Our Presiding bishop and his agenda

Question:

snip snip, lou is trashing Daniel as unloving since Daniel calls baloney on his theological fabrications are you a spin doctor in the political world

Where do you get the idea there is a hiearchy of sins? What makes one sin "bigger" than another?

Well, Dante, for one, thought as much. As does the RC (ie, venal and mortal sin). One thing that does concern me is his misunderstanding of love. Where is love in his equation? I’d much sooner see him offer to spend millions on teaching Episcopalians how to love one another, rather than focussing on politically correct issues. What I sense is that his focus is on the material and organizational stability of the ECUSA, not on its Christian obedience – through love. That’s too bad. Caritas, Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Odd you would say this. I’ve never sensed love coming from you. lou – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Lou fabricates the poles in this debate. He and the left trash anyone sticking up for the classic (thanks to Paul Hubbard) definition of belief in the Bible. He tries to tar all to the right of him w/ the ultra literalist label glad to see him taken to task

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (lou) Please define "literally." Are you seriously proposing we take all those death penalities literally? Do you seriously believe that the entire cosmos came into being in six "days"? (Dan) Literally = as written. No shell games with "higher criticism" or historicizing everything. (lou) Evasive. As you state above, literally equals "as written" with no "shell games" (ad hominem) allowed. Therefore, each and every word and sentence to be taken literally (ie, "as written"), with all that entails. (lou) Therefore, you believe that the cosmos was created in six 24-hour periods? (paul) This is non sequitor. And if not, it is a straw man. And if not it is obfuscation. No Evangelical I have ever met or read maintains that "literal" means that "each and every word" of Scripture can or should be taken in abstract literal isolation from the rest of its context. Lewis didn’t. Stott doesn’t. B.B. Warfield didn’t. None of the Evangelicals that put together the NIV did. Even though Christ himself maintained that ‘not one jot or tittle will pass from the law till all be fulfilled’, and - ‘that the Scriptures cannot be broken’.

Have you been following the news the last couple of decades? Evangelicals and fundamentalists have been fighting to maintain this very position. I have heard nothing from them but that we have to take every last bit of the Bible literally or else we are just "picking and choosing" what we want to believe! And I pick the creation example because that seems to be the primary wedge (besides the sexuality question) with which they seek to impose their views on American society. The battles over science instruction have been going on all over the country, with the evangelical/fundamentalists forces attempting to replace scientific thought with "creationist" teachings (which maintain that the entire cosmos was created in six 24-hour periods). Hardly a straw man. Paul: Article XVIII reflects the Evangelical position perfectly – at precisely the point which you maintain that it would drive us into literalistic error: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." So here we have the Anglican divines commending the "plain sense" of Scripture, but in this case that plain +sense+ is clearly metonymical. They are saying that the "plain sense" in this particular case is +not+ the "literalistic" sense.

Well, I addressed this in another thread: "This "plain sense" or "literal reading" of scripture continues to puzzle me. On the one hand, we have the fundamentalists who demand that every sentence, word and comma must be taken as absolute as we would read it today. This I reject. It cripples the ability of scripture to speak to us in the deeper, metaphorical or paradoxical manner which brings us before the living God who communicates to us indirectly (ie, to our Hearts). Then there’s the modernist type who would dissect scripture for us in the feminist, or deconstructionist, or marxist (or any number of other"ist’s") manner. This, too, I reject. It surely cripples the direct, plain-speaking manner in which the scripture speaks. Where, I wonder, is the true way?" If your answer is as follows: Paul: The Evangelical answer as to how to un-Corbanize the Bible is that the plain, normative sense of a passage must be interpreted within the genre in which it is imbedded. We have been given the revelation, we have been given the rosetta stone of the spirit, we have been given the tools of the ordinary canons of literary criticism and we have been given the extraordinary historical, critical research of serious Evangelical scholars. And we have been given the example of Christ. To suggest, even for a moment, that Christ’s expectation to bring ourselves under the authority of an un-Corbanized Bible, automatically brings us to disaster upon the shoal waters of literalistic interpretation, is to bury this responsibility and this revelation in a napkin, in the ground, in "fear" or "humility" – and perforce make up our own "tradition" to follow.

