7/03/2013

ACNA, condemning the courts and the administration, taking on the martyr's role

Several posts by leaders of the Anglican Church of North America, combined with an essay, "A Call to Martyrdom"by Peter J. Leithart, raise the question, is ACNA posed to take on the martyr's role?

Here are the pieces:

David Virtue in an interview with Bishop Derek Jones, Bishop of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincies for ACNA, writes the following:

"The bishop overseeing military chaplains in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) says President Obama is targeting Christians and hates Religious Liberty when he says he will veto any bill that seeks to strengthen religious protections for military members.

The Rt. Rev. Derek Jones who is the Bishop of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, a soon to be diocese of the ACNA said, "I state without reservation that Mr. Obama and this administration is the most corrupt we have seen in modern history. He continues to bypass Congress by using expanding government, executive orders and directives to accomplish his objectives; and he dismisses those who speak against his anti-republic agenda as though we are extremists and out of step."


Later in the same article Virtue quotes Jones, "We ARE on the precipice of a full-on persecution of Christians and loss of all Religious and Civil Liberties - all in the name of "fairness" "security" and any other good sounding word they think they can use. EVERYTHING Mr. Obama does is to gain power, strength, and authority over Religious and Civil Liberties." 

Read the whole interview HERE

At the ACNA provincial gathering this last month, Bishop Jones, in yet another interview with Virtue, had the following exchange: 

"VOL: In a culture that is rapidly moving away from the Christian faith, many would say post-Christian with a valueless Millennial generation of Nones, why is a military chaplaincy so appealing?

BISHOP JONES: I agree that our Republic has been turned into a democracy and that is not a good thing... democracies can be as tyrannical as a dictatorship. While many claim to be Christians in our nation, we are now living in a post-Christian society where scriptural precepts and doctrine no longer carry the weight of influence in law or of being the moral compass. In this culture as people face life-altering events and death outside of a church relationship, Chaplains become the instrument by which an unchurched nation and populace can find hope, love, comfort and salvation. This is what the chaplain ministry is all about..."



Meanwhile, over in ACNA headquarters in Ambridge, PA, the Archbishop of all things ACNA opined, in reference to the Supreme Court rulings re same sex marriage, " The Church has countered the culture throughout most of its history.  We find ourselves, both sadly and increasingly, in this position in a nation once seen as a “light upon a hill,” and a “hope of all the earth.”

Canon Ashey, of the American Anglican Council, mouthpiece for ACNA, wrote the an article which is worth the read in its entirety HERE. (Some parts echo the desire to act on the basis of our faith in the public square, a commendable idea.)

From it I lift the following:

 "The problem is that this opinion represents a worldview among the ruling elites in our democracy that is increasingly hostile to Judeo-Christian faith and morality.  …

How do the five justices of the US Supreme Court characterize those who defend the traditional and biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman for life?  How does this ruling elite describe those who defend what God has ordained?  They describe them - Christians - as people who interfere, injure, harm, and stigmatize others…

 There you have it.  What do we as Christians do when the ruling elites characterize us as “enemies of the human race?”  How can we remain engaged in public discourse that has become so antagonistic to the Christian faith?"

So ACNA leaders have been of the opinion that 
(i) President Obama "is targeting Christians and hates Religious Liberty,"
(ii) " EVERYTHING Mr. Obama does is to gain power, strength, and authority over Religious and Civil Liberties." 
(iii) "...our Republic has been turned into a democracy and that is not a good thing... democracies can be as tyrannical as a dictatorship."
(iv) "The Church has countered the culture throughout most of its history.  We find ourselves, both sadly and increasingly, in this position..."
(v) "The problem is that this opinion (The Supreme Court opinion) represents a worldview among the ruling elites in our democracy that is increasingly hostile to Judeo-Christian faith and morality."

These tidbits place ACNA's leadership on a clear course to say, as a matter of conscience, that the President and the Supreme Court are acting counter to Christian faith, and are in some sense "the enemy."  

Additionally, in the matter of the ACNA Bishop for the Armed Forces, there is a problem of conflict of interest here, in that he is the chief pastoral officer for the chaplains serving in the various services through ACNA (some 120 or so). These chaplains are commissioned officers in the Armed Forces and, I believe, subject to the same provisions of the law, namely, that the President of the United States of America is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces.  Chaplains are constrained ( I believe) from such criticism as would undermine the authority of the Commander in Chief, and I wonder if that applies as well to the Bishop who supervises them?  At what point does Bishop Jones in his criticism of the specific presidency of President Obama cross over into a place where he will loose accreditation or access to the chaplains?

