Michael Scott-Joynt is very sensible and honest.

+Scott-Joynt has always struck me as a man with a very frail grasp on reality-as-the-rest-of-us-experience-it. These comments only seem to confirm this impression. What, in the name of Lancelot Andrewes, is the good bishop of Winchester on about?

And, according to Scott-Joynt, the 'oppression' takes what form exactly? Is this active oppression or merely a refusal to allow the dissenting bodies to set up their own parallel bodies no longer under the constituted authority of TEC. Hardly oppression.

I have been trying for years to understand the “oppression” experienced by the “orthodox.” When questioned about the matter, the “orthodox” invariably talk not about actions but about theology. Often, they speak of the opinions held by their more moderate opponents, without being able to cite evidence that their opponents actually hold the views attributed to them. I’m sorry, but disagreement is not oppression.

As he has shown before, the Bishop of Winchester has no idea what he is talking about, and he lacks the good sense to know when he should keep his mouth shut.

But of course it is oppression. The trouble is that oppressors are never able to see themsleves as such and can therefore never give freedom to the oppressed. But the simple fact of the matter is that TEC has been inovating in its order, doctrine and morals for forty years and when orthodox bishops parishes and people seek to remain faithful to that which they have recievcd and to align themselves with faithful primates they are threatened with law suits. And so TEC is willing to contemplate all kinds of doctrinal abnormalities but when it comes to canon law morphs into legal fundamentalism and intolerance. Truly a distorted Church.

Have listened to the Scott-Joynt BBC interview. Where does the man find his "facts" ("a quarter of its bishops and dioceses"?) Could an individual in this senior post be pathologically delusional, or is he, as seems very possible in light of this and of his last week's attempt to aggravate this situation, simply a bare-faced liar? Stephen Bates' observation that Scott-Joynt's previous comments were "deeply divisive within the CofE's bench of bishops, where Scott-Joynt and Nazir-Ali are both regarded as insufferable by many of their colleagues" seems to have had no effect. Years ago, a co-worker remarked to me, of another employer, that "It's not his incessant lying to me that I object to; it's his thinking that I'm stupid enough to believe him."

'…stop oppressing a significant minority of itself, about a quarter of its bishops and dioceses, and allow them to exist and flourish in full communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion…' SCott-Joynt

Why doesn't S-J etal ' …stop oppressing a significant minority of itself, about 20 % of humanity and of of its bishops and dioceses, and allow them to exist and flourish in full communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion…

No one has stopped anti-gay beleivers from being Church and voting at GC etc. But they want ot expell lgbt peoole and apparently any one who attemtpst to minister to us and to our lives, our partners, our families

+ Calfiornia witnessed.

I would have like the BBC reporter to have asked the bishop of Winchester if he favours the alternative jurisdiction proposed for England under the infamous "Covenant". That might have made his standing on the issues clearer.

Apparently we're supposed to quietly agree with the bishop that those in the other three-quarters of the Episcopal Church therefore do not "hold the full beliefs of the church, both in terms of creeds, about Jesus, about God, and about marriage and Christian behaviour." I don't agree with him at all on that. And I wish he would quit meddling from afar and come and find out what's true about us.

The oppression has taken the form of refusing to negotiate in good faith with congregations that want to leave and instead trying to sue them out of their buildings, even when the diocese hasn't paid one dime for the buildings. This has gotten so vicious it's getting people's attention in the Communion. And I would bet good money it's affecting the Primates Meeting.

The Bishop of Winchester has got the wrong end of the right stick when he talks about oppression. The present Anglican crisis is not about controversies which are, if we are honest, no more or less heated than those which have inflamed Christendom for hundreds of years. It is about how we accommodate differences.

One model is to reject difference altogether. Such a model is well suited to congregationalism - you choose to join a congregation, you all agree with each other, and you pick your leaders so they agree with you. This is the sort of church that Christopher Shell belongs to, for example. It is also the church modelled by Archbishop Akinola. His only concern is for truth, and he is convinced that everyone who disagrees with him does not hold to the truth. So they must either conform to his truth (which he is convinced is God's own truth) or leave or be expelled.

Such churches can be extraordinarily vigorous and, therefore, large in congregation and rich in money. They offer a completely affirming experience because everyone agrees with everyone else. However, they are also limiting, because they do not have the long-term evolutionary advantages of more diverse institutions which, through internal tensions and dialogue, can grow and change and adapt - and survive.

That, I think, is why the longest lasting, most numerous, and most institutionally coherent church in history is the Roman Catholic Church. Contrary to popular belief, this is a very diverse church in its membership. It is a church you are, for the most part, born into, rather than choosing. So it contains all sorts. It contains supporters of women's ordination and of gay rights (although in minorities). It has radically changed its views, over time, on a number of points: for example, on the use of the vernacular in liturgy, and on papal infallibility.

