It's Episcopal Life Letters to the Editor time!

Midwest Conservative Journal ^ | 9/20/2006 | Christopher Johnson

[sionnsar]

It's Episcopal Life Letters to the Editor time!  Yay!  Brother Aelred Bernard Dean, BSG of Atlanta starts things off.  Dude's tickled pink that Kate Schori got the Big Miter:

“Praise God from whom all blessings flow” should be the rallying prayer of all Episcopalians at the election of our new presiding bishop, as God has revealed God’s will to our church. After all, we prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide and direct those at General Convention for the renewing of the church, so when God has revealed God’s will shouldn’t we be joyful -- or has Christianity been reduced to self- serving ideologies where God’s will is confirmed when it is in alignment personal beliefs? That reasoning is idolatry at its worse, as it reduces God to subjective beliefs or a God of our creation.

Thank God that the Holy Spirit has directed the hearts and minds of those who are responsible in electing a chief shepherd to guide our denomination regardless of one’s theological sensitivities.

Really hope the editing was bad for that one, bro.  Since "we prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide and direct those at General Convention for the renewing of the church," are you down with B033 now?  Cuz Ben Dettinger of Hatboro, PA sure isn't.

Neville Chamberlain, though a well-intentioned man of peace, foolishly sought to appease Adolph Hitler, allowing Europe and its inhabitants to suffer greatly. Our House of Bishops, though well-intentioned, sought to appease those who have clearly and continuously demonstrated that they only will be appeased by total capitulation and total domination.

While I would never suggest that any bishop of the Anglican Communion is even slightly like Adolph Hitler, the reports from Nigeria are quite chilling, as [Archbishop] Peter Akinola has reportedly used his weight to egregiously support a new law that would not only criminalize same-sex marriage, but also, apparently, prosecute for affections acted upon in private. Gay citizens would be further denied freedom of petition and assembly. The law would also end freedom of the press on these issues by threat of imprisonment. Will GBLT citizens next be required to wear pink triangles on their clothing?

Ben?  If you're reading this, were you aware that the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, led by the impeccably gay-friendly John Chane, recently had former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami by for a speech at the NatCat?  The same Khatami who refused to condemn the death penalty for homosexuals as reported by a Harvard onlooker?

Last night I watched Iran’s “moderate” former president, Mohammad Khatami, speak to the Tolerant and the Enlightened at Harvard.

At the end of the speech, during the question and answer session, a young man asked about the Islamic law that calls for the death penalty for homosexuals. The young questioner wanted to know if Khatami approved of this particular Islamic Law. The “moderate” Khatami artfully dodged, pivoted, and twirled around the issue, but in final analysis said that every country has its laws and…well…in some cases putting the homosexual to death may indeed be called for. In some cultures, he said, the death sentence for gays may be appropriate.

There were no boos. There were no catcalls. There were no protests, angry slurs, no rotten tomatoes, no obscene placards, no cursing, no contorted red faces or shaking fists held high. There was only polite and tolerant silence from the entranced crowd seated in the presence of the calm, serene spokesperson from Persia.

At the end of the evening, as Khatami left the stage, there was grateful and appreciative applause…even some standing ovations. Khatami, who just moments before had in effect condoned capital punishment for the homosexual was given a big symbolic hug from the tolerant, adoring and scholarly crowd from Harvard.

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing, Ben.  Stephen Hudspeth of Wilton, CT is ready to kiss Canterbury goodbye:

While some of our brothers and sisters in a few of the newer African churches for whom General Convention’s controversial resolution was apparently designed may take comfort in it, other African Anglicans surely do not: Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke recently upon receiving the Union Medal at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, letting his views be known forcefully, eloquently and unambiguously on the personhood and full equality of gays.

Sadly, to equivocate on fundamental matters of justice and personhood in an attempt to preserve “a seat at the Lambeth table” strikes too close to home to positions taken before our Civil War by those who also wanted to avoid divisiveness but chose to do so at the expense of the lives of those already too long oppressed. Thankfully, no one today would try to advance the biblical supports then alleged for slavery.

Our church needs to embrace the future, not pass resolutions and adopt practices that compromise its – and our -- integrity.

Jeffrey Deutsch from here in town agrees with him.

Come to your senses. They want us on our knees, and this will not be a proper response for them. The convention passed on the opportunity to stand up for what it believes about the church and to move the communion forward, even though that might mean that we walk separately for a while.

I think that we are buying into an abusive relationship with the greater communion. And the biting voices of the communion will not stop yelling with the convention’s response to the Windsor Report. From our beginnings, Christians have vastly differed with each other, and when we could no longer tolerate the difference, we traveled on different roads.