And, just for the record, does ACNA support Jones' opinion that "our Republic has been turned into a democracy and that is not a good thing"? There's a counter to the "culture", the proposition that democracy is not a good thing.
Well, these opinions certainly will set ACNA as counter to the culture. To the pastoral credit of the several persons quoted here, ACNA's leadership does understand that running counter to the "democratic" or "popular" or "social" culture will get them in trouble. They are preparing their followers for troubles ahead. The hints are there. In the cause of righteousness there will be tough times.

Which leads us to the essay, "A Call to Martyrdom."  Read it HERE.

One quote, "This (decision) will force a major adjustment in conservative Christian stance toward America. We’ve fooled ourselves for decades into believing that Christian America was derailed recently and by a small elite. It’s tough medicine to realize that principles inimical to traditional Christian morals are now deeply embedded in our laws, institutions and culture. The only America that actually exists is one in which “marriage” includes same-sex couples and women have a Constitutional right to kill their babies. To be faithful, Christian witness must be witness against America."

ACNA is carefully aligning itself with the notion that true Christians are those who must be witnesses (martyrs) against America.

"we are (writes Leithart) servants of God. He opens our ears to hear, and he gives us tongues to speak truth. If that means we are insulted and marginalized, if it means we yield our back to the smiters and our face to those who spit on us, so be it." 

I have great admiration for people willing to stand up for what they believe.  At the same time I have little positive to say about those who wrap themselves in the martyr's mantle.  

Martyrdom is something best ascribed by others to what we ourselves might best describe as our joy.  If it is our joy to stand for the truth as we know it, then fine. We take on what that entails and go from there. If we become self proclaimed martyrs then we not only claim to be the true witnesses but by our suffering claim that as the surety of the claim itself.  That way lies mad bombers and ungodly religious passion. 


we are servants of God. He opens our ears to hear, and he gives us tongues to speak truth. If that means we are insulted and marginalized, if it means we yield our back to the smiters and our face to those who spit on us, so be it. - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2013/07/02/a-call-to-martyrdom/#sthash.fWV2A7Yn.dpuf



 

 



35 comments:

  1. As anyone who checks the comments at Stand Firm on an ongoing basis can tell you, it isn't about religion, it's about reactionary politics. Nice to see Jones and Ashey emerging into the light of day to show, once again, their true natures. May I once more, apropos of these two and those like them, link Richard Hofstadter's brilliant, readable and still very-relevant essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

    Interesting that loose talk that, aimed at a Republican commander-in-chief, would be loudly and repeatedly labelled "treasonous" by the usual suspects, is apparently acceptable if aimed at the current president by one who holds a superficially responsible-seeming position attached to the US Armed Forces.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for posting this -- thank you very much! Alarmists like this, among other flaws, kept me from pursuing an Anglican tradition outside of The Episcopal Church. Not that we don't have our own issues; but, honestly, the victim mentality displayed by those mentioned here from ACNA is outright embarrassing, in my opinion.

    I scrapped Virtue Online from my Blogger Reader because I got sick of their Charismatic, over-reactionary nonsense. I wouldn't have known about this latest debacle without your reporting. So, again, thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Martyrdom is something best ascribed by others to what we ourselves might best describe as our joy.

    Amen. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry about the self-proclaimed "martyrdom" that is certain to follow the courts' decisions. As you say, Mark, it should be their joy to sacrifice themselves for the "true Faith." Sorry about all the scare quotes, but how else to talk about them?

    The statement by Armed Forces Bishop Jones seems way out of line to me, but I know nothing about the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's very hard to even READ this junktalk (impossible to consider it a serious writing)- Jones, bishop or not, is a mess, a thrill seeker (probably the sound of his own voice turns him on) and unqualified to serve in the Armed Forces of the U.S.A. - As for Bishop Duncan (deposed bishop of TEC) he is trying as hard as he can to make sense of his dastardly beliefs in order to appear sane.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I heartily agree with commenters here who view the V.o.L. Postings with deep suspicion. Under the cloak of Orthodox Anglicanism, its host often attacks anyone even remotely connected with the Gospel initiatives of TEC; so that this scurrilous campaign against the Head of the US Armed Forces by ACNA's representative in that sphere should not surprise anyone.

