Conservative episcopals voting on alignment with a fascist archbishop

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by bryanf

However right now I am casting my lot with the conservatives. Though I am a gay man, I still believe in orthodoxy. But I will admit it makes it really hard right now in the church at large. Mainly because the crisis induced by many of those who have abandoned creedal orthodoxy is going to set back individuals like me who still believe in the authority of the creeds but will/is seeking to dialogue about homosexuality from a faith perspective.

But basically I think alot of this thread has completely missed out what is the issue for the Anglican right.

Hi bryanf- you may the right- in that this thread has missed out on the conservative perspective. My own 'reading' of the matter is that it isn't so much a matter of abandonment of creedal authority as it is a widening of scope and vision. But of course, that' the 'liberal' view, is it not?

I find that fact that two people can look at the same thing and see different things fascinating.

Just now, I'm reading Elaine Pagels & Karen L. King's book Reading Judas- which is about the Gospel of Judas, which is putting some interesting thoughts in my brain. But then, I like the historical perspective- especially the history of thought as it applies to matter of faith.

I mention this because the gay and conservative Rector at the church where I sang for many years once went out of his way- during a casual conservation- to poo-poo an earlier book I was reading by Pagels. And I thought to myself then: "why do you have to demean someone else's work and viewpoint? What is it about this kind of viewpoint that frightens you so? Why the all or nothing approach?"

Being a polite person, I didn't ask him that question. Mind you, I don't hear you doing anything of the sort here- nor do I mean to insinuate that you are- that is- poo-pooing liberal views.

But at the risk of being impolite here, but I'd like to ask a similar question: what bugs you about anything that falls outside Orthodoxy? Is it the simple fact that it is unorthodox?

If so, this seems a rather circular point of view.

It must sound like a pretty stupid question- I know.

Maybe this is a better question: What makes Reason and Experience so terrible in the first place?

It seems to me that they are the vehicles by which gay persons will attain full rights within the Anglican Church.

Am I missing something here?

[WillySF]

Bryan,

I agree that this thread has missed the point. Yet I strongly disagree with you that is orthodxy at stake. I believe the real issue is one of power, authority and good ol' money. I wouldn't exactly cast my lot with the conservatives, not just yet anyhow.

Peace,

Geoff

[bryanf]

And Geoff there are plenty of days where I am heavily tempted to cast my lots on the other side. Heck sometimes Rome seems even good to me.

[bryanf]

Originally Posted by Daniel

It must sound like a pretty stupid question- I know.

Maybe this is a better question: What makes Reason and Experience so terrible in the first place?

It seems to me that they are the vehicles by which gay persons will attain full rights within the Anglican Church.

Am I missing something here?

Actually I am not trying to demean Reason or Experience at all. In our tradition we have often used Hooker's 3 legged stool as a rule in Anglican thought. Basically following Hooker's module we have placed the authority of Tradition, Reason, and Scripture all on the same level. Not one should exist in more authority than the other two. Personally I found of the Wesley Quadrilateral (reason, experience, scripture, and tradition) which is an adaption of Hooker's.

But anyhow we as Anglicans place a high degree on the traditions of the church. This is partly why one of our key signature documents, The Lambeth Quadrilateral, identifies and values scripture and the creeds as core foundations which we are to unite upon. For many of the conservatives they view that the value of Scripture and the Creeds has been marginilized by those on the so called "left." Because of their breaking of the Lambeth Quadrilateral they believe they have violated the tenents of what it means to be unified. So for many they believe they have no choice but to depart. And believe decisions aren't quick in the Anglican church. It takes about 40 years to decide to change out a light bulb(j/k).

Anyhow I hope that helps a bit.

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by bryanf

I hate to burst some of y'alls bubble but... .

Fear not; there is no bubble to burst.

I read loud and clear that you are uncomfortable with what you believe is the general direction of TEC and that you, therefore, are inclined to sympathy with the American churches who aligning themselves with "foreign" Anglican churches.

What I still don't understand is what exactly is troubling you, platitudes, generalizations and over-arching terms like "orthodoxy" aside.