I agree. And would like to hear more. r, lou

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Where do you get the idea there is a hiearchy of sins? What makes one sin "bigger" than another? Well, Dante, for one, thought as much. As does the RC (ie, venal and mortal sin). One thing that does concern me is his misunderstanding of love. Where is love in his equation? I’d much sooner see him offer to spend millions on teaching Episcopalians how to love one another, rather than focussing on politically correct issues. What I sense is that his focus is on the material and organizational stability of the ECUSA, not on its Christian obedience – through love. That’s too bad. Caritas, Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager Odd you would say this. I’ve never sensed love coming from you. lou

Now you see? If this were a chess game, I would be +forced+ to say – dammit!…lou’s winning – that’s two good moves in a row! r, paul

Response:

To be literalistic or not is to pursue, in a fundamental way, a side issue. What is most important is what bible interpretation is doing for us in general. The most obvious failure of interpretation is to fall into legalism, of which there are two distinct species. The first is to attack scripture like a lawyer, to poke at it for exceptions, any way to do what one wants and still be justified. Far more common is classic phariseeism in which scripture is made rigid for the benefit of making rules for *other* people. Another really popular approach is the scholarly dissection, popularized by the Jesus Seminar. Treat scripture as a dead text; speculate on which parts are "real". If you want to go big time on this, and hate actually having to know anything about the text, you can train the guns of deconstruction on it and absolve yourself of having to confront any meaning in it at all! If you are a liberal, you can seize on one particular passage that fits your mindset and use it to bend all the rest of scripture to your political views. COme to think of it, this works quite well for conservatives too. I hope it is clear what the common thread is. A lot of scripture interpretation treats it as the raw material for our own desires to be writ upon, rather than as something to be read and heeded. I tend to think of scripture as a sort of spiritual yardstick, and if we find that we are (how felicitous!) always measuring up, it probably means we’re holding it from the wrong end. C. Wingate

Response:

Spirituality , or rather the overuse of the word is my new pet peeve. Spirituallity seems to me to be the hot new buzz word for people who want to have some kind of a loose relationship with some kind of God or other, without dragging old-foggie Religion into the equation.

. I do have to agree with this much. In a discussion with a priest I had recently, he noted that he refuses to use the word ’spirituality’ any further and insists on using ‘religion’ in regard to the church. Spirituality is a term that tends to imply a wishy-washy, nebulous ‘everythings just fine with the world’ attitude. I’m not implying that the word really means this, but it certainly is the association I have with it. Airy. Nebulous. Religion (which is a word I used to really *not* like) comes from a root word which means ‘binding together’ – that’s is what the church is, isn’t it? A binding together of real, fleshy, fallable people as part of the living body of Christ, redeemed by his body and blood. I find it to be an infinitely more comforting concept! be of good cheer, bc

Response:

I agree. And would like to hear more. r, lou

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Spirituality , or rather the overuse of the word is my new pet peeve. Spirituallity seems to me to be the hot new buzz word for people who want to have some kind of a loose relationship with some kind of God or other, without dragging old-foggie Religion into the equation. . I do have to agree with this much. In a discussion with a priest I had recently, he noted that he refuses to use the word ’spirituality’ any further and insists on using ‘religion’ in regard to the church. Spirituality is a term that tends to imply a wishy-washy, nebulous ‘everythings just fine with the world’ attitude. I’m not implying that the word really means this, but it certainly is the association I have with it. Airy. Nebulous. Religion (which is a word I used to really *not* like) comes from a root word which means ‘binding together’ – that’s is what the church is, isn’t it? A binding together of real, fleshy, fallable people as part of the living body of Christ, redeemed by his body and blood. I find it to be an infinitely more comforting concept! be of good cheer, bc

Well, one problem with using exclusively your term (religion) as you define it: one could also say that any hate group (nazism, for example) is a religion, for there is nothing like hate to bind people together. At least, the word "spiritual" contains a reference to the spirit, no matter how much it has been debased in current society. r, lou – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

(lou) Please define "literally." Are you seriously proposing we take all those death penalities literally? Do you seriously believe that the entire cosmos came into being in six "days"?

(Dan) Literally = as written. No shell games with "higher criticism" or historicizing everything.

(lou) Evasive. As you state above, literally equals "as written" with no "shell games" (ad hominem) allowed. Therefore, each and every word and sentence to be taken literally (ie, "as written"), with all that entails.