Can we demand and threaten the African conventions to condemn polygamy in their own countries? Can we demand and threaten the African conventions to condemn female mutilation as an initiation with puberty? Can we demand and threaten the African conventions to condemn the practice of buying unwilling brides with cattle? I think that we are more polite than that.

They already have, Jeff.  A long time ago.  You'd have noticed that if you weren't so Anglocentric.  Lane Newsom of Nashville, TN wishes that people wouldn't be so goshdarned judgmental:

It saddens me, irritates me, concerning the election of a bishop here in middle Tennessee. After many votes, we are now in the process of starting over with a new committee and nominees.

It appears the split comes from an unwillingness to refrain from passing judgment on people’s lifestyles, their faith and all manner of issues. The divisions within denominations is a sad commentary on our Christian living. It has divided families, longtime friendships, churches.

That is not the way God wants us to live.

So if a family member has a drinking problem, just keep your mouth shut about it, okay?  I'm not at all sure what Elizabeth Shackelford from New York is getting at here.

The victimization of gays that Ms. Varghese portrays in her column is pathetic. The only difference that I note between my gay clergy friends and their straight colleagues over the past 40 years is that the gays are more grounded, are better scholars and exhibit more courage than their cowardly straight counterparts. None of these clergy to which I refer are drunks, embezzlers or dysfunctional nut cases huddled in their ornate closets out of fear. They were stellar witnesses to Christ.

It is time that the liberal elites that control the denominational leadership quit their self-serving tactics by attempting to erode the autonomy of groups facing serious injustice. Is this Christian? I don’t think so. I thought the central message of Christianity was victory over all this rather than enslavement through the perpetuation of the victim mentality. Maybe we should change our official name to Episcopal CULT in the United States of America.

Uh.  Okay.  Warner C. White of Burlington, VT gets a little issue-dodging in.

In his Reflections of June 27, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the decision of the Episcopal Church was taken without even the American church itself having formally decided as a local church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships. He also says that the American church has behaved as if the matter had been resolved, that it was foreclosing debate by ordaining someone and that its actions in 2003 were pre-emptive.

I believe the first statement is inconsistent with the second set of statements.

I suggest, instead, that the American church did not resolve the issue but did permit one diocese to ordain and consecrate, that the debate is far from foreclosed and that its actions in 2003 (and in 2006) show a church with a divided mind. I believe the situation is similar to that in which Peter entered the household of a gentile, ate with those gentiles, preached the gospel to them and baptized them -- all without consulting the wider church in advance, and in the midst of a church with a divided mind.

Warner?  Buddy?  Last I checked, the Gentiles Peter baptized didn't get to pick and choose which of their sins Jesus died for.  And if you think that Robbie's pointy hat didn't settle the issue, then I guess you won't mind some of us demanding it back.  Brother Randall Horton of Yonkers, NY finishes strong, suggesting that Jesus Himself couldn't get ordained in ECUSA these days.

What on earth does it mean to call for restraint in consecrating bishops “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church”? If I am not very much mistaken, I believe that the manner of life of Jesus Christ would present a challenge to the wider church -- in fact, it always has. The evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience constitute a challenge to the wider church. Does this mean that diocesan conventions should refrain from voting for members of religious orders because their lifestyle would constitute a challenge to other Anglican churches?

I live right down the street from a female bishop, whose manner of life would, I am quite sure, give challenge to most of the Anglican Communion, simply because her manner of life is that of a woman. Should we exercise restraint in consecrating women? The only thing about Gene Robinson that is truly offensive to most of the Anglican world is that he is open and honest about his life. Honesty is a bar to consecration -- is that the upshot of this resolution?

Or is this resolution pandering to the faction that wants to set a higher priority on remaining connected with the Anglican Communion than on honestly and openly respecting that which we discern to be the movement of the Holy Spirit in our branch of the Holy Catholic Church?

You're probably right about one thing, R.  Our Lord probably couldn't get an ECUSA pointy hat these days, what with Him using the word "repent" all the time and all.  I'm not going into the whole women's ordination argument except to say that your analogy blows.  There is no verse in the Bible which declares that it is a sin to be a woman.  There are plenty that forbid what Gene Robinson likes to do in his off-hours.  That and that alone, you pompous twit, is what is "truly offensive to most of the Anglican world."

Well, that's all for this month, kids.  Tune in again next month for another exciting edition of Episcopal Life Letters to the Editor!

[sionnsar]

Thanks to The Moderator for fixing the title!

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[gogeo]

I'm amazed that some remain in TEC who believe they can reason with those currently in charge. The letter writers, not orthodox believers, are their constituents.

[RonF]

There are plenty that forbid what Gene Robinson likes to do in his off-hours

At least, I hope he limits it to his off-hours....