I'm curioius where the Bishop of Winchester gets his figures. Only 7 or 8 dioceses have appealed for APO, which is decidedly less than 25% of 110 dioceses.

Recent reports indicate actualy parish defections are in the 40s, far less than 25% of the 7000+ congregations that make up TEC.

If he's talking actual numbers of people represented by these bishops, dioceses, and parishes that's still questionable because their are sizable progressive minorities among these entities (San Joaquin and Pittsburgh being two examples of dioceses that are far from uniform with their leadership).

I'm not sure I understand where the term "oppression" comes from. The only thing TEC leadership is really insisting on is that we all follow the canons of the church and sit in the same room together.

Does that really count as oppression in the modern day world? If so, then have we got it easy . . .

Dirk C. Reinken

His Grace, the Bishop of Winchester is suffering from a monumental case of chutzpah.

He is pleading oppression on behalf of those who would happily and legally and forcibly if necessary oppress a good 10 to 15 percent of any given national population.

I'm waiting to hear some righteous miter-shaking episcopal indignation over the legislation working its way through the Nigerian parliament, endorsed openly by a few bishops and tacitly endorsed by so many many more. I can only assume that the silent bishops would like to see similar legislation, condemned by everyone from Human Rights Watch to the Bush Administration (no friend to gay folk), in their own countries.

So much for "Christ Our Liberator."

Piffle!

"And, according to Scott-Joynt, the 'oppression' takes what form exactly?"

His math is also deficient. About .5% have left for Africa, Peru, points south.

Meanwhile we 'oppress' them by trying to keep them from stealing TEC property. This after, in my diocese, Bp Lee accomadating and accomadating them, only to have them make more and more demands, insult him, send death threats to him, and finally try to steal TEC property.

Raspberry Rabbit,

I can't speak directly to this, as I am not (nor ever have been) an Episcopal priest. But I can tell you about what has happened in my corner of the United States.

During the past 4 years, over a hundred Episcopalians have left their surrounding parishes to join my "Continuing" Anglican parish. Of these, I'd say around 10-15% are people one might style "right-wingers." (BTW, though a traditionalist, I'm a left of center democrat politically). The rest are moderates. So, why did they leave?

I'd say 75% of them never would have left if their clergy had shown them an ounce of pastoral care. Instead, the party line was preached, those who objected were made to feel like they were no longer welcomed, and so, with hurt feelings, they left. I suspect this has been replicated in hundreds and hundreds of Episcopal parishes throughout the country.

Be they liberal or conservative, when people begin to champion the Cause, my experience is that one of the first things they forget is that everyone is a flesh-and-blood human being.

Mark+

And where does Scott-Joynt get his numbers? 25%?! Not even the most generous assessment could get him anything close to that. I'd love to the meet this Episcopal Church that is in such vast disarray. It simply doesn't exist, at least not as people like Scott-Joynt describe it.

Well, Raspberry, I don't know how the Bishop of Winchester would answer, but how about these for starters:

The Diocese of New York's recent lawsuit against the congregation of St Andrew's, Syracuse, seeking to remove them from their building;

How about the summary inhibition and deposition of the Revd Gene Geromel pronounced by Bishop Leidel in August 2005;

Or the persecution of the Revd David Moyer who was deprived of his status as an Episcopal priest by Bishop Bennison;

Or when Bishop Smith deprived the Revd Mark Hansen of the priesthood (an action contradicted by several diocesans and primates including Canterbury) and also seized his church with locksmiths, computer hackers and others who took charge of the building, confidential parish records and even hymnals;

Or the recent actions of the bishop of Virginia to depose 21 clergy whose parishes had followed the diocese's agreed "protocol for departing congregations" and, just to make the oppression absolutely clear, then deprived them of the COBRA healthcare provision even though it would have not cost the diocese a penny to maintain it until other provision was made;

I think you are right NP. Thanks for your comment.

+Scott-Joynt is trying to sell the meme that those calling for APO or a new province represents 25% of TEC. There is absolutely no data to support such an assertion. Whether he actually believes this to be true, I can't say, but he is doing his best to gain support for the reasserters' cause through overstating their position within TEC. He and the reasserts are trying to sell a bona fide split in TEC. It's a gambit but it's also not supported by the truth.

In effect, he is positing - How can the AC not respond. Surely, SOMETHING must be done to rescue this bloc of faithful but voiceless/powerless contingency of brothers and sisters.

Hopefully, there are those in Tanzania who can set the ABC and other primates straight, and they won't buy into this rubbish.

