Friday, July 28, 2006

I WONDER??

Posted by Reverend Ref + at 4:31 PM

This came over the ENS wire today:

South Carolina Standing Committee announces three nominees for bishop

[ENS] The Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina
announced July 27 that three men are nominees to succeed Bishop Edward
L. Salmon Jr.

The three nominees are:

* the Rev. Canon Ellis English Brust, 48, chief operating officer and
chaplain to the president of the American Anglican Council,
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia;

* the Very Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, 56, rector, St. Paul's Episcopal
Parish, Bakersfield, California; and

* the Rev. Stephen D. Wood, 42, rector, St. Andrew's Church, Mt.
Pleasant, South Carolina.

Based on the actions of the AAC in general, and member dioceses in particular (Ft. Worth comes immediately to mind), I wonder if Rev. Canon English's manner of life would present a challenge to the wider church?

Just wondering if the playing field is level.

10 comments:

Anonymous | 9:31 PM, July 28, 2006  

Why?

Anonymous | 9:01 AM, July 29, 2006  

What do you mean his "manner of life"?

Ecgbert | 4:56 PM, July 29, 2006  

Dear Father,

I dare say we shall never agree on most of these issues but after our recent row on the Hoosier Musings blog I found this on the eminently worthwhile blog of Arturo Vasquez, from a holy Greek Orthodox priest on trying to win apologetical points, or not. It was humbling for me.

Oremus pro invicem.

Reverend Ref + | 8:17 PM, July 29, 2006  

Anon:

What I take to mean by his "manner of life" would be his apparently very active role in the AAC/ACN, organizations that are actively pursuing the .... elimination ... usurpation ... destruction .... pick the word ... of the Episcopal Church. Groups who refuse to enter into the listening process recommended by ... oh ... almost everyone in the AC regarding the current troubles. Groups who refer to the WR recommendations as requirements when it suits them. And groups whose leading bishops walk out of sessions and, yes, even Eucharists when those on the other side are involved.

This is not a "manner of life" I want as a bishop.

YF:

You are right, we will probably never agree with each other, and that's okay. However, let me comment on the link you provided. I popped over there and found it very timely. I was struck by this comment: He looked at me with a smile and said simply: "I would not say anything to you. I would simply live with you. And I would love you."

May I be so bold as to say that that is exactly what I, and my good friend Jane, are trying to do; simply live with people and love them in accordance with our understanding of the gospel.

And this is what irks me about conservative commenters; the general unwillingness to consider alternative points of view when it doesn't concern core doctrine, or the general snarkiness of their comments. For instance, I never once said or implied for you to "go to hell, Broach Church fashion!" Nor did I consider "f-bomb[ing you] with the word 'fundamentalist'."

And to reference my seminary as a "trade school" (while not using that derogatory term with my friend Fr. Reich, I've noticed) really seemed petty.

So this is the difference, as I see it, between the two of us. While I believe our core doctrinal beliefs to be the same, I see our styles on periphery issues vastly different. And where I see a great inn that welcomes all travelers for rest, renewal and conversation (paraphrasing Thomas Hooker), it seems to me that conservatives in general (and I would have to put you in that group based on recent comments) prefer a small cottage where only accepted members of the family are allowed.

All are welcome, not all may stay; but that is the Inn Keeper's job, not mine.

Ecgbert | 9:12 PM, July 29, 2006  

And to reference my seminary as a "trade school" (while not using that derogatory term with my friend Fr. Reich, I've noticed) really seemed petty.

Yes, it was, Father. Deleted that earlier today before I first wrote to you.

Ecgbert | 10:31 PM, July 29, 2006  

Petty and hypocritical, and I'm sorry. People do get angry sometimes, as you doubtless know.

At the slight risk of forgetting Fr Amphilochios' point so soon after reading it, and you're right, it underlines the original point, I'd like to say that all are welcome to come and pray in a Catholic church, by definition! So far you, your friends and I agree. But continuing the inn analogy, though all may come in from the cold, have a cuppa and some good fellowship, not all may share the marriage bed of the innkeeper! (Let's hope not.) That's how Catholics have always seen Communion for example, so much so that in the early church the non-baptised, even catechumens, not only could not receive but couldn't be in the church for the consecration, and the sacrament of confession and absolution was a one-time-only offer with literally years of penance afterwards before receiving again. (And some think Tridentine Anglo-Catholics are hard-core!) What's 'core' and what's 'periphery' in the requirements for that deep a relationship is where believers Catholic and non- differ.

Please pray for me, a sinner, as I am for you and yours, Father.

Reverend Ref + | 11:58 PM, July 29, 2006  

YF:

Thank you, apology accepted.