Originally Posted by bryanf

I do believe that The Episcopal Church does allow much room for those who have abandoned creedal faith, and even allows them to stay ministry. Perfect example of this is Bishop John Shelby Spong. In strongly believing in the authority of the church and that there is orthodoxy, I have a real problem with much of The Episcopal Church. Particularly I would have a problem with submitting myself to The Episcopal Church because of the current leadership under Bishop Katherine Schori..

Could you please explain precisely how TEC has "abandoned creedal faith"? What do you mean by "authority of the church"? TEC has no authority to answer to but itself (and by that I mean the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies)...and God, of course -- but certainly not to England or Nigeria or anywhere else.

And "orthodoxy"...whose? What does being "orthodox" mean to you, specifically, and how, specifically, is TEC unorthodox?

Why are you uncomfortable "submitting" to the current presiding bishop? Her positions? The fact that she's a she?

Originally Posted by bryanf

However righ tnow I am casting my lot with the conservatives. Though I am a gay man, I still believe in orthodoxy. But I will admit it makes it really hard right now in the church at large. Mainly because the crisis induced by many of those who have abandoned creedal orthodoxy is going to set back individuals like me who still believe in the authority of the creeds but will/is seeking to dialogue about homosexuality from a faith perspective.

But basically I think alot of this thread has completely missed out what is the issue for the Anglican right.

Again, I understand that you obviously feel this way, but you don't spell out how you think a dialogue about homosexuality "from a faith perspective" would look. We've all read in the media what the the issues are for the "[American] Anglican right", but what are your personal issues as a gay Episcopalian thinking of leaving your country's church? You still haven't said.

[bryanf]

Do not I am not trying to cause any discord. However my reply that follows are my humble opinions. If the moderators think that is best if we take this to private or cease, then I am willing to submit.

Originally Posted by dsdrane

Fear not; there is no bubble to burst.

I read loud and clear that you are uncomfortable with what you believe is the general direction of TEC and that you, therefore, are inclined to sympathy with the American churches who aligning themselves with "foreign" Anglican churches.

What I still don't understand is what exactly is troubling you, platitudes, generalizations and over-arching terms like "orthodoxy" aside.


Could you please explain precisely how TEC has "abandoned creedal faith"?

I did not say the entirety of the TEC has abandoned creedal faith. However there are several in the governing roles who are anything but true to the creeds. TEC has through the year allowed the continue ministry of those who deny the resurrection, that Jesus was divine, the virginity of Mary, that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, etc. etc.

And I do think the Athanasian Creed expresses itself rightly that there are somethings that are necessary to be believed in order to be saved. ("This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.")

Originally Posted by dsdrane

What do you mean by "authority of the church"? TEC has no authority to answer to but itself (and by that I mean the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies)...and God, of course -- but certainly not to England or Nigeria or anywhere else.

One we as Anglicans do believe ourselves to be in the great tradition. We are still answerable to the councils of time past. We embrace it proudly. We have always since the conception of the TEC in America have believed it to be important to be in communion with other churches. A perfect example of this being that if we were only accountable to ourselves we would of not had the issues of getting bishops consecrated when we were first forming in this country. We believe we are with the other churches in the line of the apostolic succession.

Originally Posted by dsdrane

And "orthodoxy"...whose? What does being "orthodox" mean to you, specifically, and how, specifically, is TEC unorthodox?

I did not say the entirity of TEC is unorthodox. Most of it is orthodox. However I personally refuse to participate in TEC because of leaders who deny the things very much expressed in the creeds. To deny these things are in my opinion to be apostate. These are the things we as the Church have declared to be the fundamentals of our faith.

Orthodoxy as I have continued to express it is confirming to the solidified beliefs of the church, which so aptly are expressed in the Creeds. To deny any element of the creeds is to be in my humblest opinion outside of orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by dsdrane

Why are you uncomfortable "submitting" to the current presiding bishop? Her positions? The fact that she's a she?

Actually I am very much for women in ministry. And its funny how you automatically presumed that is my problem with her. Thanks for the assumption.