C.B.

Is he prepared to let those who disagree with him in England do the same thing?

"…stop oppressing a significant minority of itself, about a quarter of its bishops and dioceses, and allow them to exist and flourish in full communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion…"

Michael Scott-Joynt should be advised that despite the overall flaws of the US health system, we do have world-class mental health services available for those who can pay.

A quarter? I don't think it's that many. less than a tenth of the church is trying to leave and is whining about being "oppressed". the rest are willing to stay and engage, apparently.

Raspberry Rabbit,
As long as it can be made to look like oppression, it suits the purpose. We all fall for the cachet of being the oppressed faithful remnant fighting against our oppressors. I can't say that I, comfortable middle class man that I am, am oppressed because the Church won't bless my relationship because I'm gay. Yet there are those who disagree vehemently with me on this. I call this the Quest for Victimhood. Everybody falls for it, me included, and you see it in all debates. How many arguments have you been in where it seems the attitude is: "I'd get your point, but then I'd miss a chance to be victimized."? I laugh at it in Conservatives, but that's just hypocrisy on my part, since it's strong in Liberals too.

+Scott-Joynt has spent far too much time drinking the kool-aide at beautiful Camp Allen.His mean-spirited comments are both incorrect and unhelpful, and he betrays a glaring ignorance of the typical lay Episcopalian.In my home, we respond to hate speech with"I've got two words for you:shut the f--- up!"

Congregations and clergy who support full bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender involvement in church life currently co-exist within the same denominational framework with congregations that limit BGLT involvment in church life.

Rev. Susan Russell's gay-friendly congregation in Pasedena CA and Rev. Guido Verbeck's anti-gay congregation in Shreveport LA are both allowed to exist.

So ... pray tell ... where exactly is the "oppression" here?

Raspberry Rabbit --
There is a tradition in The Episcopal Church (dating back to the 1976 General Convention with the approval of the ordination of women & the new BCP)of describing oneself as "persecuted" if you disagree with the bishop about something.

You know the joke, for Rome tradition is the magisterium, for the Orthodox it is the decisions of the ecumenical councils and for Episcopalians it is what the last rector said.

So our concept of this allegedly full conservative or traditional gospel must roundly include exclusive straight privileges to demean and define that small, apparently stable, statistical minority of people who are not straight. What are these essential legacy definitions? Why, as we all already know, they are: filth, danger, and immorality.

Okay. On with the full gospel then. We have still further to go.

Based on these legacy understandings - and many of us would say these are mis-understandings pretending to be understandings - we find a range of mixed public policy and church policy initiatives which would either bar access to opportunities and resources or punish outright in various ways, based on the legacy.

We all know we have problems if we take this route in daily life. What problems?

One, change. We have already quietly changed our legacy negative views, due to legacy claims being so empirically false that almost none of us believe them now. Oral sex causing bad weather for example. But a Medieval Christian would have found nothing at all troublesome, since after all that is just how bad and unnatural oral sex is; and so it disrupts nature. God either sends bad weather as a punishment, or nature in itself reacts to the violation.

Two, inconsistency. We can easily find religious and empirical contradictions in our most current iterations of legacy damnations. The religious inconsistencies are glaring to anyone who bothers to look. Believers have adopted changed and highly nuanced views of, say, divorce, or those damned Gentiles, or women, or transubstantiation versus consubstantiation versus memorial in Eucharist, or any number of other domains besides sexuality and embodiment; and yet every damning element of our legacy misunderstandings of homosexuality, sexuality, embodiment, and human nature must be held tightly closed, or our supposedly classic house of religion will fall down.

Empirically, careful research over the past sixty years has disconfirmed way more than just the ancient oral sex-weather stuff. Can all that fade away, too, while we continue to damn non-straight people?

Three, meanness. Historically, the legacy negatives ground and justify a whole grab bag of mean ways of treating – some of us would say, mistreating – people who are not straight. We do unto these other neighbors as we mostly would not have them do unto us.

Full, this gospel is. Full. Full. Chock full. Oppression is not being free to be this full?

A big church - not a mega church with one or two large congregations, but a worldwide church - and a long living church - not lasting for decades, or even a century or so, but for millenia - simply cannot operate on the congregational model. The congregation of like minded people does not last very long, because the congregation which it is based on does not last very long. It gets old, and it dies. It is hard to renew yourself when you don’t accept change and you expel dissidents.

There are two models for a worldwide, long-lasting church, such as the Anglican Communion aspires to be, which can live with and benefit from internal debates and differences. One is toleration and the other is authority. Toleration means that anything goes, or, at least, that the only constraints are those which are self imposed, deferential to the concerns and sensibilities of others. That is what we have at the moment. It looks like it is finished. The Anglican Covenant is specifically designed to finish it. Authority means that you agree to defer to a recognised authority, but you don’t have to agree with it. And you may argue your case, and hope that authority will, in time, come round to your view.