    ACNA's Martyr Complex is typical of the self-righteous, and in this case, risible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you really want to be "martyred" for the Christian faith, I imagine Iran or North Korea can arrange it.

    But because you're an employer who doesn't want to give your employees the health insurance options they choose? Puh-leez.

    "Climb down off the cross: we need the wood"

    ReplyDelete
  7. A short, accurate, recent (2010) piece on the continuing relevance of Hofstadter's "Paranoid style" from Salon.com.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My first thought was "Tea Party, anyone?"
    And what about that Diocese of Chaplains? Can that be real? Egads!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Devon Miller-Duggan4/7/13 11:05 PM

    If these hate-and-fear-driven want-to-be martys are going to get to be martyrs, who, precisely, is it that they think is going to martyr them? Because I, for one, am way too busy being happy about the Death of DOMA and praying for women's rights to be bothered to flay anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Was I wrong to think there might be some intelligent exchange with the First Things essay which introduces this?

    Is Leithart wrong when he writes:

    "Tax exemption will be challenged, and so will accreditation for Christian colleges and schools that hold to traditional views of marriage. Once opposition to same-sex marriage is judged discriminatory, no institution that opposes it will be unaffected."

    If one holds a traditional view of marriage, there will be a price to pay.

    It is not hard at all to imagine that as soon as there is a marriage rite in the BCP, one that fits the new reality (no references to Genesis or NT texts that refer to it gender difference; elimination of procreation references) the objection will be lodged that only the new one is needed. Heterosexual couples will be brought fully into the new understanding of marriage Leithart here describes.

    It is simply a matter of time. So-called traditional Christians will need to accept these new rites as normative or find another church. The idea that this was only ever about SS Blessings is now exposed as merely a stage en route to something else: the redefining of 'marriage'. Of course, we always knew that.

    SCM

    ReplyDelete
  11. SCM, religious institutions are exempt from litigation under the first Amendment if they choose not to endorse or conduct same gender marriages...even within denominations who may choose to support same gender marriage, I am unaware of any which requires clergy to perform a marriage which they personally do not believe is in the best interests of both parties. There is a difference between permission and mandate, even if ACNA folk choose not to acknowledge it...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Democracy is always threatening to folks who find themselves out voted...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Of course, Democracy has nothing to do with justice or righteousness....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Small farmer--you don't deal with the issue as posed. Tax exemption will be withdrawn for churches which do not comply with the new understanding. They will be discriminators and so will be treated as such. I don't mind knowing what is down the line but what I do not appreciate is the dissembling of so-called liberals as if all will be kindly done with dissenters. That is simply false.

    SCM

    ReplyDelete
  15. SCM writes, Tax exemption will be withdrawn for churches which do not comply with the new understanding...

    Oh, you mean the way tax exemption is withdrawn from Roman Catholics who refuse to recognize civil marriages between divorced people? Or marriages between atheists?

    No, sorry, this paranoid alarmism is demonstrably false.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is no highly organized, extremely well funded lobby for the groups you mention, and of course they are advocating for it. So the analogy is nonsense. Read Leithart and indicate where he is wrong, please.

    Turn of the one-liner machine as well.

    SCM

    ReplyDelete
  17. All right, SCM: I'll share my thoughts. You were concerned about this paragraph in Leithart:

    "Tax exemption will be challenged, and so will accreditation for Christian colleges and schools that hold to traditional views of marriage. Once opposition to same-sex marriage is judged discriminatory, no institution that opposes it will be unaffected."

    I do thin Leithart is alarmist here. While tax exemption may be challenged, I doubt it will be lost. The IRS and the various state revenue agencies have long resisted deciding what is or isn't a "real" church. They've granted tax exemption to bodies much more progressive than the Episcopal Church and to bodies much more conservative than ACNA. In my part of the country there were concerns about a megachurch that loudly espoused certain political positions, in this case traditionalist. People came to listen to the sermons, just to try to trap the preachers. Notwithstanding the venality of the approach, they didn't gain anything. From the pulpit they heard certain values, and a call to express those values in public, including the ballot box; but they didn't hear, "All who don't vote for Candidate X are going to hell." The requirement not to endorse a specific candidate is incumbent on all not-for-profit groups, whether religious or not. We wrestle with what might or might not be said by a 403c organization; but I don't expect the 403b organizations, including churches, to experience changes from the IRS. Now, might they have to defend that in court? Perhaps; but I expect they'll win.