(lou) Therefore, you believe that the cosmos was created in six 24-hour periods?

(paul) This is non sequitor. And if not, it is a straw man. And if not it is obfuscation. No Evangelical I have ever met or read maintains that "literal" means that "each and every word" of Scripture can or should be taken in abstract literal isolation from the rest of its context. Lewis didn’t. Stott doesn’t. B.B. Warfield didn’t. None of the Evangelicals that put together the NIV did. Even though Christ himself maintained that ‘not one jot or tittle will pass from the law till all be fulfilled’, and - ‘that the Scriptures cannot be broken’. Article XVIII reflects the Evangelical position perfectly – at precisely the point which you maintain that it would drive us into literalistic error: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." So here we have the Anglican divines commending the "plain sense" of Scripture, but in this case that plain +sense+ is clearly metonymical. They are saying that the "plain sense" in this particular case is +not+ the "literalistic" sense. A similar illustration of the Evangelical hermeneutic is Christ’s treatment of the issue of Corban: "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." So the Pharisees, through their superior, more "spiritual" hermeneutic, departed from the "plain" sense, which in, this case meant departing from the "literal" sense. Whereas in the case above, Christ rebuken the discouraged disciples for taking literally that which should be taken allegorically (or "spritually"). If Christ can have it both ways, then Evangelicals can too. The only way for the Liberal hermeneutic of mythological abstraction to work is to assert that each verse is merely an isolated, religious literalism, which carries no intrinsic divinely intended meaning, but must be re-worked with gnostic or mystical or mythological insight which imparts to the text a "Corbanized" meaning which makes the intended meaning of the Scripture "of none effect". Each potentially normative document of catholic orthodoxy has been rejected by the Liberal establishment – by relegating it to the back of its life and worship – under the dubious rubric of , ‘well these are all very well and good, but there is no "rosetta stone" by which we might know when "the Word of God" or the "plain words of Scripture’ must be taken literally or when we must take them figuratively. Therefore we have Corbanized the entire corpus as deutero-canonical – that is these documents may be used to inspire the faithful, but they are not to be used to derive normative faith and practice.’ The Evangelical answer as to how to un-Corbanize the Bible is that the plain, normative sense of a passage must be interpreted within the genre in which it is imbedded. We have been given the revelation, we have been given the rosetta stone of the spirit, we have been given the tools of the ordinary canons of literary criticism and we have been given the extraordinary historical, critical research of serious Evangelical scholars. And we have been given the example of Christ. To suggest, even for a moment, that Christ’s expectation to bring ourselves under the authority of an un-Corbanized Bible, automatically brings us to disaster upon the shoal waters of literalistic interpretation, is to bury this responsibility and this revelation in a napkin, in the ground, in "fear" or "humility" – and perforce make up our own "tradition" to follow. r, paul

Response:

Spirituality , or rather the overuse of the word is my new pet peeve.

Spirituallity seems to me to be the hot new buzz word for people who want to have some kind of a loose relationship with some kind of God or other, without dragging old-foggie Religion into the equation. It tries to be all things to all men, (make that persons), without possibly offending anyone. Of course everything is relative, right? Note. I don’t beleive any of this junk, it is just me personal take on the word, and how it is being used. I’m – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – dying to have some Christian from outside this group explain the soft headedness involved in its application. That is, I think its code for something fuzzy, just not sure what. The bible doesn’t tell us about spirituality, all i can find is talk about the spirit, the Holy Spirit.. I think its some fuzzy way for liberals to be inclusive and not act as if Christianity offers superior insight to other religions scary stuff near the end… a) since we live with other sins (theft, etc.) we should live with homosexuality b) ambiguity is good (I don’t see that in the Bible) c) by the way, when all the uppity ups in the Episc church applaud "spirituality", what does that mean (is it as good as, or part of Christianity)? There’s a kind of preppy, spoiled rich-kid thing in there too. Sort of pseudo-intellectualism. That bit about ambiguity as you’ve pointed out too. Sort of smacks of "Oh those of us with really big brains love to deal with ambiguity, while those with neanderthal brains seem troubled with the limitations of certainty." Good point about "spirituality". What is that? It’s a non-word. And this notion that Anglicans always deal with a large breadth of understanding of faith is just rubbish, or that Anglicans have a unique way of treating the Scriptures is just rubbish too. I’m reading Richard Hooker’s "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity", and I’m telling you there’s NOTHING airy about his use of Scripture. He uses it very, very literally. The man who invented "Scripture, Tradition and Reason", seems to have put Scripture way out in front and way literally too. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise! I also challenge anyone to find another equally or more prominent Anglican father who’s notion of Scriptural interpretation is anywhere near fuzzy or ambiguous. Caritas, Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Before you buy.