Oddly, Archbishop Akinola and his allies reject both toleration and authority. They don’t even accept the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They only accept their own reading of Scripture. They don’t accept anyone else’s reading of Scripture. They don’t accept Lambeth Conference resolutions against border crossing, or the Windsor Report condemnation of border crossing. Such people will come and go, retire and die, as we all will. The question is, will there be a church left when they have gone.

WannabeAnglican - You better believe they are considering it at the Primate Meeting - They are considering what it would be like to have a schism foisted on their own church by those outside their jurisdiction due to "doctrinal disagreements" and how they would respond when those seeking to set up a parallel church want to take their churches' property with them.

C.B.

Michael Scott-Joynt has now joined the "official" ranks of "Liars with Mitres"...wow, it's fascinating to see/hear such "matter of non-factual" nonsense projected/presented with a nice Engish Accent...makes me long for British "sensibilities" in my everyday religious life...again after being "taken to the tower" for a quick/deadly adios...a dios!

Mr. Simmons:
That would be "the Diocese of CENTRAL New York" -- with its see city in Syracuse.

All of the "oppressions" you list are the result of the orderly application of the canons of the church. If people were faithful to their ordination vows, or simply chose to walk away from them -- as they are free to do -- there would be no need for the application of canonical measures. The situation in Virginia is a classic instance of dissidents wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They cannot both depart from the Episcopal Church and ally with CANA (which has made it clear it is not in communion with the Episcopal Church) and think they can somehow continue to function as Episcopal Clergy. This is not oppression: it is the logical consequence of choices made, for which responsibility has to be taken.

And lest someone try to fling an "Aha" at me in the manner of the Psalms, I have long said I would be fully content to accept exclusion of the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion because of choices we have made. I do not think this would be good or wise, but I accept responsibility for my part in making those decisions as a Deputy to the General Convention.

Oppression happens on both sides. When the Diocese of Pittsburgh forced non-network parishes to send their Province III contributions to the Network oppression by the majority was ok? I won't even discuss the inhibitions of the priest in Virginia. The fact is if you don't like the church you go to find another. The People of TFC, Truro ect... need to build their own building/facilities.

This reminds me of the Roman Catholics who sued the Diocese of Pittsburgh for control of "their church." If you don't like Rome go somewhere else was the response.

Maybe +Winchester is including in his numbers all the Windsor compliant diocese. That might be 25% but even so even they're not of one mind.

I'm still wondering what happened to the listening process for GLBT folks. Seems to me we stopped listening and have used the issue to divide. Along that line, When are Nigeria and others going to be held accountable to the WR???
Border crossings are not sanctioned and please don't tell me TEC started it, that's just playground behavior.

Bob

Article has been updated with link to
http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/02/clueless_miter_man_returns.html
by Jim Naughton.

My question is who made sex a doctrine? I thought doctrine was something important like believing in Jesus as the Christ, Our Lord and Savior? I also thought doctrine was something about acknowledging baptism as entry into the Body of Christ and that the Eucharist was the place where people who might argue over whose side of the fence the leaves of the tree fall would kneel together at Christ's invitation and share in his body and blood? I didn't know that with whom one expressed one's love, commitment and intent to live in a long-term relationship equalled doctrine more important than baptism, Eucharist or faith.

Is "doctrine" seen differently than that in the Anglican Communion? Is sex a doctrine in the eyes of the Church of Nigeria or Hong Kong or England? What about divorce and remarriage? is that a doctrine too? If so, why aren't people paying more attention to it since Jesus actually said something about that whereas he didn't seem to mention "Oh, and none of that icky stuff between two boys, ok?"

Perhaps +Winchester might benefit from a course in remedial mathematics. His percentages seem a bit shaky.

The question for Mark is, given the basis of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), whether he would be prepared to come under its jurisdiction, and, given the links to Reform, Anglican Mainstream and the distasteful Christian Institute, of the website of the churches under John Simmons, whether he would also contemplate also oversight from the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) given the presentations recently of Reform and friends. After all, these may be on offer to both in the near future.

Michael Scott-Joynt's claim of 25% of the bishops and dioceses dissenting from the recent actions of TEC is probably somewhat accurate. While only a few dozen parishes have left over the past 5 years, many parishes who remain in TEC can see the possibility of leaving at some point or would like to leave now. Many evangelicals have already melted away from TEC and joined other churches, but a significant number remain.
I can't site the source at the moment, but I seem to recall a recent interview w/ a more liberal TEC leader acknowledging that about 20% of TEC members where evangelical. (I may have the time to track this down later this evening - no promises though.)