Problems I have with her. One her character and methods are lacking. Her tactics in targetting those who disagree with her, much like several other bishops in TEC, are fascist at best. Pat Robertson has nothing on them. How many Bishops in TEC have removed moderates or conservatives via displacing them out of the pulpit for a certain period of time till they can declare that they have abandoned it? To many. Thats a perfect example of in the tradition of fascism of capitalizing on the differences in order to make an attack against any intruders.

Another aspect of fascism they part take in is that the capitilize on those who are socially frustrated in order to advance their own 'cause. And I am not even going to go into it, but I really do have a gut feeling that many are trying to exploit the LGBTs as a way to gain power from within.

Another example of the ongoing TEC is that is developing a xenophobia of sorts. It is the TEC and this is us mindset. The mindset of superiority to everyone else. Yeah strife has been in the TEC since its conception. But particularly now, even more so than the AngloCatholic vs Evangelical strife (which surprisingly so many of them are uniting now in a common 'cause against the "liberals"; I don't think many ever expected AngloCatholics and Evangelicals to walk hand in hand in much of anything but here we are now agreeing that the creeds are being jeopardized and putting our differences aside for the common good).

I could keep going on but I am afraid I have gone to far in possibly offending people to the point of discord as it is. I will simply say again these are my humble opinions. I do believe them. I am not saying you do. But to understand what I am saying then it is helpful to know some of my thoughts.

Originally Posted by dsdrane

Again, I understand that you obviously feel this way, but you don't spell out how you think a dialogue about homosexuality "from a faith perspective" would look.

Now that could be a whole book. *lol* Alright the quickie essential version is that:
#1 Living a sanctified that is exemplary of Christ.
#2 Continue in the community of the church with those who may disagree with me on the issues of sexuality. Sex in general is viewed as a "non-essential" and thus is opened for debate. So I respect those who disagree with me and hope by living a thoughtful and good life I may persuade them to come to a point of agreeing to disagree or coming to a point of agreement.
#3 In regards to still upholding the Scriptures as the rule of our faith; I do not believe the Scriptures to condemn us as lgbt, so with reason I still am able to submit to scripture as a rule by which to live and learn by. I do believe it to be more than a historical document good for edification but a collection of writings that have been inspired by God and vested with the power of the Church via the Holy Spirit as a rule of faith unto our lives. By submitting to this rule of our faith and able to embrace this text yet still give an adequate defense of my life, I am able to dialogue with those who may disagree with me.

Anyhow I am still working through this. And I am getting tired of typing at the moment.

Originally Posted by dsdrane

We've all read in the media what the the issues are for the "[American] Anglican right", but what are your personal issues as a gay Episcopalian thinking of leaving your country's church? You still haven't said.

Well for one I am not underneath the TEC at this moment. I am actually a part of a church whose Archbishop is from another province. My problem with this country's church is that unlike the Donatists, I believe that many of the leaders of the TEC are apostate. The donatists had to deal with folks who came back to the faith. We are dealing with folks who have abandoned the faith yet are still attempting to administer the grace. In a sense much of our actions are very reformational. We are having issues with the church at large because of the corruption.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone here. But since my personal opinions were asked for, this is what I do believe.

I do hope and pray that there will be a day when we as LGBT will no longer be oppressed. However as an individual of faith, I am unwilling at this point to make compromises to the point where I would be delivered from the oppression. So I plan to keep fighting and try to remain as true to the faith as I can.

[dsdrane]

You make a number of accusations -- enough, in my view, to make your protests of not wanting to cause discord disingenuous. You clothe them as "humble opinions" and then conveniently fail to cite any evidence or proof.

Originally Posted by bryanf

However there are several in the governing roles who are anything but true to the creeds. TEC has through the year allowed the continue ministry of those who deny the resurrection, that Jesus was divine, the virginity of Mary, that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, etc. etc.

Really...who?

Originally Posted by bryanf

Problems I have with [++Jefferts Schori]. One her character and methods are lacking. Her tactics in targetting those who disagree with her, much like several other bishops in TEC, are fascist at best. Pat Robertson has nothing on them. How many Bishops in TEC have removed moderates or conservatives via displacing them out of the pulpit for a certain period of time till they can declare that they have abandoned it? To many. Thats a perfect example of in the tradition of fascism of capitalizing on the differences in order to make an attack against any intruders.

