumcat on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 12:11am BST

[Simon, I'm sorry if this is going off-topic---it just seems important]

"When I ask my liberal interlocutors whether Jesus of Nazareth really bodily rose from the dead the reaction is generally to dismiss the question as irrelevant."

I confess, Bob, that when I read the above, I realized that I needed to look up "interlocutors."

I see that it means "one w/ whom one is engaged in conversation."

The thing is, when I first read it, I was thinking of "interrogator"---because in *my* experience, speech between a liberal and a conservative begins, w/ an interrogation of the liberal, by the conservative (that's where I recognized your question from. Ala "Good morning. Nice day isn't it?" "Whatever. Do you believe {sign here} that Jesus of Nazareth really bodily rose from the dead? And if so, why do you seem to be associating with those who don't?!")

This "interrogatory" mindset, is the one that I see in that *other* "Bob" (+Duncan)...

...and that's when I feel---despite my (faithful) affirmation of the Creeds---like an unAnglican "window into my soul" is being forcibly scoured!

If an "interlocution" is a conversation, Bob, then I can see your question arising, among close friends (kindred in Christ, among whom "common ground" is not the *slightest* bit in doubt).

But as an interrogation, among (at best) casual acquaintances? (again, *my* experience of being asked this question)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it just doesn't seem very "Golden Rule" to me.

Lord have mercy!

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 1:38am BST

Bob,

I appreciated your comments and your hoping that there might be common ground. I honestly don't know what to think of so many of these labels as they mean so many different things. I do believe in the bodily resurrection, Incarnation, Trinity, would be quite orthodox in terms of creedal concerns, and I'm a gay man in a relationship. I know many like myself in my parish, yet I would be lumped as liberal even though my theological perspective and approach are traditional in many ways (even Platonic) when it comes to theology proper or considerations of ethics. I'm not here to overthrow the "basics" of the faith, and I think there are surely others like me, but I'm also not a sola Scripturist or selective biblical literalist, and consider complexity a part of any good theological thinking or biblical interpretation.

Posted by: *Christopher on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 4:19am BST

There are useful precedents for remaining to some extent, both within and outside of, any institution which does not welcome but tells tall bad tales about you. Dignity in the Roman Catholic churches comes to mind, now really outside of the church sites but inside just to the extent that many people participating are located inside in this way or that. The womens' ordination movements also come to mind.

I am not entirely sure what the new orthodox will do if the rest of us do not leave, and yet remain unconformed. I certainly do not see us being discerned to have spiritual lives very much. I doubt that any vocations/callings we sense will be identified, acknowledged, affirmed, or prayed in support of. Nevetheless I follow Jesus of Nazareth who has shown God over time to be the most amazing deity ever proclaimed. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Jesus, also called in great risky witness, the Anointed One.

That is both hope and calling, worship and witness and the start of Tikkun. Lord have mercy. Even if we finally have to leave this or that institution/site which has formerly located us, we are not really leaving Jesus, you see. Maybe.

Posted by: drdanfee on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 5:21am BST

Bob on Wednesday, wrote: “… speaking different languages with the same words.”

This is by no means new, it predates the Elizabethan settlement (the unified Lithurgy), it predates the Carolingian settlement (“you may stay as long as you don’t start another civil war”), it predates early 20th century “literalism”, it even predates the 1960-1980 heterosexist cum Fertility Cult innovations; Pater Zerwick, the 1966 Jerusalem Bible and Focus on the Family.

Bob on Wednesday, wrote: “… For example, I was in Mexico City … and ask them what "the gospel" is, what would they tell me?" I got a cold stare and no answer.”

Sorry I don’t at all understand what this is about.

Bob on Wednesday, wrote: “When I ask my liberal interlocutors … the reaction is generally to dismiss the question as irrelevant. "Oh, you're one of 'those', isn't that quaint."”

I don’t want to be rude, but really your (I speak of a l l of you) “examples” (= “proofs”) are very odd. I don’t know who you mix with. The IRD?

Bob on Wednesday, wrote: “… Everything springs from what happened on that first Easter.”

Everything springs from God’s good Creation, from the Incarnation and from the Resurrection.

Please let Candidus of Fulda, Anselm of Canterbury and Dr Johannes Calvinus rest in their graves!