If we're going to challenge Michael Scott-Joynt's 25%, integrity also calls us to question seekers claim that 20% of humanity is GLBT or counterlight's 10-15%. Even Kinsey didn't think it was more than 10% and that hypothesis hasn't held up well.

Oppression may be overstating the case. But when we see cases like the Virginia Diocese refusing to assent to the consecration of conservative, evangelical bishops in South Carolina - after assenting to the consecration of +VGR - and much of the rhetoric used in interviews and conversations (i.e. "fundegelical"), hostility from some towards evangelicals is certainly an appropriate adjective.

Finally, I agree w/ Ford that neither side is blameless here. Liberal groups have been master organizers and strategist at diocesan and GC meetings for decades - that's a central reason why they've driving much of the debate in TEC. Now, the case of Virginia and South Carolina shows that we're seeing doctrinal tests being applied as well.

BobinWashPA said:
"The People of TFC, Truro ect... need to build their own building/facilities."

At TFC, they did build their own buildings - at least the multi-million dollar expansion about 12 years ago. There were no diocese funds in that project nor were any planned for further capital programs.

Chris - The doctrinal test being applied to the Diocese of South Carolina is the doctrine of loyalty to TEC. There was no issue as to whether VGR was loyal to TEC. The doctrinal issues are not the same, therefore the consent issues are not the same either.

C.B.

Chris,
Oppression IS overstating the case. Disagreement is not oppression. When a parish demands that its bishop publically state that non-Christians will go to Hell, then, when he declines to do so, refuses to allow him into the church for confirmations, and then he disciplines their rector for this, this is NOT oppression. And Liberals groups being master strategists? Could you give an example? Seriously, I am not being entirely facetious here. All the stories I have heard have been of how skillfull, well organized, and well funded the Conservatives are in this, so I'd like some balance. I'm looking for the Liberal equivalent of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, and the Liberal equivalent of Ahmonson (?sp) and the other uberwealthy Conservatives whose money enables the Africans to turn down the tainted gay money of TEC. I'm looking for Churches stacked with like minded, liberal non-Anglicans, on the lines of the Conservative parishes in Virginia. I'm also looking for Liberal glee on the lines of the "celebratory-dinner-in-place-of-the-Eucharist" like the Conservatives did in Dromantine. I'm looking for Liberals parishes that demand AEO because their bishop won't publically state that all are welcome in the Kingdom. Make no mistake, I think the Liberal fault lies in not taking due consideration of the cultural sensibilities of Anglicans half a world away, nor of the genuine physical danger TEC's actions may bring down on others. But, I do not buy that Liberals are at all as well organized, well funded, or politically conniving as their Conservative adversaries. If you can prove me wrong, then I will gladly acknowledge my error.

Apparently stopping thieves from stealing is oppression.
Additionally, the oppressed get to count for something like 5 times their actual numbers at least.

If we're going to challenge Michael Scott-Joynt's 25%, integrity also calls us to question seekers claim that 20% of humanity is GLBT or counterlight's 10-15%. Even Kinsey didn't think it was more than 10% and that hypothesis hasn't held up well.

Oppression may be overstating the case. But when we see cases like the Virginia Diocese refusing to assent to the consecration of conservative, evangelical bishops in South Carolina - after assenting to the consecration of +VGR - and much of the rhetoric used in interviews and conversations (i.e. "fundegelical"), hostility from some towards * evangelicals is certainly an appropriate adjective.

Chris--Thursday.

We don't rigjtly know the exact number of lgbt people Chrius, as there has never been a time when we could show our faces freely around the world and be Counted. Will such a time ever come ?
LGBT people ahce never asked or more than the right to be. We have not called for anyone's expulsion --- yet we face this and worse all the time ( inclduing execution in 40 countries).

Its the god-aweful Godlessness of anti-gay actions * 'Evangelical' or otherwise and words that gets me......
and the general public are staggered.

seeker

* they're gonna tell me I'm not and can't be Evangelical are they ? Or are they just 'gelical'? ! :-) (No discernable evangel).

Ford,

Here is an essay re: Integrity's actions from the mid 1970's to the mid 1990's. Organization, strategy, tactics and funding run through every paragraph.

http://newark.rutgers.edu/%7Elcrew/gayhist.htm

Hat tip: Babyblue

I'm not criticizing the liberals' administrative aplomb, just showing there is balance.

"Be shrewd as vipers and innocent as lambs."