    Accreditation is a little different. The regional accrediting bodies and ATS are member organizations, not government agencies. Yes, they are recognized by the Department of Education for certain purposes; but so are the Association for Biblical Higher Education and the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. There are many institutions that forego on principle (I will resist the word "proudly") seeking accreditation from a regional accrediting body or ATS. Bob Jones University, for example, is accredited by TRACS. So, some institutions may want to change accreditation, they won't "lose accreditation" over an opinion about marriage in God's eyes.

    By the same token, there will be no action by the Department of Defense against Bishop Jones. No more than IRS, DOD doesn't want to tell bodies that endorse for chaplaincy (endorse in this instance is the technical term) how that body should act, or who the endorsing agent should be. Individual chaplains will indeed experience some tension. Most of the Episcopal chaplains I've known over the years have been anti-conflict - as have most of the officers I've known who weren't chaplains. We need to remember that chaplains aren't in the Armed Forces to serve the religious bodies that endorse them, but to protect, as best they can under difficult circumstances, the free exercise rights of the individual members of the Armed Forces, whose rights are constrained by being under orders. Again, that does limit the practice of those chaplains (a Christian is expected to offer, as best possible, appropriate support to a Muslim soldier, and vice versa); but, again, in my experience the chaplains know that.

    As for heterosexual couples having to accept that civil laws relating to marriage apply as well to homosexual couples: I think Leithart has missed his own point here. They already have, and that's part of the social change that so troubles him, and part of the decision of many that churches are irrelevant at best and regressive at worst.

    The right to free exercise of religion doesn't give me a right not to be offended, any more than the right to free speech. God knows that folks have said things that offended me, and while I don't have to like it I have to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. All right, SCM: I'll share my thoughts. You were concerned about this paragraph in Leithart:

    "Tax exemption will be challenged, and so will accreditation for Christian colleges and schools that hold to traditional views of marriage. Once opposition to same-sex marriage is judged discriminatory, no institution that opposes it will be unaffected."

    I do thin Leithart is alarmist here. While tax exemption may be challenged, I doubt it will be lost. The IRS and the various state revenue agencies have long resisted deciding what is or isn't a "real" church. They've granted tax exemption to bodies much more progressive than the Episcopal Church and to bodies much more conservative than ACNA. In my part of the country there were concerns about a megachurch that loudly espoused certain political positions, in this case traditionalist. People came to listen to the sermons, just to try to trap the preachers. Notwithstanding the venality of the approach, they didn't gain anything. From the pulpit they heard certain values, and a call to express those values in public, including the ballot box; but they didn't hear, "All who don't vote for Candidate X are going to hell." The requirement not to endorse a specific candidate is incumbent on all not-for-profit groups, whether religious or not. We wrestle with what might or might not be said by a 403c organization; but I don't expect the 403b organizations, including churches, to experience changes from the IRS. Now, might they have to defend that in court? Perhaps; but I expect they'll win.

    Accreditation is a little different. The regional accrediting bodies and ATS are member organizations, not government agencies. Yes, they are recognized by the Department of Education for certain purposes; but so are the Association for Biblical Higher Education and the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. There are many institutions that forego on principle (I will resist the word "proudly") seeking accreditation from a regional accrediting body or ATS. Bob Jones University, for example, is accredited by TRACS. So, some institutions may want to change accreditation, they won't "lose accreditation" over an opinion about marriage in God's eyes.

    By the same token, there will be no action by the Department of Defense against Bishop Jones. No more than IRS, DOD doesn't want to tell bodies that endorse for chaplaincy (endorse in this instance is the technical term) how that body should act, or who the endorsing agent should be. Individual chaplains will indeed experience some tension. Most of the Episcopal chaplains I've known over the years have been anti-conflict - as have most of the officers I've known who weren't chaplains. We need to remember that chaplains aren't in the Armed Forces to serve the religious bodies that endorse them, but to protect, as best they can under difficult circumstances, the free exercise rights of the individual members of the Armed Forces, whose rights are constrained by being under orders. Again, that does limit the practice of those chaplains (a Christian is expected to offer, as best possible, appropriate support to a Muslim soldier, and vice versa); but, again, in my experience the chaplains know that.