Bob on Wednesday, wrote: “I can overlook a multitude of sins, because mine would make quite an impressive list, if we agree on some basics. But I never really get the sense that there is even a minimum of consensus on the basics of christianity anymore.”

Well, to be franc mine wouldn’t. Perhaps that is the difference.

Bob on Wednesday, wrote: “I'm desperately looking for any common ground and am just not finding it.”

The Creeds, the Creeds – and for you lot also the BCP, the Carolingian settlement and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 8:26am BST

First, thank you all for the responses.

Goran,

'Bob on Wednesday, wrote: “… For example, I was in Mexico City … and ask them what "the gospel" is, what would they tell me?" I got a cold stare and no answer.”

Sorry I don’t at all understand what this is about.'

My point was that the priest from Los Angeles had claimed to have catechised his congregation in "the gospel" but I could not get an answer the question of what that "gospel" was. I no longer proceed from the assumption that when a word, especially one as serious as "gospel" is used that both sides are necessarily talking about the same thing. His reluctance to answer, for my part, indicated that his definition of "gospel" and mine "gospel" were not the same and we both knew it. We were maintaing a polite but destructive fiction.

Christoper, thank you for your kind words and may God continue to be working in your life. It is refreshing to be spoken to in this debate in love and respect. If we never meet in person I'll look forward to seeing you hereafter when we won't have to hash the whole thing out as it will have clearly been "overtaken by events". :-)


Posted by: Bob on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 11:25am BST

Thanks to Nadine Kwong for trying to clarify Bp. Duncan's comments about the Diocese of Albany's new Bishop Coadjutor, Bill Love. When my wife and I viewed the Duncan interview over lunch (not recommended!), we found no evidence that either Bp. Love or the DOA is out of favor with the Network or its Moderator.

As a candidate for Coadjutor, Bill Love spoke of the need for reconciliation. The many liberals and moderates in this mixed diocese hope he will soon show,in word and deed, that he was sincere: That he will hear and serve all of his sheep, not just those whom the Network approves.

Posted by: Robert Dodd on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 2:30pm BST

JCF wrote, "...an unAnglican "window into my soul" is being forcibly scoured!"

But don't you understand ?! That's their *job*. After all, if you don't spend time obsessing over the personal morality of others, then the angels will score all that great "separating the sheep from the goats" action instead of you. Then you'll be stuck scouring the window into your *own* soul - which is a real bummer ;)

Posted by: David Huff on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 3:08pm BST

My understanding is that Canon Kearon had seen the material on the petition that had "leaked" on to a website - but like the rest of us thought it a spoof

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Thursday, 21 September 2006 at 6:15pm BST

"His reluctance to answer, for my part, indicated that his definition of "gospel" and mine "gospel" were not the same and we both knew it."

Could he possibly have thought he was being *interrogated*, as I indicated above?

Not all questions are true inquiries, Bob. Sometimes they're "Have you stopped beating your wife?" GOTCHA GAMES.

No one likes being (or even merely feeling) "set up" . . . to LOSE.

[Which is why I think questions BEYOND the language of the Creeds we affirm---Yes, even beyond "The Gospel" we all preach---should be reserved for FRIENDS, and not become the subject of "Which side are you on?!" ***politics***. There's a reason we Anglicans work out of a book of COMMON prayer: stick to *that* and LET GOD JUDGE!]

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Friday, 22 September 2006 at 3:26am BST

I was at Nashotah House with Bill Love 16 and some years ago. He was a good man, with a gentle spirit. The little I've seen since then suggests to me that he has not changed much. He is quite conservative on many matters, but I would suggest that he will indeed be among you as a reconciler.

Posted by: Jake on Friday, 22 September 2006 at 5:18am BST

"I no longer proceed from the assumption that when a word, especially one as serious as "gospel" is used that both sides are necessarily talking about the same thing. His reluctance to answer, for my part, indicated that his definition of "gospel" and mine "gospel" were not the same and we both knew it."

Perhaps, just perhaps, Bob, your assumption is the matter?

"We were maintaing a polite but destructive fiction."

This most certainly is what has been happening in the Anglican curches for most of the last century, with regard to the historic and (quite) modern differences between Calvinism and the Church - being "nice" in the face of oppression.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 22 September 2006 at 7:44am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.