Lets be clear here -- the people who are voting to leave TEC are not the same people who built the buildings. They are people who have been given stewardship of property which has been used by Episcopalian, in many cases, for well over 100 years. Instead of stewardship, they claim ownership.

I call that theft. Plain and simple. The people there might consider it "oppression" if TEC stands up to their theft, but it doesn't make it so.

seeker,

I'm not attacking you just questioning your data, which you said isn't verifiable.

MSJ's estimate is somewhat verifiable and I'd point to a number of larger dioceses such as the Texas dioceses, Pittsburgh, South Carolina plus others that participated in the Camp Allen meetings. I don't have actual polling data but a assuming even half the members of these dioceses would rather see a more traditional doctrine (not necessarily "conservative")in TEC (a fairly good assumption given these are elected bishops) you're talking about a six-figure count of Episcopalians. Given there are only 2.3M of us in TEC, you don't need but 5-600K to get to that 25%.

Oh, and don't think there's a liberal super-majority in TEC either. According to Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership, only 8% of Episcopal churches "say that the majority of their members are predominantly liberal."

see summary here:
http://www.epicenter.org/edot/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=201&SnID=256355289

Enough fun with math.

I think we can both agree that it doesn't matter what the proportion of LGBT people is, they all reflect God's image and deserve dignity, respect and security.

Just because I think homosexuality should preclude a person from church leadership does not mean I support the horrific actions people inflict on the LGBT community.

My Lord of Winchester might do well to read Chris Hedges' recent book, entitled American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (2006) before pontificating again on how TEC oppresses conservative Americans.

Chris Hedges is a Harvard Divinity School-educated journalist, who elaborates on what Ford Elms briefly described above. He describes the "new religion" espoused by +Bob Duncan, the Bushies, the Neo-cons and the folks gathered around CANA's Martyn Minns.

John Henry said:
"My Lord of Winchester might do well to read Chris Hedges' recent book, entitled American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (2006) before pontificating again on how TEC oppresses conservative Americans."

This is starting to smell like viral marketing.

Why is it when liberals (religious or political) organize its called grassroots but when conservatives (religious or political) organize its sinister?

Chris

"Just because I think [*****] should preclude a person from church leadership does not mean I support the horrific actions people inflict on the [*****] community."

Insert the word "black", and sounds remarkably like the so-called "white moderates" of 40 years ago, no?

[And to be clear: NEITHER blacks, nor homosexuals, are condemned (per se) in the Bible. NEITHER the relationships of homosexuals, nor relationships of blacks, are condemned (per se) in the Bible, either (though BOTH have been *claimed* as such. See the widespread condemnation of white Christian conservatives of spousal relationships between blacks and whites 40 years ago)]

"I think we can both agree that it doesn't matter what the proportion of LGBT people is, they all reflect God's image and deserve dignity, respect and security."

Well, yeah Chris: thanks. But what does "reflect God's image and deserve dignity, respect and security" MEAN to you, if you feel justified in using POWER-OVER, to "preclude" people like me from church leadership?

I'm just not feelin' the love. :-(

JCF - the bible does not say:
"all races are different and should stay separate in Christ" - it says the opposite and this is why the racists never had a biblical justification for their views in the US or South Africa. Your analogy just does not work - it is very weak.

Again - you have a massive job to do to justify your position because you are trying to claim that the scriptures and 2000yrs of clarity on what they mean are wrong - and in fact they mean that something is good and holy when they say the very opposite.

JCF asked: "But what does "reflect God's image and deserve dignity, respect and security" MEAN to you..?"

Well.. "reflect" in these discussions tend to mean reflect...

Man, understood not as the human race but as MALE humans, is made in the image of God, the sub-ordinates merely reflect this image.

Believe it or not.

;=)

NP - you may well be too young to remember, but it was accepted teaching in the Dutch Reformed Church, in the heyday of South African apartheid, and in a number of other churches of the Reformed tradition, that black people were the sons of Ham, and thus bore the curse of Ham, which he incurred for looking on his father's nakedness. Because of this black people were excluded from the church of the elect. That teaching has now been modified by all but a few extremists.

It isn't unduly hard to see the parallel which JCF and others attempt to draw: there are plenty of people around who would take the view (based in their calvinistic outlook) that if gay people are recidivist in their sinning, then they are to be seen as under the curse of God as children of damnation. As I remarked before on another thread, we do need to heed the warning in Matt 5:22 about calling a brother "Moré" (Aramaic= "outcast"). Unless of course one argues that children of damnation are not brothers - which opens up another whole batch of horrors.

Crypto - yes, but the racists in SA were manipulating scripture to justify their own wishes - it is scripture which shows their error, right?

We are always going to come back to the heart of the argument - does scripture positively teach that people like VGR should be ordained or does it prohibit some people from leadership?

