episcospeak
Meeting with the Bishop coming soon
I just recieved a call from my Bishop's secretary asking if he might come for a visit--not a Sunday visit--but a private visit with my wife and with me. I have agreed and we will meet on the morning of 9/9. Asde from the quite frank and pointed letter I sent directly to him in response to his pastoral letter, I have been speaking with several people of late who are very connected with the diocesan office and so I am quite certain that the bishop has heard much of what I think about the Church, this diocese and the state of the Anglican Communion. This is a good thing. Everything is out in the open. The question that will be on his mind when we talk will be whether or not I am going to be a "team player" and the answer is "yes" I most definitely will be. The difficulty is that we are on opposing teams. Please pray for me, that God gives me the grace to speak the truth plainly with love and respect.
Brief Responses to Dr. Geoffrey Kirk
Geoffrey Kirk Writes:
"The second reason [ECUSA will not split over Canon Robinson's confirmation] is the character of the present crisis. Whilst it is absurd of Gene Robinson to make his bedroom activities a matter of ecclesiastical allegiance (especially since he has alreadyaltered his opinions in the matter, and might therefore be expected to be more cautious), it is equally absurd to divide a province or a church on a matter of which the principal protagonist may well repent. What if Fr Robinson were to desert his partner Mr Andrews (remember that he has done just that before), re-affirm the moral teaching of the catholic church, and either be reconciled with his wife or embrace a life of blameless celibacy? What then would be the basis of an ecclesial body founded in reaction to his current opinion and practice? There is (see Article XXVI of the XXXIX) no reason to reject Fr Robinson's orders as invalid or non-efficacious, and there ought surely (see Luke 15:7) to be rejoicing in the Anglican Communion, as well as among the angels in heaven, over one bishop who repents."
Response: It is beyond me how someone so learned so completely misses the theological significance of what is going on here. This is not some Anglo-Catholic tussle about the corruption of orders. We are talking and fighting about the authority of God's Word here. If, by God's grace, Robinson were to repent, the problem would not be resolved. He was confirmed because there is and has been for many years in ECUSA a thoroughgoing and systematic delegitimization of Scriptural authority of which Robinson's bedroom habits are simply symptomatic. With his confirmation and with the passing of local option this delegitimization has finally made its way into the doctrinal structure of the American Church. From this point on, there will be many, many more Robinson's and far worse to come because the bedrock of scriptural authority upon which the Church has always rested has been compromised. The American Church has become much like the "church" that Marcion founded (both in the nature of its heresy and in its organizational pretention) and must be dealt with in the same way--cut off and allowed to die.
"Of course it is the case that Robinson is a flagrant example of the preaching of 'erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's word'; but no more flagrantly so than other bishops in the same Church who have, without censure, denied basic doctrines of the creed and explicitly repudiated loyalty to scripture. The Primates of the Communion have taken no action against the Episcopal Church in these matters. Indeed they received those others as bishops in good standing at the last Lambeth Conference."
Response: Again, this is not just about one bishop. It is about the whole church body's acceptance of heretical notions regarding the nature and authority of scripture. We have now gone far beyond quibbling over the opinions of one errant bishop--the content of those opinions and the hermeneutic that lay behind them have been enshrined and embedded in legislative and doctrinal organs of the Church.
Reading his piece I sense a much much much greater divide between the Anglo-Catholic understanding of what constitutes a Church and the evangelical view than I thought existed.
Arithmetic and Ice Cream
As you probably already know the PB has written a letter to his fellow Primates. Here is the link,
http://gc2003.episcopalchurch.org/presiding-bishop/1275_19083_ENG_HTML.htm.
The subtex of this letter is what I find most interesting. Implicit in his lecture is the assertion that Truth is essentially unknowable and certainly not to be found in the pages of the Bible. To use an analogy I first heard given by Dr. RC Sproul, for Griswold "discovering" biblical truth is a bit like eating ice cream. There is no True flavor. Everyone decides for themselves what flavor suits them best. It is the height of bad manners to insist that everyone eat the same flavor of ice cream. Different people are necessarily going to choose differently and it is childish to insist that everyone adopt your own individual preference. Conversly, for the Church (the True Church--Global South Primates especially in view here), Biblical Truth is not primarily something "discovered" or "experienced" or "lived into," it is something revealed. Revealed Truth is like mathematics not ice-cream. It may be (and should be) difficult at times but it does not bend or sway or shift according to human desire. 2 + 2 = 4 and it always equals four whether I like it or not. I can establish a movement dedicated to overcoming the equation. It might become very popular and socially acceptable. It might even in fact, if I am persuasive, become socially unacceptable to mention or discuss the equation in public. But no matter what I do, no matter what humanity does, 2 + 2 = 4. There is absolutely no way around it.