Please elaborate. Also, I find your use of "fascism" ironic in the extreme.

Originally Posted by bryanf

We have always since the conception of the TEC in America have believed it to be important to be in communion with other churches. A perfect example of this being that if we were only accountable to ourselves we would of not had the issues of getting bishops consecrated when we were first forming in this country. We believe we are with the other churches in the line of the apostolic succession.

And we can thank the Scots for our continued apostolic succession after the English cut us off. If anything, TEC continues to be true to its tradition and "councils of time past" by refusing to be dictated to by others. And I agree with you; I don't think this is particularly Anglican of us...and thank God for that.

Originally Posted by bryanf

I really do have a gut feeling that many are trying to exploit the LGBTs as a way to gain power from within.

This is patently absurd.

Regardless, it's pretty clear that our points of views are very different and that we are aligned with groups of like-minded people. Interestingly, the one thing we most likely do agree on is that Episcopalians have really ceased to be Anglicans.

[nmwolfboy]

Dear B.Ryan.F,

Respectfully, i must say that the TEC i'm engaged with does not resemble what you describe in the slightest. Just for a bit of background, i attend a very progressive parish within an Anglican Network Diocese (Rio Grande). Though my parish is very progressive, the liberals therein do not in any way fit the picture of liberals that you seem to be painting. Neither do the conservatives in my parish resemble those that many others in the wider community, especially the blogosphere, seem to have encountered.

i've not run into any of the liberal TEC apostates that i read about. i've not encountered any TEC liberals who deny the creeds or the divinity of Christ or any other basic church traditions. i have found liberals who understand those TEC basics differently than the conservatives do.

To consider probably the most maligned TEC progressive, +Spong, what i find when i read his books is someone who is asking uncomfortable questions about the basics of faith. While in his arguments he has stated some challenging things that on the surface deny basic traditional assumptions about church teachings, when he reaches the the end of his arguments he often ends up affirming those same teachings, but from a different perspective.

i wonder if some who so strongly speak out against him have ever actually read his works in their entirety and taken the time to prayerfully consider what he says. Or have they just perused snippets of his works and jumped to repeating the judgments of others without engaging their own prayerful discernment?

Now, don't get the idea that i agree with everything +Spong posits, but i must admit that my reading & consideration of his arguments have greatly enriched & deepened my faith in Christ, Christianity, and the Anglican tradition. I do find some of his scholarship suspect, but not enough to invalidate the thought-provoking questions he raises. Besides, faith that fears hard questions is hardly an effective faith.

Enough gabbing on my part. B.Ryan.F thanks for taking time to share your thoughts, even though i can't say my experience in any way mirrors what you outline. C'est la théologie!

Pax

scott

[bryanf]

I would encourage us to take this conversation to private messages if it is to continue on Anglicanism. In the end I think we are going to disagree no matter what. But I very much do apprecriate your thoughts on this subject. If we chose to continue this conversation in plublic let us go to one of the many other forums that exist for the purpose to discuss these issues in Anglicanism.

And let us not lose sight. For we are all here because we do believe and hope for the day when we might be freed from oppression. We may disagree in a number of venues, this is fine. We do not even have to be of the same faith. What we can do is to share the burden with one another in this journey. And with one another we can come together in hope of a good day.

So if anyone cares to continue this discourse on TEC, lets take this to private messages.

And the main reason I participated in this thread was to express that homosexuality is not the primary concern of those on the right in American Anglicanism. We in the right view that that much of The Episcopal Church are departing from orthodox faith. (IF this was a simple issue that could be resolved in one thread then we would not be in the crisi American Anglicanism is currently in.) And I do want to say that working reasonably within the bounds of Anglican thought, I do think that a reasonable hope for conversation to be held within the American Anglican right. Whether this ever happens, God only knows.

And finally to my to my brothers and sisters here who are from the TEC, I am very greatful in your company as we strive for a better day. It is sad that though in one world we may be parting ways, it is indeed a good thing that in another we are able to unite for a common cause.