If ST Paul was in ECUSA in 2003, would he have been happy to consecrate VGR?

NP,
Paul probably would not have been happy to consecrate +VGR. Maybe he would have been. You seem to think that, because of what he wrote about "malakoi" Paul would have been an Evangelical. If Evangelicalism is so much like what Paul believed and, presumably, taught, why did so many of the ideas it teaches not arise till 1500 years after Paul? Indeed, why do so many of its ideas contradict what the Church taught for 1500 years, and which She had received from Paul and others? Just because Paul might not have agreed with TEC on this doesn't mean he was an Evangelical.

NP writes: "We are always going to come back to the heart of the argument - does scripture positively teach that people like VGR should be ordained or does it prohibit some people from leadership?"

In actual fact that's a different argument altogether. I'm surprised that you can't see that.

Does scripture positively teach that anyone of any kind should be ordained? Or is our whole concept of ordination so post-apostolic that the idea is meaningless? Don't bother to reply. I shan't.

JCF,

If we elect our bishops do we not collectively exert power over someone else? Does not the majority exert power over the minority? Does not your bishop exert power over your rector?

I am not the one trying to exert power, but trying to follow the guidance Paul gave on the matter:

"Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus."

- 1 Tim 3:1 - 13

A demanding standard for leadership in many areas outside just sexuality. We've all seen church leaders fail by willfully falling into these vices. Perfection is not attainable, but repentance and falling on grace are marks of called leaders.

Willful, continuing disobedience by engaging in a lifestyle that is at odds with what God calls us to (as communicated through Scripture and understood in tradition and reason) is not the leadership I will subject myself to - and I think TEC would agree with me on this:

From GC2006, B033:
“Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

Ford - I did not say St Paul was an evo.

I am asking whether genuinely, definitely authoritative people such as St Paul would have supported TEC in what it did in 2003 - I am asking on what authority actions were taken (actions which are leading to the fragmenting of the Communion as we speak)

A high price is being paid for the actions of TEC. It would be worth it if TEC were right - that is why I ask if some like St Paul would have consecrated VGR.

Chris,
"Overseers"? We are talking about bishops here, not some sort of supervisors. I have made this point earlier today, and it isn't all that subtle. This reveals a radically different understanding of episcopacy. The Anglican Church has maintained the three-fold order of ministry. We are not Presbyterian, indeed, we took part in the shedding of blood over the issue. Not there's anything wrong with being Presbyterian, but if we cannot agree on what a bishop IS, how are we to agree on how one should behave, or on whether or not gender is important to the role?

Chris,
What you linked to was an essay on the development of Integrity. I am not a member, nor will I be one. I do not believe lobby groups are a good thing for the Church, they foster division and dissention. While it is quite frank about "behind the scenes" lobbying, I cannot agree that the essay shows:

"Organization, strategy, tactics and funding run through every paragraph."

I do not see evidence for the kind of behaviour carried out by the "Conservatives". Not saying it isn't happening, just that I don't see this essay as evidence for it. I am intrigued that you do. Where is the shadowy "Liberal" behind the scenes cabal of millionaires? Where are the foreign bishops breaking canon law while accusing others of the same? You haven't convinced me.

Ford,

I can post the same passage in the King James Version if you'd like, but "overseer" of "bishop" really isn't the material point here. This doesn't reveal a "radically different understanding of episcopacy" - it's simply a matter of using the NIV instead of the KJV or ASV. The qualifications of a leader given by Paul apply regardless of the org chart in a church. God's standards transcend management principles.

You and I agree on submission to the three-tiered leadership structure of the Anglican church since we're both members. We probably both agree the polity of Anglicanism, and TEC specifically, are generally good things and there are many advantages to them over other forms of hierarchy. I would hope that we agree that the vows and examination of the ordination service mean something more than being "loyal" to TEC.

The so called Pastoral letters are not by Paul. Everybody knows that. Few deny it.

Hi Goran-
I mentioned a few months ago that your brief summary on the Pastorals' authorship is too dogmatic by a street. Of the recent full-length critical commentaries:
(1) Several opt for authorship by Paul: Johnson, Knights, Mounce, Fee (cf. Kenny, 'A stylometric study');
(2) Several consider that Luke wrote them - either as Paul's secretary or after his death: Kelly, Quinn, Witherington (also Moule, Wilson);
(3) Some opt for 'allonymity' - which may or may not imply authorship by Luke: Marshall, Towner;
(4) In fact, I am struggling to think of a recent full-length critical commentary that sees them as pseudonymous. Can anyone help me here? There is (from memory) the older Dibelius/Conzelmann. The excellent study of Harrison 1921 is what most claims to pseudonymity and/or allonymity are based on. it is great as far as it goes but focuses only on one dimension of a multi-dimensional question: namely, vocabulary, and more particularly particles etc..
There are other studies which do not argue the case at any length, but more or less assume pseudonymity: e.g. Frances Young and the brief works Margaret Davies.