That is what seems to be driving the PB and revisionist clergy mad. They are up against Primates who believe that Scriptural Truth is like mathematics and they have got the task of persuading them that, indeed, it is like ice-cream. So far we have seen little persuasion and a great deal of intellectual and financial bullying. The letter the PB has written carries the tone of an adult trying to explain something quite simple to very small, very slow children. That is intellectual bullying and it takes place quite often actually when self-styled progressives condescend to "diologue" with the traditionalist rable. The great danger is that unwary readers might accept the relativistic premise without question, not wanting to seem daft, and lose the whole ship before firing a shot. The moment the reader, Primate or not, accepts the implicit assertion that the truth of the text is defined by the community in which it is recieved rather the by the original intent of the inspired and superintended author then the battle is lost. Here is where the Primates, in my humble opinion must be very very careful. The PB is like Saruman. His words can soothe and comfort troubled minds, concealing the sharp and deadly thrust of relativism. This retired Kenyan Archbishop seems to have already taken the dagger
http://allafrica.com/stories/200308250754.html
God have mercy.
episcospeak commentary
An attempt at Revisionist Thought:
Evolutionary biologists now believe that sexual monogamy is highly unnatural. In fact, for human males, it is almost impossible. Promiscuity, condemned in most religions, is in fact, according to scientists, most likely a predetermined genetic orientation.
It made sense, as the infant mortality rate was so high, for our anceint forefathers to live promiscuously. On average, scientists say, it was most evolutionarily profitable for any one single male to mate with at least 25 different females. Indeed, the more females the better, genetically speaking, as with each mating the male seed was given that much more of a chance of
being carried into future genetic pools.
Over the course of many millions of years, this evolutionary necessity has become bilogically/genetically "encoded" into hetersosexual male primates, including humans. The possible ramifications of this discovery for contemporary society are limitless. What today is the considered the social norm, monogamous marriage, is essentially an act against nature.
This new discovery ought to have wide-ranging ramifications for the Church as well. Scripture has uniformly condemned "adultery" (a term which includes male promiscuity) in all forms and the Church has always strictly suppressed and restricted the expression of male heterosexual love giving. But, in addition to the above advances in biological self-knowledge, there are many reasons to move beyond the traditional bonds.
The passages in the OT where promiscuity is forbidden are, according to the most prominent OT scholars, likely the result of years and years of cultural diologue between ancient communities. The entire levitical code might be more profitably read as an expression of communal identity. The peoplewho are now called, "Jews" (once known in the ancient world as Hebrews and/or Israelites) have always been surrounded by foreign and sometimes hostile language/culture groups. The great
challenge for any cultural community in such a fluid social situation is, "How do we remain
distinct? How do we maintain our identity while living amid others?". The OT religious ritual and legal codes stand as a record of the gradual resolution of these questions. Given our recognition of the complex social/cultural milieu within which the OT was written, most modern OT scholars believe that it is difficult, if not impossible, to take the vast number of legal proscriptions found there at face value. In light of this scholarly consensus, in my own opinion, we need not take the seventh commandment, against "adultery," found in the OT book of Exodus or the levical injunctions against male promiscuity as universal injunctions but rather enjoy and live into them as cultural expressions of personhood. They say, in effect, this is who we are.
But what of Jesus' famous words during his sermon on the mount. "He who looks at a woman lustfully has already commited adultery with her in his heart." Well, aside from the well documented fact that Jesus most likely never said this (see "The Five Gospels"), it is obvious that Jesus was
working from within a worldview that did not acknowledge natural or inborn promiscuity as a genetic necessity. Jesus, as a first century Jew, most likely entertained primitive understandings of what fundamentalists even today describe as the "Created Order;" the idea that human beings were
given by God a natural desire for members of the opposite sex but that these desires were intended to be fulfilled in life-long unions between one man and one woman. His injunctions ought then to be read in that sense. He is speaking from within a primitive world-view. Had he known what we know today, I daresay his opinion would more closely resemble my own.
This does not mean that Jesus' words are not to be taken as authoritative. We know that they cannot be applied accurately to heterosexual men because they are born with and therefore created by God with blessed urges toward at least 25 women. However, they ought to be strictly applied to homosexual men. In the same way that it is, according to Paul in Romans 1, unnatural, sinful if you will, for heterosexual men to have sexual relationships with other men, likewise, here, according to Jesus, it is unnatural, sinful, for homosexual men to lust after or engage in sexual activity with women.
What of tradition? Well, we all know that the Church has been ordaining promiscuous heterosexuals from the very beginning. Doing so now, and openly, would simply be acknowledging what has been a suppressed reality for centuries. Such a move would allow promiscuous men to live and love honestly and with integrity.
Given all of this I call on the Standing Liturgical Commission to develop rites for blessing temporary heterosexual unions that may be applied prior to or after the said union takes place. I also call on the Church to acknowledge the centuries of faithful service given by heterosexual men who
live secret lives of multiple love-giving.