I'm not sure about the "marrige bed" analogy, but that could just be my own personal bias. I do think you are forgetting something though: though all may come in from the cold, have a cuppa and some good fellowship . . .

I would add, "and a meal" here. Of course, not everyone coming into the inn can come to the table. Continuing the analogy, to eat at the table would require a reservation, that "reservation" being baptism. And so long as you tell me you were baptized by water in the Trinitarian formula, I don't care if you're Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or Something Else, you are welcome to share the meal.

I understand where Catholics are coming from regarding Communion, but I don't agree with it. It seems to me that ruling out baptism by other denominations or churches then demotes that act from a Holy Sacrament to a club initiation. I'm reminded here of a lady I met in Columbus, OH, who was baptised six different times because she joined six different protestant parishes over her lifetime.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts and comments and you are welcome here anytime. But let's agree to keep those thoughts and comments civil and avoid verbal hand grenades. We may not ever agree, but at least we might gain a better understanding of "the other side."

Ecgbert | 1:01 AM, July 30, 2006  

Of course I thought of the meal but combined it with the other analogy intentionally ’cos that’s how the Catholic Church has always treated it. I understand entirely that you're trying to be charitable but as I've written elsewhere the church didn't have 'table fellowship' with the quasi-Christian sects of the early centuries A.D.

In passing you brought up a most interesting point on the Augustinian (Western) vs Cyprianic (Eastern, as in Orthodox) views of baptism done outside the official church, showing that even the Catholic world isn't monolithic! (Which I already knew but score one for you in bringing it up.) I won't claim to decide one over the other but the case of the lady in Columbus seems to favour St Augustine and Pope St Stephen I! (Right matter, form and intention.) I didn't know there were Protestants with an Orthodox-like view of that sacrament - thanks. (But do they believe in ex opere operato and regeneration??)

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts and comments and you are welcome here anytime.

Many thanks, Father. Likewise in my blog's com-boxes. I try to keep the focus on more and better things than church internal warfare.

But let's agree to keep those thoughts and comments civil and avoid verbal hand grenades. We may not ever agree, but at least we might gain a better understanding of "the other side."

Agreed!

Anonymous | 11:55 AM, July 30, 2006  

Re: "What I take to mean by his "manner of life" would be his apparently very active role in the AAC/ACN, organizations that are actively pursuing the .... elimination ... usurpation ... destruction .... pick the word ... of the Episcopal Church. Groups who refuse to enter into the listening process recommended by ... oh ... almost everyone in the AC regarding the current troubles. Groups who refer to the WR recommendations as requirements when it suits them. And groups whose leading bishops walk out of sessions and, yes, even Eucharists when those on the other side are involved."

Not sure I understand what you mean. The AAC is made up of members, and parishes, who are part of ECUSA. Why would they try to destroy ECUSA when they are part of it? Unless you count attempts at reform or resistance to the current agenda as "destroying".

Further, neither Canon Brust nor the AAC have "refused to enter into the listening process" -- whatever that is, since it hasn't *yet* been defined -- they've been listening like crazy. I'm an individual and I'm listening. Unless you're defining "listen" as "agree with us and stop trying to resist the current agenda of the liberal activists in the Episcopal church" . . . in which case, obviously, you win by default.

Regarding bishops "walking out of sessions" and Eucharists . . . since when did *that* become a requirement. Unless, of course, you mean that no bishop can be involved with resisting the current agenda of the liberal activists in the Episcopal church and they all have to be participating in meetings and Eucharists with people with whom they strongly differ. It's not like they're in a gulag where they *have* to participate.

I think we and others need to face some facts. For reasserters like me, issues such as the authority of scripture, the lordship of Christ over our lives, the commands to seek holiness, sexual activity outside of marriage, the church's requirements of its leaders, and more are not peripheral matters. They're obviously peripheral for *you* but not for other Episcopalians.

The question for Episcopalians like me is . . . short of leaving the denomination, what do I do when I'm a member of a church whose national leadership officially and formally and legislatively doesn't believe the gospel I believe.

The answer is faithful resistance to that agenda, and serving as the loyal opposition.

It seems to me that that's what the AAC is doing -- faithful resistance and serving as the loyal opposition.

And what those who are pursuing an opposing agenda within the Episcopal church don't like is the audacity of the AAC and other groups of Episcopalians actually resisting that agenda.

Randy Muller | 10:52 AM, July 31, 2006  

...organizations that are actively pursuing the .... elimination ... usurpation ... destruction .... pick the word ... of the Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal Church is doing more than enough to get itself kicked out of the Anglican Communion (eliminated ... usurped ... destroyed if you prefer) -- it needs no help from the AAC.

The root problem is what the Episcopal Church is doing, not what the AAC is doing. Just ask Rowan Williams.

Post a Comment

First time comments will be moderated.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)