Response:

Where do you get the idea there is a hiearchy of sins? What makes one sin "bigger" than another?

Odd you would say this. I’ve never sensed love coming from you. lou – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

forth: Where do you get the idea there is a hiearchy of sins? What makes one sin "bigger" than another?

Hm, I don’t know that there is really a hierarchy of sins so to speak, but I certainly would think that common sense would mandate that certain acts are worse than others. CS Lewis sort of addresses this in Mere Christianity. Griswold’s article isn’t scary. Bigotry, hatred and a lack of Christian charity are scary. Griswold’s article seems based on the premise that the ECUSA has the right and ability to change Christianity – to put the religion of the ECUSA into contradiction with Scripture.

I would argue that Christianity has been in a constant state of development, change and growth since the days of Paul. Additionally, scripture often contradicts itself – as Christians, we have to ‘wrestle’ with inspired words to find their meaning at times. I’d much sooner see him offer to spend millions on teaching Episcopalians how to love one another, rather than focussing on politically correct issues. What I sense is that his focus is on the material and organizational stability of the ECUSA, not on its Christian obedience – through love.

Amen to that, Dan. best regards, bc

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There’s a kind of preppy, spoiled rich-kid thing in there too. Sort of pseudo-intellectualism. That bit about ambiguity as you’ve pointed out too. Sort of smacks of "Oh those of us with really big brains love to deal with ambiguity, while those with neanderthal brains seem troubled with the limitations of certainty." And this sort of smacks of defensiveness. Ad Hominem.

Not so. When you denigrate the good Bisphop as expressing himself as "a kind of preppy, spoiled rich-kid thing…" I feel it’s a valid point to make. And your "really big brains" statement partakes of the same thing: you, sir, are the one guilty of ad hominems here. To deny this would be illogical and dishonest. Good point about "spirituality". What is that? It’s a non-word. I think you will find it in the dictionary. East Indian spirituality? Native American Spirituality? Spiritism Spirituality? It is a very broad term applied by Griswold as if it had a specific

meaning. Perhaps he meant it to be applied broadly. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And this notion that Anglicans always deal with a large breadth of understanding of faith is just rubbish, or that Anglicans have a unique way of treating the Scriptures is just rubbish too. I’m reading Richard Hooker’s "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity", and I’m telling you there’s NOTHING airy about his use of Scripture. He uses it very, very literally. The man who invented "Scripture, Tradition and Reason", seems to have put Scripture way out in front and way literally too. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise! Please define "literally." Are you seriously proposing we take all those death penalities literally? Do you seriously believe that the entire cosmos came into being in six "days"? Literally = as written. No shell games with "higher criticism" or historicizing everything.

Therefore, you believe that the cosmos was created in six 24-hour periods? Hooker wrote four hundred years ago (or was it five?). I do think there has been some history since then. On the other hand, he seems kind of new-fangled to me. What about all those centuries before him? Hooker is one of the, if not the, definitive Anglican. The question with the ECUSA is whether its christian-derivative religion is Anglican. If not, then it has schized itself from the Anglican Communion. As for me, I thought I was confirmed Anglican. If not, then I need to get reconfirmed or something.

As I pointed out, we have centuries of church history between us and him. As for me, I prefer to take this into account. I also challenge anyone to find another equally or more prominent Anglican father who’s notion of Scriptural interpretation is anywhere near fuzzy or ambiguous. What is non-fuzzy Scriptural interpretation? Each and every word and sentence in the Bible is to be taken literally? Ad exaggeratum.

Evasive. As you state above, literally equals "as written" with no "shell games" (ad hominem) allowed. Therefore, each and every word and sentence to be taken literally (ie, "as written"), with all that entails. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do you really think Jesus was being literal when he said, "I am the bread that came down from Heaven" (John 6.41)? Is He bread? Or light? Or the gate? Strictly speaking, if you are being ‘literal’ you are being non-sensical. Or do you pick and choose what Scripture you want to interpret literally? Nope. We have the word on what we’ve known to be given to us since Thess 2:15 etc. Caritas, Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

Ad Hominem. Good point about "spirituality". What is that? It’s a non-word. I think you will find it in the dictionary.

