Life has been very busy these past couple of months. Work is ramped up even now leading up to next summer’s General Convention. Perhaps that is the reason, or perhaps others, but I have been far less engaged in the Anglican Troubles over this time and frankly it is a relief. I have a bit more perspective, I think.
There are lay people, deacons, priest, and bishops who spend most of their waking hours obsessing over all this stuff as if this is a seminal moment in history. Another 1500’s, perhaps. A fundamental sifting in world power, or at least world religious power. Who knows. Dividing up and determining who is going to Hell, literally or figuratively, has become their reason for being, all in the name of God.
All in the name of God. There is nothing new under the sun. This has all happened countless times, already. If we consider the arch of human history, this is yet another, yet again, yet we do not learn. I mean, really learn from the experience of history, those who have lived through such things before. We don’t want to believe that we are not special that we are not caught up in a special cause and that we do not have a special assignment from God and that our obsession doesn’t make us special. It is exhilarating, isn’t, when we believe we are the progenitors of a world revolution, or at least one with Anglican circles. Heady stuff, eh? We are on the cusp of a new Reformation that will change everything. We have godly men and women leading us, right? Oh what glorious times.
Nothing new going on here. Nothing new to see. Move along, now. But, to let go of the feeling of importance, the rush of power, the thought of influence, God’s special ones. Our hubris, well, we never learn.
If we consider history, if is a relief, actually. It has all happened before and if we are wise we will avoid the pitfalls that befell all the others. I doubt we will, but it is possible. As much as it is up to me, I will try to not fall back into the same mistakes. It is easy to. I’ve done it, already. Hopefully, I’ve learned.
People leave, people go, people make all kinds of claims. The world goes on. As for me and my house, I will even in my continued failure, with God’s help, I will love God and love my neighbor as my self. I will love my neighbor in ways that seem like love to them (as much as they are able to know). There is nothing new under the sun! The human heart has changed little these last couple a thousand years.
So, new dioceses, new parishes, new provinces, new bishops for the salvation of what? Nothing new going on, nothing strange about it, move along, God helps us. It is a bit of a relief. To rest in the Good Shepherd is a wonderful place to abide.
Author Archives: blgriffith
Matt Pond PA
Why cannot they be a loyal opposition?
So, to those whose agenda is more important then anything else or any other consideration, now there are challenges to Barrack Obama’s legitimacy to be the U.S. president. There are now several legal challenges to stop Obama from becoming president by claiming he is not a “natural-born” citizen. The Supreme Court seems to be looking into the allegations.
This report comes from a conservative, Religious Right news source – WorldNetDaily:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484
The democratic notion of a “loyal opposition” is being lost altogether, and they don’t care. Taking and keeping control and power is their only goal.
The players of the game are the same
Here is what I’m coming to think, and I’m just thinking out loud here: The players in this Anglican/Episcopalian war of theology and ecclesiology are playing the game in the same way because they come from and are acting out of the same generationally specific American-cultural. They were all formed within the same culture, and act within the same “rules,” even if approaching the troubling issues from different angles. Whether liberal or conservative, reasserter or reappraiser (if those words are still used), those who are intent on imposing their perspective (e.g. Universalism, Calvinism, Puritanism, Evangelicalism, Catholicism, whatever other “ism” might be applied here) on everyone else to one degree or another are coming from the same place, but from opposite ends of the divide. For common folk living life, Fascism and Communism are not all that much different on the ground, but adherents to and within those two political systems are mortal enemies.
So, you wrote [I’m conversing with someone on TitusOneNine]: “[liberal Episcopalians]… departed from the faith once and for all handed down to the saints. There has been no discipline and no succor granted to those who have suffered under the jackboots of the liberals (I am writing from the Diocese of New Westminster to give you context).” The conservatives will engage in just as determined and jackbooted ways as you accuse the liberals of acting, except they will use a different set of excuses or rationals for their jackbooted actions. The liberals don’t see themselves as acting in these kinds of tyrannical ways, and neither will the conservatives.
The whole way our troubles are being and have been approached and addressed is the problem. It is a core problem, and if not addressed there will never be resolution. God will not be glorified and the cause of Christ in North American will be further harmed.
I will agree that many liberals have been oppressive, but there are plenty of conservatives that are oppressive, too. For all of them, their means of achieving their ends are a big part of the problem, whether liberal or conservative. This core problem if not identified and addressed will bleed into the new Common Cause province, too. Once the common enemy of TEC is gone, the very real and definite differences within the different groups will bring up even more division if dealt with by the same ways and means as we have over this past several years. This is what history shows us, particularly in the U.S.
So, why not spend more time focusing on the core problem – the deficient and unchristian means and ways we try to achieve our end goals (which for both sides is the Glory of God and the reconciliation of humanity to God) – rather than tearing down and attempting to rebuild in our own image? From what I know of Anglicanism, our ability to do this kind of wrestling and dealing with one another and vast difference has been one of our unique contributions to Christianity. It is dying, and it is the fault of all of us.