    As for heterosexual couples having to accept that civil laws relating to marriage apply as well to homosexual couples: I think Leithart has missed his own point here. They already have, and that's part of the social change that so troubles him, and part of the decision of many that churches are irrelevant at best and regressive at worst.

    The right to free exercise of religion doesn't give me a right not to be offended, any more than the right to free speech. God knows that folks have said things that offended me, and while I don't have to like it I have to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This "martyrdom" is laughable.

    People who've never suffered trying to define suffering. A fat child, given anything he wants, can't get someone to give him a free ice-cream cone and stamps his feet and cries, "Why, God, why? Why meeeeeeeeee!"

    We have me the enemy, and it is silly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "We have me the enemy, and it is silly."

    No argument there!

    SCM

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you for your lengthy effort at a reply. Here is a rough summary. 1) You don’t think there will be tax related problems, though you aren’t sure. 2) Your anodyne ATS appraisal omits to note what ATS gives a student enrolled: undergrad loan deferral and the ability to take out loans. 3) One question for TEC. Will a Bishop/Diocese be able to say No to SS rites of various stripe in 5 years’ time?

    SCM

    ReplyDelete
  22. SCM, you ask:

    Will a Bishop/Diocese be able to say No to SS rites of various stripe in 5 years’ time?

    I doubt that anyone can give a definite answer, but I'm guessing that there may still be a few bishops who want to say No in 5 years time, but not many. Diocesan bishops still retain a great deal of power within their dioceses, and I assume the canons would have to be changed for the prelates to be forced to be inclusive about marriage and blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  23. SCM, since the other accrediting bodies I noted are recognized by the US Department of Education in the same way that ATS and the regional accrediting bodies are, I would presume that students in those schools would also be eligible for loans and loan deferral. Do you have evidence otherwise? Of course, for schools that themselves choose to refuse government funds might discourage students from applying for them; but that's not the same as students being refused.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I meant "met the enemy," of course, but the jumping at a cheap shot shows just how little the righties have learned from their "suffering." LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am unaware of loan deferrals for any accreditation other than ATS.

    What of the other issues?

    Grandmere -- Bishops in 10-15 dioceses are not acting unilaterally in their concerns. They also represent their people.

    It is fairly clear that what you assume is: this is a tour de force. The idea of 'principle' is in such an account hostage to a Whig view of history. That is, all is progressing (in the Western mirror), and invariably, including: global warming; sexualisation of all things including TV, internet, social media outlets; obesity; debt.

    So in five years we will remain in this Whig mode and by then all will be on board with SS agenda (and all the other things that such a view produces).

    Forgive me if I do not view this as Christian time.

    SCM

    ReplyDelete
  26. SCM, I gave my opinion. Neither you nor I can say what will happen five years from now.

    Forgive me if I do not view this as Christian time.

    ???

    ReplyDelete
  27. Do you understand why traditional Christians have reason to worry? Look at the Anglican Church of Canada. The way that SS blessings got passed previously was by insisting they were NOT marriage. Now they are. The same will be true in TEC. No one is fooled. Honest SS marriage folk said that it was a statue of liberty play and that they were only buying time.

    The same will be true of 'conscience clauses' or 'exemptions.' They will time out.

    I don't expect you to deny any of this but it would be nice if progressives were clear: they are not liberals who want everyone to have a place. They have a position and it will be the law of the land. The SS marriage rite will never be one alongside another traditional one. It will insist it is the ONLY rite.

    Is any of this inaccurate? I don't think so. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    SCM

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dear Grandmother:

    Christian Time as our saints in time past state it. Our church is nothing without their presence through time:

    "O God, by whose command the order of time runs its course: Forgive, we pray thee, the impatience of our hearts; make perfect that which is lacking in our faith; and, while we tarry the fulfillment of thy promises, grant us to have a good hope because of thy word; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    --Gregory Nazianzen (329--c.390)"

    Much of what now is proposed as 'progress' calls into question something like the 'communion of saints' -- it makes their convictions out to be falsehoods.

    SCM

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sibling SCM, I've been thinking about this a few days. So, yes, I can see how "traditional Christians" might be worried. And not that many years ago I was worried. I have spent a lot of time contemplating what I might do if the Episcopal Church made decisions either too conservative or too liberal for me to accept (the latter may sound a stretch to you, but even I have my limits). I thought about under what circumstances my integrity would require me to leave. I'm not there, and I haven't been there, so I won't claim to "understand." I will say that I, too, have had those thoughts, and have considered when I might need to go a different way. I have had to consider what pain, frustration, and regret I might feel.

    I do, then, have some - appreciation? Respect? - for folks who feel they need to leave over the decisions that the Church has made (and not just the Episcopal Church). That doesn't mean that I want them to leave. There are many of us who don't want them to leave, and also can respect them if they do. I grant that there are those who do want them to leave. I only challenge your assertion that all progressives are of that mindset.

    As to changes now making to falsehoods the convictions of the communion of saints: we've been living with that for a long time. Not that long ago I had a conversation with a cousin. In his evangelical church his children were being taught Creationism and a literal understanding of Genesis 1. He said to me, "My degree is in Geology! What am I supposed to do?" I'm a chaplain, and part of my professional heritage is about bringing the insights of the behavioral sciences to the spiritual care of souls. We've realized a lot of things our spiritual ancestors believed weren't accurate, nor the best description we could discern about how God was working, including about what it means to be human. That doesn't make them less holy or precious to us, but it does bring us new accountabilities. We are responsible both to carry forward what we learned from them, and live it in the reality we know now. And, God willing, in another hundred years our spiritual successors will be having these same struggles with knowledge that we don't have yet - known to God, but not yet known to us. This too, it seems to me, is part of "making perfect what is lacking in our faith."

    ReplyDelete
  30. SCM, I'd like to see clergy out of the marriage business altogether. After all, marriage is a civil and legal affair, and the clergy should not be doing the work of the civil authorities. Thus would the controversy about who can marry within the church come to an end.

    The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize marriages of divorced persons nor of persons of the same-sex in states where they are legal, and no one is talking about withdrawing their tax-exempt status.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Marshall--can you imagine dioceses being able to say they will not be able to allow ss rites, for reasons of conviction? Will this be tolerated in TEC?

    I am sorry, but I cannot see it.

    If I am right, you will in fact drive out conservatives. They will not be leaving like Gafcon-ites, They will be told their position is not allowed.

    (BTW, Creationism is as far removed from the position of the saints re: Genesis as is the NRA.)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Grandmere

    Divorced persons are represented by no major lobby or financial or legal interest. I thought that was already clear.

    In future if a RC school does not hire an openly gay person in a 'marriage' then their tax status will be vulnerable. This is fairly obvious.


    SCM

    ReplyDelete
  33. What I find refreshing--and clearing the mind for prayer--is the candor of people like Fr Smith, Rabbit, and especially Mr Brunson. Probably also Grandmere (who by her moniker wants to model kindness, but also knows what is required in the end...).

    Effectively, their view is: this is a march to whiggish destiny. We will be patient (or not) with stragglers. But there is really only one stop on this train of human flourishing (as we see it and baptize it in the name of something 'Christian'). If you will not ride to that stop, we'll put you off on a siding and ask that you ply your trade for a season (so we do not look unreasonable or un-liberal). But you are on a siding.

    Fr Marshall believes it will not come this to -- or so he appears to signal -- but I find it sobering that when it comes to a more robust description of how preservers/conservers will find a clear and honest space within TEC to be true to their convictions, he offers general sentiments but none without a built-in 'sell by date.' I say this not to 'be mean' but only to sketch how flimsy any preserver now sees the future.

    Will anyone on theincluso other side aggressively seek to make sure views they do not share are preserved?

    The answer is, it would be regarded as 'immoral' and 'below the cause of inclusion.'

    SCM


    ReplyDelete
  34. SCM, I am a grandmother, and my grandchildren call me Mimi. I live in south Louisiana, where there's still a good bit of French influence. My nom de blog is not to signify kindness, though I hope I am kind - at least some of the time.

    I don't see the Episcopal Church putting anyone off at a siding. If clergy and laity declare they are not part of TEC, then they have taken themselves out.

    Will anyone on theincluso other side aggressively seek to make sure views they do not share are preserved?

    I'm not sure what you mean by "aggressively seek".

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.