East Indian spirituality? Native American Spirituality? Spiritism Spirituality? It is a very broad term applied by Griswold as if it had a specific meaning. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And this notion that Anglicans always deal with a large breadth of understanding of faith is just rubbish, or that Anglicans have a unique way of treating the Scriptures is just rubbish too. I’m reading Richard Hooker’s "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity", and I’m telling you there’s NOTHING airy about his use of Scripture. He uses it very, very literally. The man who invented "Scripture, Tradition and Reason", seems to have put Scripture way out in front and way literally too. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise! Please define "literally." Are you seriously proposing we take all those death penalities literally? Do you seriously believe that the entire cosmos came into being in six "days"?

Literally = as written. No shell games with "higher criticism" or historicizing everything. Hooker wrote four hundred years ago (or was it five?). I do think there has been some history since then. On the other hand, he seems kind of new-fangled to me. What about all those centuries before him?

Hooker is one of the, if not the, definitive Anglican. The question with the ECUSA is whether its christian-derivative religion is Anglican. If not, then it has schized itself from the Anglican Communion. As for me, I thought I was confirmed Anglican. If not, then I need to get reconfirmed or something. I also challenge anyone to find another equally or more prominent Anglican father who’s notion of Scriptural interpretation is anywhere near fuzzy or ambiguous. What is non-fuzzy Scriptural interpretation? Each and every word and sentence in the Bible is to be taken literally?

Ad exaggeratum. Do you really think Jesus was being literal when he said, "I am the bread that came down from Heaven" (John 6.41)? Is He bread? Or light? Or the gate? Strictly speaking, if you are being ‘literal’ you are being non-sensical. Or do you pick and choose what Scripture you want to interpret literally?

Nope. We have the word on what we’ve known to be given to us since Thess 2:15 etc. Caritas, Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

forth: Why isn’t Homosexual behavior in the same league? Is it cuz you don’t want it to be, or because God said otherwise? It’s mentioned nowhere in the ten commandments. Coveting, Killing, etc., are. Are you telling me that you think homosexual behaviour is on the same league with killing someone or not putting God and Christ first in your life?

Absolutely. Sin is sin is sin is sin. Where did you get the notion that there is a hierarchy of sin? Caritas, Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – forth: scary stuff near the end… a) since we live with other sins (theft, etc.) we should live with homosexuality You’re paraphrasing – inaccurately. Griswold: "Greed and theft and slander and any number of other things also in Holy Scripture and equally condemned as untoward behaviors do not excite the same reaction as sexuality." Placing Homosexuality in the category of theft, slander, etc., is simply a person trying to justify their own bigotry, hatred and fear with scripture. I think pride, arrogance and bearing false witness are much bigger sins that anything involving sex.

Where do you get the idea there is a hiearchy of sins? What makes one sin "bigger" than another? Griswold’s article isn’t scary. Bigotry, hatred and a lack of Christian charity are scary.

Griswold’s article seems based on the premise that the ECUSA has the right and ability to change Christianity – to put the religion of the ECUSA into contradiction with Scripture. In the narrowest reading of his words, he doesn’t say anything. He’s simply saying "this is how it is". Not much in the way of pastoring there, but apparently that’s not his role. One thing that does concern me is his misunderstanding of love. Where is love in his equation? I’d much sooner see him offer to spend millions on teaching Episcopalians how to love one another, rather than focussing on politically correct issues. What I sense is that his focus is on the material and organizational stability of the ECUSA, not on its Christian obedience – through love. That’s too bad. Caritas, Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

Griswold’s article isn’t scary. Bigotry, hatred and a lack of Christian charity are scary. bc

And you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Just wait til Bush and his barbarian hordes (ie, Republican Congress) get through with us. lou

Response:

And this sort of smacks of defensiveness. Good point about "spirituality". What is that? It’s a non-word.