Trust me to forget the best vintage: Stanley Porter, who ends up, if memory serves, opting for (1), gives a good and accessible study of the main contours of the authorship arguments, both in his section in 'Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature' and in one or two more specialist articles.

Luke? a woman wrote the Pastorals a century after her death ;=)

But I’ll have a Google and a laugh at your expense, Christopher Shell.

Harrison? Try Baur 1830.

I have had a quick look, with a few extra shots at Wikipeda and others to various "independent" (= non-University) and "international" (= American 20th century sectarian) bible schools and so on.

Although the fellas you recommended don't seem to match Gagnon, there is no serious scholarship supporting their claims that the pseudo epigraphical Pastoral letter(s) would be by Paul himself.

On the contrary. The anti-Marcionite Pastorals are forgeries, attributing to Paul theological, political, social, ethnical and so on views contrary to his own.

They were written as 3 redacted letters (in the order Titus, 1 Tim, 2 Tim), that is a f t e r the early 2nd century publication of the redacted authentic letters a n d after Marcion was ejected from the Roman church in 144.

From a review of Johnson: (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200306/ai_n9244785 )

“Johnson begins by acknowledging the current state of modern scholarship on the authorship of the Pastorals: "Prospects for scholarly unanimity are slender. The clear majority of scholars today considers the Pastorals as a whole to be pseudonymous. Yet a small but stubborn minority holds – in various ways and with varying degrees of enthusiasm – to the more traditional position that the letters are authentic. There is little communication between the positions. Few converts are won from one side to the other" (p. 14).”

A blog entrance with some simple observations on the vocabulary: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/ricoblog/2006/07/11/RobertoOnThePastorals.aspx

A link with various comments referring to some of the smaller “pauline” letters (most of them inauthentic): http://forum.bible.org/viewtopic.php?p=50330 showing the effects of American 20th century heresies (pre- post- & c.) and pseudo-scholar deceit on the “application” level.

Hi Badman-
You are taking my name in vain (comment #11)! And for two reasons:
(1) I have several times said that the birds-of-a-feather principle is a bad one. Preaching to the converted means that no-one ever progresses, learns, or has their horizons broadened: three things we all badly need to do.
(2) You don't in any case know which church[es] I belong to. As it happens, I am as ecumenical as they come, or 'Christian' (which is the term I prefer).

“Johnson begins by acknowledging the current state of modern scholarship on the authorship of the Pastorals: "Prospects for scholarly unanimity are slender. The clear majority of scholars today considers the Pastorals as a whole to be pseudonymous. Yet a small but stubborn minority holds – in various ways and with varying degrees of enthusiasm – to the more traditional position that the letters are authentic. There is little communication between the positions. Few converts are won from one side to the other" (p. 14).”

The traditional position is held because it is the traditional position and not because there's any actual contemporary evidence for it. I'm not surprised that there is little communication as there is little to talk about.

But in another sense, it dosn't matter. The pastoral letter, the authentic letters of Paul and the other Paul-inspired letters are all part of the canon. There isn't a hierarchy of authenticity among them -- this letter is more reliable because it is authentic.

Surely Ruidh, the 3 redacted letter themselves are "actual contemporary evidence".

As are the views they propagate in Paul's name.

Remember Eusebius's view of texts as "witness" - which is the Church view of "canonical" - what has been used (if so by 1 author) as a witness to the Faith in any 1 congregation/province.

Forget American Integrism. It's 20th century.

Surely the early to mid 2nd century re-subordination of slaves and women has no more authority than the mid to late 20th century re-subordination of women and slaves (yes, there are new hitherto un-heard of pro-slavery "words" in translations).

Goran, that's interesting. I guess I have to read Eusebius now, since the idea that the Bible is "witness" to the Truth is something that I read yesterday on some Evo site or another, fulminating against this attitude as one more of the "innovations" of the "revisionists". Yet more proof that traditionalists actually know nothing of the tradition but fight to defend the attitudes of a few decades ago.

Yea, that is a concise way of putting it.

And it's even more interesting; the 1st Millennium view (one might say that it was object to some prostituting by Platonist Academics to introduce alien teaching) was that a n y scripture could contain logoi spermatikós; seeds of truth, and thus witness to the Righteousness of God in Christ.

Thew scriptural view of the Church is neither High or Low but W i d e, whereas Indo European Integrism comes from India :-(