Those with vested interests in our troubles, well, we have all failed, because we have been playing the game in ways dictated by our culture. We act and fight like Americans and not people that claim to be part of the Kingdom of God.
New Denomination
Bishop Duncan of a diocese in Pennsylvania (formerly bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh) that gives allegiance to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone (certain countries in South America) has publicly stated that in December a new denomination will be born. Probably… most likely. There has been no retraction.
Of course, their end goal has been common knowledge. They’ve known it. We’ve all known it since the Chapman memo.
Naturally, if The Episcopal Church leadership would capitulate and submit to the doctrinal and confession nature of their American-Evangelical-style theological and ecclesiological positions, then they wouldn’t need to form a new denomination outside the Tradition and structures of historical Anglicanism, but the Episcopal Church leadership won’t submit to blackmail. While I don’t necessarily agree with all the theological beliefs or positions of many leaders of this Church these days or their willingness to ignore the Canons, I don’t condone dishonesty, hypocrisy, and blackmail. Besides, I made vows before God, and I have a high-view of God’s ability to run His Church, even reform it in His own good time. I also understand history.
So, they do what they said they would do all along. They form a new denomination, they get numerically large provinces in the Southern Hemisphere to recognize them as legitimate, and they do the very American and Protestant thing – they break away and form yet another Protestant denominational sect. They do this for the sake of purity because if they don’t Jesus will depart from them and not bless them. They act this way because they really love Jesus (more than the rest), and because their are very wise since they rightly have their particular interpretation of Scripture, and because they so clearly hear the very voice of God since they obviously love Jesus so much. (I’m not being sarcastic. I was an American-Evangelical for most of my life. I know how they think and what they feel! I can say that in many ways I am still an Anglican-Evangelical, but it is not the same thing.)
Really, for how many years now have they been working toward this end. They publicly denied such a thing and tried to emphasis that they are only working to reform The Episcopal Church, but at the same time taking steps to protect themselves from the evil doings of heretical liberals that lead this Church. They were kidding no one, but because, I suppose, legal and public relationships considerations were/are more important than honesty, forthrightness, and integrity they had to pretend that they were not working toward this end.
So, now we read that certain primates will recognize them. Greg Griffith (no relation) over at StandFirm writes, “After my interview about the Anglican Relief and Development Fund, I asked Bishop Duncan, and Archbishops Anis, Nzimbi and Akrofi about the new North American Province.” They all forthrightly support bishop Duncan’s efforts and the new province.
We all knew short of giving this group of leaders and followers the reigns of power and control over The Episcopal Church that this would be the end result. The four diocese have left. A new denomination will be born. The Anglican Communion will not be the same. Anglicanism as a Christian ethos and form of Christian spiritual expression will continue in some form, but not really with this “conservative” group (nor will it with the change-obsessed “liberals”). They are too American-Evangelical or Congregationalist. They are too overwhelmed by the Spirit-of-the-Times and they capitulate to American culture all too well. (Funny how they accuse the liberals of capitulating to the culture, when they are so blind to their own capitulation!)
Don’t know how I missed this…
Luiz Coelho, a guy I’ve come to know through the Internet & Facebook (which doesn’t really let me know him well, but gives me a good beginning to know him) was a Stewart at this past summer’s Lambeth Conference. I’ve come to appreciate his writing and greatly respect his heart’s good desire for God and the Church.
He wrote a piece on Episcopal Cafe about young people and traditional liturgy, and I don’t know how I missed it. It is very well done and I think another indication or piece of evidence of where younger people are these days concerning their desire for liturgical and sacred music forms. It also suggests, again, the incredible opportunity Anglicanism in all its Tradition is strategically situated to appeal to and minister to young people (particularly unchurched young people).
Here is the link to the Episcopal Cafe piece, but I reprint it below in full because one never knows when these blog things go away.
Yes, young people do like traditional liturgy, by Luiz Caelho. Click below to read the whole thing.
Excerpts:
…many young Anglicans are attracted to traditional liturgical forms because they offer stability. We have been born in a fast-paced world, and in a short period of time have seen the rise and fall of countries, regimes, technologies, musical styles, fashion trends and even Church movements. At the same time, most of the cultural norms our mothers and fathers fought to liberalize do not apply to us anymore, and only God knows how they are going to be within some years. The world is freer, and it is changing so fast that sometimes it seems to be in a free-fall. The Church, to many of us, is the last glimpse of stability that exists in this post-modern society, and the certainty that its language has managed to be the same for all these years is a key factor for two reasons (among several):…
I understand, however, that all of that was a response to the plea of a previous generation which was suffocated by the evil side of traditionalism, and needed to foster changes in a world that did not want to look forward. Forty years later, however, we are still caught by some of the same questions: “How to attract youth? How to create liturgies that are meaningful to newer generations? How to reinvigorate the Church?†My response to that would be that we went too far in some reforms (mostly liturgical ones) and maybe restoring some of the icons we as a Church broke, allied with the empowerment of youth in the life of the Church would be a great start in attempting to attract some people of my age.