I think you will find it in the dictionary. And this notion that Anglicans always deal with a large breadth of understanding of faith is just rubbish, or that Anglicans have a unique way of treating the Scriptures is just rubbish too. I’m reading Richard Hooker’s "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity", and I’m telling you there’s NOTHING airy about his use of Scripture. He uses it very, very literally. The man who invented "Scripture, Tradition and Reason", seems to have put Scripture way out in front and way literally too. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise!

Please define "literally." Are you seriously proposing we take all those death penalities literally? Do you seriously believe that the entire cosmos came into being in six "days"? Hooker wrote four hundred years ago (or was it five?). I do think there has been some history since then. On the other hand, he seems kind of new-fangled to me. What about all those centuries before him? I also challenge anyone to find another equally or more prominent Anglican father who’s notion of Scriptural interpretation is anywhere near fuzzy or ambiguous.

What is non-fuzzy Scriptural interpretation? Each and every word and sentence in the Bible is to be taken literally? Do you really think Jesus was being literal when he said, "I am the bread that came down from Heaven" (John 6.41)? Is He bread? Or light? Or the gate? Strictly speaking, if you are being ‘literal’ you are being non-sensical. Or do you pick and choose what Scripture you want to interpret literally? Caritas, Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

I say thank God for Bp. Griswold. lou – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

forth: Why isn’t Homosexual behavior in the same league? Is it cuz you don’t want it to be, or because God said otherwise?

It’s mentioned nowhere in the ten commandments. Coveting, Killing, etc., are. Are you telling me that you think homosexual behaviour is on the same league with killing someone or not putting God and Christ first in your life? You guys are fun!

Well, you’re just a barrel of monkeys, yourself. Kneejerk fundamentalist reactions are a swell way to jumpstart any conversation! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – forth: scary stuff near the end… a) since we live with other sins (theft, etc.) we should live with homosexuality You’re paraphrasing – inaccurately. Griswold: "Greed and theft and slander and any number of other things also in Holy Scripture and equally condemned as untoward behaviors do not excite the same reaction as sexuality." Placing Homosexuality in the category of theft, slander, etc., is simply a person trying to justify their own bigotry, hatred and fear with scripture. I think pride, arrogance and bearing false witness are much bigger sins that anything involving sex. Griswold’s article isn’t scary. Bigotry, hatred and a lack of Christian charity are scary. bc

Response:

forth: scary stuff near the end… a) since we live with other sins (theft, etc.) we should live with homosexuality

You’re paraphrasing – inaccurately. Griswold: "Greed and theft and slander and any number of other things also in Holy Scripture and equally condemned as untoward behaviors do not excite the same reaction as sexuality." Placing Homosexuality in the category of theft, slander, etc., is simply a person trying to justify their own bigotry, hatred and fear with scripture. I think pride, arrogance and bearing false witness are much bigger sins that anything involving sex. Griswold’s article isn’t scary. Bigotry, hatred and a lack of Christian charity are scary. bc

Response:

Why isn’t Homosexual behavior in the same league? Is it cuz you don’t want it to be, or because God said otherwise? Good use of the standard buzz phrases. You forgot "mean spirited" You guys are fun!

forth: scary stuff near the end… a) since we live with other sins (theft, etc.) we should live with homosexuality

Response:

Spirituality , or rather the overuse of the word is my new pet peeve. I’m dying to have some Christian from outside this group explain the soft headedness involved in its application. That is, I think its code for something fuzzy, just not sure what. The bible doesn’t tell us about spirituality, all i can find is talk about the spirit, the Holy Spirit.. I think its some fuzzy way for liberals to be inclusive and not act as if Christianity offers superior insight to other religions

scary stuff near the end… a) since we live with other sins (theft, etc.) we should live with homosexuality b) ambiguity is good (I don’t see that in the Bible) c) by the way, when all the uppity ups in the Episc church applaud "spirituality", what does that mean (is it as good as, or part of Christianity)?