[u-dog]

Why do you want to take this conversation private? everyone is behaving themselves and its interesting reading. have your disagreement out where the rest of us can listen in. Thats what the fora are fora (heh heh)

[bryanf]

I was hoping for it not to degrade into flame thread. I have seen a number of these threads on this subject in other forums errupt into something quite nasty. And though I think all of us could behave ourselves, there is no point in flirting deviciveness.

Plus a little bit of peace in not having to hear or discuss this would also would be quite nice. ;o) I hear enough of it as it is from both sides. ;o)

[u-dog]

We won't start flaming here. You can trust us. we can get hot under the collar but seldom do we burst into flames. Dave and Scott are two very smart and insightful members of the group. They may vehemently disagree with you but they won't disrespect you. Trust them.

(Okay you guys! Don't make a liar out of me!)

Our moderators are very good at slapping peoples wrists if they get out of line... in fact they occasionally get their wrists slapped for slapping too many wrists. This is a safe place.

[nmwolfboy]

Originally Posted by u-dog

We can get hot under the collar but seldom do we burst into flames.

i beg your pardon! i burst into flames on a regular basis; occasionally my head even explodes. That is, after it stops spinning around uncontrollably! Harumph!!!

Seriously, i don't expect everyone to agree with me. Frankly, it would creep me out if it ever did happen. B.Ryan.F., i'd really like to keep the conversation going though i certainly understand if you'd prefer some peace. If you are willing to slog on, i've a question relating to this:

Originally Posted by bryanf

Problems I have with her. One her character and methods are lacking. Her tactics in targetting those who disagree with her, much like several other bishops in TEC, are fascist at best. Pat Robertson has nothing on them. How many Bishops in TEC have removed moderates or conservatives via displacing them out of the pulpit for a certain period of time till they can declare that they have abandoned it? To many. Thats a perfect example of in the tradition of fascism of capitalizing on the differences in order to make an attack against any intruders.

i'm not quite following your comments about ++Katharine here. What conservatives or moderates have been removed? i'm aware of some who have been inhibited by their Bishops after voting to leave TEC, which i think is completely in keeping with the canons; other than the one who's been accused of financial malfeasance in Colorado (?) i'm not aware of others. Can you give me some specifics, or point me toward info relating to your statements about both the affected clergy and ++Katharine's actions?

Originally Posted by bryanf

Another example of the ongoing TEC is that is developing a xenophobia of sorts. It is the TEC and this is us mindset. The mindset of superiority to everyone else. Yeah strife has been in the TEC since its conception. But particularly now, even more so than the AngloCatholic vs Evangelical strife (which surprisingly so many of them are uniting now in a common 'cause against the "liberals"; I don't think many ever expected AngloCatholics and Evangelicals to walk hand in hand in much of anything but here we are now agreeing that the creeds are being jeopardized and putting our differences aside for the common good).

Again, i'm not seeing this, at least not in my parish. All my parish clergy and most of the laity are very vocal that a diversity of understandings of faith and belief (i.e. Anglo-catholic, Evangelical, Broad Church, liberal/conservative, etc) are not only welcomed, but central to our tradition. While it's recognized that individuals within the parish may value one strand of the Anglican tradition over another, corporately we go to great efforts to ensure that a variety of Anglican opinions are recognized. In our new members' class quite some time is devoted to discussing the Anglican tradition of valuing seemingly contradicting opinions and recognizing that doing so can yield a dynamic tension that deepens faith.

Perhaps my progressive parish is even more unique than i thought, as well as being in the minority in an historically conservative, Network diocese.

Pax

scott

[dsdrane]

At the risk of creeping out NMWBoy, I completely agree with him.



My parish in the Diocese of Southeast Florida also spans a wide range of ideological/political views and thought but maintains a commitment to "walking together".

Interestingly -- and I don't know if this is a good or bad thing -- I don't believe there has been any public conversation or debate about TEC remaining in the Anglican Communion. My impression is that most are saddened by the current state of affairs but feel that the die has been cast. C'est la guerre!

[Semi-private aside to u-dog: Oh, u!]