Let me end with a final and curious note. Lambeth stewards were awarded with the possibility of organizing a special mass for us and staff people at the Canterbury Cathedral’s crypt. With such an astonishing location and so many liturgical resources, we did our best. Most of us had the opportunity of doing something, whether it was reading a lesson, an intercession, serving as an acolyte, playing the organ or joining the choir. We rehearsed for one week “If ye love me†by Tallis (which was our Communion hymn), celebrant and servers wore a lovely set of silky red vestments and clouds of incense filled that sacred space, as it has been, is now and will be forever.
It was the only service with incense during the Conference, by the way.
“Feed the Tree”
“Feed the Tree” by Belly (early 1990’s). This was one of the songs on my “The Sundays” Pandora.com “station.” I remember vividly when I was doing my master’s work at Kent and advising the All Campus Programming Board. Memories induces by music.! What fun!
“Take your hat off when you’re talkin’ to me and be there when I feed the tree…”
Why? Really, logically, why?
This passionate plea by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC’s “Countdown” for explanation of why people voted for Proposition 8 in California and against gay-marriage. Watch the video!
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them—no. You can’t have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don’t cause too much trouble. You’ll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you’re taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can’t marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn’t marry?
I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage. If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn’t marry another man, or a woman couldn’t marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.
How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the “sanctity” of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
A solution, cure, cause for hope?
It was reported to day that a bone marrow transplant seems to have cured an decade-long AIDS patient.
BERLIN – An American man who suffered from AIDS appears to have been cured of the disease 20 months after receiving a targeted bone marrow transplant normally used to fight leukemia, his doctors said Wednesday.
While researchers — and the doctors themselves — caution that the case might be no more than a fluke, others say it may inspire a greater interest in gene therapy to fight the disease that claims 2 million lives each year. The virus has infected 33 million people worldwide.
As Huetter — who is a hematologist, not an HIV specialist — prepared to treat the patient’s leukemia with a bone marrow transplant, he recalled that some people carry a genetic mutation that seems to make them resistant to HIV infection. If the mutation, called Delta 32, is inherited from both parents, it prevents HIV from attaching itself to cells by blocking CCR5, a receptor that acts as a kind of gateway.
Roughly one in 1,000 Europeans and Americans have inherited the mutation from both parents…
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases in the U.S., said the procedure was too costly and too dangerous to employ as a firstline cure. But he said it could inspire researchers to pursue gene therapy as a means to block or suppress HIV.
Another screed…
First of all, now President-to-be Obama is under attack because he has supposedly replaced the “pastor to presidents with a gay bishop.” It seems Obama met a few times with Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire to talk about what it was like to be the “first one.”
OneNewsNow.org, a propaganda “news” organ of the American Family Association (a politicized Religious Right organization), ran with the meetings and have spun them to indicate that God-fearing Americans should be ready for a lot of “anti-Christian” stuff from the Obama administration. That is their logic – the president-to-be meets with a gay bishop to see what it is like to be a controversial first person (gay, black) in a prominent position.
Peter Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Obama’s consultations with Robinson show the true tenor of his upcoming administration.
“It looks like Billy Graham has been replaced by a gay bishop. We’re moving to, perhaps, our first anti-Christian president; it’s beyond post-Christian. Gene Robinson advocates homosexuality as part of the Christian experience,” he explains. “Now Bible-believing Christians cannot accept that. Homosexual practice is sinful, as taught by the scriptures. This man [Obama] pretends to be faithful to Christianity, even as he works very hard to undermine it.”
Of course, Obama has not consulted with Robinson for pastoral advise, presumably, but to simply talk about the reality he may face as a “first one.” And, as should be noted, Billy Graham has not been a regularly “pastor to presidents” for a while now due to his age.
These people as self-professed Christians are supposed to practice honesty, integrity, and forthrightness, but this kind of “logic” or argument seems to suggest that they really aren’t interested in such things when it comes to political power and influence. Make your argument – that’s fine, but do it in a way that is actually Christian and not simply parrots of our current acidic, polarized, winner-take-all-at-any-expense political culture.
They sully the name of “Christian” and defame the cause of Christ in this nation.
These groups will lambaste and defame this newcoming president to the nth degree because he does not support their very sectarian and narrow understanding of what it means to be a Christian, the meaning of Scripture, and what God is doing among His people. They will attempt to poison people’s perceptions of this administration so that come the next election all the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian voters (and hopefully all conservative voters, too) will in no way support the new administration or any other administration that is not in line with their political and economic aspirations.
As much as I really don’t want to make this accusation, they really are living up to the worst of the public’s perception of what “Fundamentalists” do and are all about. Sadly, that will be the impression too many people will then have of Christianity in general, particularly among younger folks who are raised in this kind of caustic and inflammatory environment.
Read some of the statistical analysis of this past election from Barna Research (a group that does a lot of analysis of religious stuff in this country). “Born-Agains” are not the same as “Evangelicals,” and I think that “Evangelicals” will soon need to be re-designated as “Fundamentalists.” How People of Faith Voted in the 2008 Presidential Race