There’s a kind of preppy, spoiled rich-kid thing in there too. Sort of pseudo-intellectualism. That bit about ambiguity as you’ve pointed out too. Sort of smacks of "Oh those of us with really big brains love to deal with ambiguity, while those with neanderthal brains seem troubled with the limitations of certainty." Good point about "spirituality". What is that? It’s a non-word. And this notion that Anglicans always deal with a large breadth of understanding of faith is just rubbish, or that Anglicans have a unique way of treating the Scriptures is just rubbish too. I’m reading Richard Hooker’s "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity", and I’m telling you there’s NOTHING airy about his use of Scripture. He uses it very, very literally. The man who invented "Scripture, Tradition and Reason", seems to have put Scripture way out in front and way literally too. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise! I also challenge anyone to find another equally or more prominent Anglican father who’s notion of Scriptural interpretation is anywhere near fuzzy or ambiguous. Caritas, Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

Spirituality is the buzzword of the new Episc. church. When they can’t bear to talk in traditional Christian language, they resort to helping people with their spirituality people of faith or faith community ambiguity As for Hooker writing 400 yrs ago, big deal, Paul wrote Romans 2000 years ago, David the Psalms like 4000 yrs ago, yet we hold these Biblical texts true….age of the text has nothing to do with its veracity. Please don’t avoid Dan’s question…where’s the proof that Scripture is the lesser of 3 legs on the stool?

And this sort of smacks of defensiveness. Good point about "spirituality". What is that? It’s a non-word.

I say thank God for Bp. Griswold. lou – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