Episcospeak parody
Biblical "literalism"
Today my wife began returning the multitude of calls that were waiting for us when we arrived home from vacation. During one of these calls this evening a female aquaintance from seminary, now a newly ordained deacon, observed how difficult it is to break down the social barriers erected by "biblical literalism." My wife is as orthodox and conservative as I am but if you judged simply by looks you might assume that she belonged to the Oregon chapter of NOW. So even people who know my thoughts on things tend to believe that my wife is more amenable to the dominant leftward tilting opinions. She is not.
In any case, this aquaintance was a bit shocked, I think, to learn that we are both at this point re-assessing our participation in diocesan activities and may even foregoe the upcoming clergy day due to our objection to and rejection of C2003 and our bishop's/deputation's vote. I think we dropped a bit in her estimation. Pity.
In any case, I am going to take this opportunity to rant a bit about the phrase that she used, "biblical literalism." What on earth do people mean by that? Do they really think that there are whole herds of benighted "fundi's" out there without the wit to recognize the various genre's employed in the bible? I do not doubt, indeed I am certain--having been present to witness various conversations--that in the insulated little world of contemporary Episcopal liberal society, the dirty rabble are considered wholly herdish...for lack of a better word. For example, the common refrain, I am sure that you have heard it, used to explain the overwhelming success of evangelical/orthodox/conservative parishes is that "They are growing because they tell people what to think." As opposed to the dying liberal parishes where people are encouraged to leave the "bondage of certitude" (thank you Bp Griswold) and embrace the great cloud of unknowing. Never think toward a conclusion, just feel the warm comfyness of blessed ambiguity. It's amazing how certain, how absolutely sure, so many Episcopal clergy are that there is no sure knowledge. Hmmm.
Anyway, back on subject. Conservatives are a bunch of drooling idiots being led about by charismatic leaders in polyester leisure suits and coifed hair who tell them what to think. So along with being saved from these they must also be told not to take what they read in that horrible Book so "literally." I think if we simply replace "literally" with "seriously" we will be much closer to the real intent. When people, especially Episcopal clergy people, tell you that they wish you would not take the bible so "literally" they really mean that they wish you would not take the bible so "seriously."
Just ask them what they mean? Ask them to give you examples of what they consider a "literalist" hermaneutic and just see if they don't bear out my point.
In any case, God bless you all and have a good night.
Why Episcospeak?
Episcospeak is the term that my wife and I have given to the vague, ambiguous, psuedo intellectual ramblings of episcopal clergy in public when they are attempting to demonstrate "compassion" or "tolerance."
Next to the word episcospeak in our own personal dictionary is the face of the current Presiding Bishop whose ramblings generally set the standard for episcospeak. Our beloved PB's famous call to "Wage Reconciliation" in the days is following 9/11 is a classic example. His sermon at the close of GC2003, however, has set the standard even higher. Here is my favorite part:
This 74th General Convention has been about love. It has been about love at work in a community that heretofore had been able to live with both/and realities and now was forced to make an either/or decision. And yet, in doing so, something has happened that is larger than any one perspective or even the decisions this Convention has made. Paradoxically, our differences writ large have stripped us of our facile civility and plunged us into the vast sea of the divine agape. That is not to say one position is right and the other wrong. It is to say that God in Christ is with us.
“Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there," said the Sufi poet Rumi. The field is the field of the divine compassion where all things are reconciled in ways that we can only dimly comprehend.
“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” Paul tells us in today’s first reading. What does it mean to be saved, but to be drawn out of our little worlds of self-preoccupation and placed in the open space of God’s transfiguring and all transforming love? And how does this happen? It happens because life accosts us; circumstances force themselves upon us and we are obliged to leave the security of our various Egypts, our states of certitude that are often forms of bondage – and launch out into the wilderness with no clear sense of destination.
That, my friends, is the very definition of episcospeak. It is the ability to make absolute nonsence sound mystically profound.
comments: episcospeak@hotmail.com
BTW send your comments here
episcospeak@hotmail.com
I won't give my full name although many of you will probably figure it out as we go along. This is my first "blog." I have created it with the intention of documenting the next few months of trouble, turmoil and joy in the Episcopal Church. I am a young rector of a small parish in a northern state. I am what you might call a traditionalist although I really don't care for that name. I have only been a priest since December of 2002 and a rector since July of the same year. I am orthodox. I believe in Jesus Christ and, in keeping with Richard Hooker, the authority of the inerrant scriptures to inform and direct human tradition and reason. I am a rare bird in the Episcopal Church and I fear that very soon I and those like me may become extinct.
I won't rehearse the events that have taken place over the last several weeks as that information is readily availible in many many other places. I will only say that I do not and will not accept the results of this denomination's General convention. I have written to my bishop and my local paper in protest. I have preached a fiery sermon and have registered to attend the Plano conference. I have been quite public about all of this and anticipate some fairly heavy reaction from all sides.
Every day I will post something here. I expect things to become more and more difficult in my parish and in the diocese. I will catalogue most of it here. I welcome any and all comments, questions, insults and compliments. God bless you all