THE RADICAL CENTRIST A PHILADELPHIA BISHOP STRUGGLES TO HOLD THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH TOGETHER. By Dan LeDuc TEXT: The Episcopal Center in Chicago is a modern glass and steel office building with all the tradition of a see-through cigar box. The five-story building houses the offices of the bishop, administrators and charitable organizations of the 50,000-member Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. It’s connected to the 123-year-old St. James Cathedral on the same block. A stone church of deep pews, stained glass and soaring ceilings, St. James does not merely speak tradition, it intones it. The two buildings are an architectural metaphor for the Episcopal Church in America today: Much of the church sees itself as modern and progressive, taking liberal stands on such things as the death penalty, abortion, and race relations, as well as the ordination of women and noncelibate homosexuals and same-sex unions. Yet many in the church remain traditionalists, with the most conservative of them close to rejecting the church leadership over those very issues of sexual morality and to forming what they call their own church within the church. The man in the middle of this rancor traveled between those two Chicago buildings daily for 12 years and now must try to hold together a church’s past and its future. A slender, bookish, former Philadelphian, Frank Tracy Griswold 3d, has been the bishop of Chicago for the past decade. On Jan. 1 he will become presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA and will be formally installed as the denomination’s highest official during a ceremony on Jan. 10 at Washington National Cathedral. He then will move into offices in Manhattan to begin what one of his friends calls an impossible job. "He’s going to be thrust right into the middle of all this, no question," said Newland Smith, the academic dean at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill. "Some people who would like to see the bishop take their position or stand will get very frustrated. He’ll stand in the middle. It’s not going to be easy, and I’m not saying it’s going to be successful." On a Saturday morning a few weeks ago, Griswold, 60, was shuttling between the two buildings in Chicago as wardens and other lay leaders from parishes throughout the area met for a series of workshops. Clad in preppy chambray shirt, blue jeans and pink socks, he could model for Brooks Brothers. His silver hair is closely cut. He wears stylish oval glasses. And he speaks with an accent reminiscent of another prominent Episcopalian, George Bush. While in appearance he seems to epitomize the stereotype of the Episcopalian as an upper class WASP, friends describe him as impish, and earlier this day he had also worn a sweatshirt that read, "Treat Me No Differently Than You Would the Pope." Sitting casually amid the dozens of people eating turkey sandwiches, he accepted their congratulations on his new position and lamentations over his departure from Chicago. And he ruminated a bit on the job facing him and how he might find the middle ground to keep the disparate voices within his church speaking to one another. "The middle is essentially open-minded and peace-loving and accepts the fact that life is in many ways profoundly ambiguous and that absolute truth is beyond our accessibility," he said. "So there is a generosity of spirit toward differences and an acceptance of the fact that people’s life situations are often paradoxical." But such talk illustrates the very problem the most conservative Episcopalians have with Griswold, whom they view not as centrist but as very liberal. For them, there are absolute truths; indeed, they ask, isn’t that what faith must lead worshipers to? For these believers, the move by most of the Episcopal Church’s leadership to ordain women and noncelibate gays – as Griswold has done as bishop – is the deepest sign of what is wrong with their church, seen by them as a haven of the politically correct, taking its cues less from the Bible than the editorial page of the New York Times. For these believers, there is no middle ground, and there may be little Griswold can say to them. Donald Peter Moriarty, a layman who is president of one of the church’s most conservative wings, says all this talk of ambiguity "is a crutch used by people who either don’t understand what the Holy Spirit is telling them or can’t abide what they see. "Bishop Griswold is encouraging people to engage in sin. By definition, he is failing as a shepherd." The debate over sexual morality and individual conscience in one way or another is being waged in many denominations in the United States. But few churches have been as accepting of noncelibate homosexuals in its clergy as the Episcopalians. The debate has drawn all the more attention because the Episcopal Church has influence out of proportion to its size (it has about 2.5 million members, compared with 15.7 million Southern Baptists and 60 million Roman Catholics in this country). "Its traditional role in American society makes it a place where people who are not Episcopalians look to," says religion historian Bruce Mullin. "Culturally speaking, it gives its seal of approval on certain things," such as being out front on protests against the Vietnam War and on civil rights a generation ago. "So why is the Episcopal Church debating [these sexual issues]? Well, universities are debating them. Large corporations are debating them. These are questions that major institutions in America are wrestling with." And the Episcopal Church is a very American institution, having parted from its parent, the Church of England, after the Revolutionary War. Founded at Christ Church at Second and Market Street in Philadelphia just two years after the signing of the Constitution, the church still looks to the Archbishop of Canterbury as a symbolic spiritual leader, but remains an independent Anglican province. Its earliest members were the leadership class of the fledgling nation. A fourth of the presidents – from George Washington to George Bush – have been Episcopalians. Nearly a fourth of today’s senators and members of Congress are Episcopalians, and the church’s cathedral in Washington – home church of the presiding bishop – is called Washington National Cathedral and is the site for numerous state occasions. Always associated with wealth and noblesse oblige and with members who are among the elite of business and politics, the church was as much a social institution as a religious one for many. One joke some members like to tell about themselves asks how many Episcopalians it takes to change a light bulb. Answer: Two, one to call the electrician; the other to mix the martinis. It was in the Main Line atmosphere of privilege and entitlement that Griswold was born into the Episcopal Church. On Jan. 1, 1938, the infant Griswold was baptized in the library of his grandmother’s home and received from her an engraved cigarette box to mark the occasion. A cocktail party followed. Though a descendent of one of America’s first bishops, Griswold was not, as he grew up in Radnor, a churchgoer. He was, he says, a "cultural Episcopalian." He does not remember entering a church until he was 4 when a woman who watched over him took him on a walk and they stopped at St. Martin’s Chapel – known now as Christ Church, Ithan – for orange juice and cookies. He slipped away through a red door into a room where black and white vestments hung, and through another doorway he could see the dark pews and sun streaming through stained glass. "I was just fascinated," Griswold recalled. "That’s where the seed was sown." It took years to take root, however. Not until he was a student at St. Paul’s, the prestigious Episcopal prep school in New Hampshire, did he begin to entertain the notion of a religious life – and even then, it began as a joke. His roommate returned from a meeting with a priest on the faculty who mentioned that Griswold would be a fine candidate for the clergy. The two roommates roared with laughter at the idea, and Griswold soon delighted in shocking people who asked his career interests by answering the priesthood. But as he joked, the calling was also becoming clear to him. He was singing in the school choir, taking courses in church history, and finding himself enthralled by the liturgy at Sunday services. By the time he reached Harvard, it had been decided. After graduate work at Oxford and only a year’s seminary training, he was ordained in 1963 and became curate at Church of the Redeemer in Bryn Mawr, the parish in which he was baptized and confirmed. While there he married Phoebe Wetzel, whom he met at a baptism. They now have two grown daughters. He was rector of St. Andrew’s in Yardley, Bucks County, and then spent a decade as rector of St. Martin-in-the-Fields in Chestnut Hill before moving to Chicago in 1985 to succeed Bishop James Montgomery. During his tenure at St. Martin’s he removed pews and focused the liturgy at the center of the church, rather than the comparatively remote high altar. He replaced communion wafers with home-baked bread, welcomed the homeless, invited in the first women clergy, and loosened up a congregation known for being a little stuffy. "I think he brought to people a whole new concept of what spirituality is," said Mary Alford, an old friend and longtime … read more »

Response:

Response:

Filed under: Feminist

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism