I was born smack in the middle of the last century, and, like many of my cohort, I’ve bobbed around on the whole Satan thing. We’re modern, right? We’ve got science. We don’t need superstition. But Jesus cast out demons! What about that? Ah, our teachers (and if you want to find out how our culture got into this mess, don’t look just at the Boomers, but also their teachers, the Professors Jennings) offered various weak ways around that little problem (“just mental illness, you know”). “Science has proven . . .” Well, no.

The longer you live, the more inexplicable horrors you see. On the one hand, you sure don’t need demonic power to explain some of the truly horrible things that people do. We’re selfish to the point of narcissism, violent, greedy, lustful, and by and large will do anything to dodge God. We have seen nations inexplicably give themselves over to mass murder and genocide. That we can also be generous, loving, and self-sacrificing just adds to the confusion.

I finally came to the conclusion that Jesus would not mislead his followers, us included in our time. There was no hidden rolling of the eyes as He cured the schizophrenics of his time, no muttered, “I’d better give them the line about demons here.” I’m sure that really advanced progressive Christians can come up with a way around that.

“Advanced Progressive Christians” like the Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (you knew I was getting here, didn’t you?). Recently while in Venezuela, she for some reason felt obliged to preach on Acts 16:16-19. Others, many others, have dealt with the uniquely bizarre way she chose to interpret this section. I’m going to content myself with the small – I can’t possibly do better than Pewster, Fr. Tim, or CJ. But the approach, the filters she has used, are of interest.
First and most important, there are no demons. That’s right out. So the ability to discern who Paul and Silas were, and Who they served, had to come from some gift they girl possessed. So, on to No. 2: at all times, find a way to emphasize the Ministry and Gifts of Women and how they are better than men (this is a minor example of this principle, of which the nonpareil is that Jesus “learned” about His mission from the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:25-30)). A corollary is principle No. 3, Whenever possible dis St. Paul, he was a benighted and repressive fool whose sole purpose in life was to repress women.
Whether demons exist or not is not especially relevant or important at this point – only that rather than elucidate the actual text, the Presiding Bishop has essentially rewritten it to mean something entirely different from its author’s intent. Well, she wasn’t elected to be a theologian. She was elected to be a hammer, and here she has smashed anything like meaning to bits.
One does have to wonder, though. The Peeb and her associates have been taking actions which cannot possibly lead to anything other than the collapse of their church, and don’t actually seem to have any other outcome in mind. Eventually, not even the resources of Trinity Wall Street will keep the wreckage afloat. So perhaps, just perhaps, they are all (no doubt unwittingly) doing the will of their own deceitful master. Hm. Have to think about that one.

 

We don’t know much about St. Joseph.  We can guess that he was probably relatively prosperous, we can speculate that he was possibly older than his wife, and we know that he lived through Jesus’s twelfth year.  Then he kind of vanishes from the story.

Engaged to Mary, maybe established in his profession as a carpenter, he looks forward to a certain kind of life, only to find that God asks him to take on an incomprehensible burden, to be at risk of sudden and violent death, to be at any time ready to flee to safety.  He could have refused; he could have quietly ended his betrothal, moved away, left Mary to face the questions that would come her way.  But, like Mary, he accepted the burden, even though he hadn’t a clue about where it would take him.  Maybe it’s the open ended trust we can take away from his story.

 

Justin Welby has gotten his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury off to a rollicking start with the appointment of “Director of Reconciliation,” whose job, it seems, will be to keep the bickering Anglican fragments talking to each other.  The action, and its somewhat Orwellian title, has been greeted with a certain amount of mockery, but it is not surprising.  This sort of thing is part of the inheritance of the Church of England, though not necessarily that of the Anglican offspring.

The Church of England was always viewed by the English Establishment as an instrument of national unity, and the various Actions of Uniformity made participation in the worship fo the Church of England necessary for full participation in the political and economic life of the nation.  This was a prescription for hypocrisy, of course, and also for constant blurring of the borders of the Church’s teaching.  In recent times, Archbishop of Canterbury William Temple – who is still greatly revered in Britain – made a specialty of what he called “synthesis,” the art of talking to make opposing sides come to some sort of agreement.  We’d call that “reconciliation.” Michael Ramsey tells an anecdote somewhere about Temple coming out of a meeting, rubbing his hands with some degree of eager anticipation, saying, “Well, we have a lot of synthesizing to do.”  Incessant palaver is just a part of the Church of England’s nature.

There are limits to this of course. Much of the current tension is between those who think that the God of Christianity is a self revealing God, who it is our job to listen to, understand, and perceive on His terms, and those who think that somehow we define God.  As Tom Wright has sagely pointed out, the latter group is inevitably going to become enthralled by the old gods of our fallen nature, Sex, Greed, and Force, or, to give them their ancient names, Aphrodite, Hades, and Ares  – and how insightful of the ancients to make Aphrodite and Ares lovers.  The leadership of The Episcopal Church is almost entirely dominated by this decrepit trinity.  The domination by Aphrodite is obvious, but it is also greedy for property, and will use the force of law to obtain it.

How Christians generally, Anglican Christians especially (from my point of view), conduct their witness and their lives in the modern (post modern, post post modern) culture is a vital question.  Ministry and witness to those who have fallen away is also important, and conversation may be a part of that.  I doubt that it can be done in the sort of formalized chat sessions envisioned here.  The manifestations of disagreement may or may not be of great importance, but the underlying problems are not really susceptible to discussion.

 

The Presiding Bishop of The Protestant Episcopal Gay-Straight Alliance, Wine Appreciation, Handfasting, and Swanning About Society, Inc (A Hierarchal Church, you better believe it), recently visited South Carolina to lend encouragement to those who, not happy with a nice, orthodox Anglican diocese, are setting up their own.  This visit is not itself very interesting, since it’s what she does, after all.  But her little speech – not quite a sermon, though she seems to have been vested, but certainly an oration – was remarkable.  I wasted a couple of hours dissecting the dissimulations, outright deceits, outrageous theology, and general vapidity, before throwing it up (that comes too close to a metaphor) as hopeless.  Some sort of award should be forthcoming.

The outstanding image from her speech (read the whole thing here, if you dare; it’s quite short) avers that folks who make judgements contrary to GroupThink are not that far off from the thought processes of terrorists and homicidal maniacs:

Somebody decides he knows the law, and oversteps whatever authority he may have to dictate the fate of others who may in fact be obeying the law, and often a law for which this local tyrant is not the judge.  It’s not too far from that kind of attitude to citizens’ militias deciding to patrol their towns or the Mexican border for unwelcome visitors.  It’s not terribly far from the state of mind evidenced in school shootings, or in those who want to arm school children, or the terrorism that takes oil workers hostage.

It’s this passage that has gotten most attention, but the truly subtle deceit comes in her interpretation of the meaning of the first Council at Jerusalem, the one that largely freed Gentile Christians from observing the minutiae of Jewish Law.  Of course, this Council, it’s meaning and application, are still matters of robust discussion today. That’s not her point.  Her point is to raise the possibility that the debate about homosexual behaviors is pretty much the same as debating the application of the dietary law to Gentiles. That is genuinely  – well.  I don’t know.  It’s possible she’s created a need for a new noun.

But that she says things like this isn’t especially interesting, new, or even diverting anymore.  There are other things to do than gape at this sort of thing.  But I wonder about her role, a bit.  After all, we all serve God, will we or nil we.  Perhaps her role is that of a smoke (fire-and-brimstone?) detector, or radiation dosimeter, for those genuinely faithful Christians who remain in The Protestant Episcopal Gay-Straight Alliance, Wine Appreciation, Handfasting, and Swanning About Society, Inc (A Hierarchal Church, you better believe it).  A hardy bunch, they are, determined to stick it out to the end.  They have an endless supply of last ditches.  Perhaps the Peeb’s function is to make it clear that she will fill every last one of those ditches with fire.

It’s a matter of intense amusement that on the website linked above, the first and most laudatory comment (“Brilliant! As always. . .”) comes from Bishop-in-Waiting Albert Cutié (oh, look him up if you’ve forgotten).  And it’s also worthy of note that this speech may mark the final abandonment of “pluriform truth” (whatever that meant) in favor of an elaborate doublethink combined with a cult of personality.

 

The learned gentleman of the Anglican Communion Institute have provided a handy guide to the malicious machinations of the Presiding Queeg and her minions in the matter of the Diocese of South Carolina.  It is replete with informers, agitators, Star Chamber proceedings, duplicity, and downright sneakiness.  Sad as it all is, the summary should be useful for anyone whose friends and relations retain illusions about the, ahem, lower management of The Episcopal Church.

It is piquant that under the newish disciplinary canon (effected in 2009, to wit, Title IV, Canon 14) we have this gem:

Clergy who have voluntarily sought and accepted
ordination in this Church have given their express consent and
subjected themselves to the discipline of this Church and may not
claim in proceedings under this Title constitutional guarantees
afforded to citizens in other contexts.

It seems that TEC is using this rather broadly, and it is a sort of mirror image of the “benefit of clergy” controversy that was not the least important impetus to reform in England in the late Middle Ages.  Briefly, the Church claimed jurisdiction over anyone in Holy Orders, no matter how serious the crime might be.  The Ecclesiastical Courts were prone to impose little or no punishment on the clergy, and the scandal of ‘criminous clerks’ irritated by victims and kings for hundreds of years.  Since in order to claim the “benefit of clergy” one need only be able to read, abuse was rampant.   Henry II tried to resolve the problem (with notable lack of success) in 1164.  The problem never really went away until after the English Reformation, after it sort of petered out.  “Benefit of clergy” became a method of providing lighter punishment for lesser crimes for first time offenders, and was even extended to women, who were, at that time, manifestly not clergy but who were allowed to claim benefit of clergy . . .  hmm.

Now, however, we find TEC creating a different sort of ecclesiastical court to which the ordained clergy are subject without recourse to secular appeal, and retroactively, at that.  A man or woman ordained before 2009 now discovers that they surrendered their (unspecified) constitutional guarantees.  One is curious to see if eventually this Canon is used to assail those who committed offenses before 2009 – with this crew in charge, it’s possible to entertain the conjecture.  All this is at least as mind-bending as quantum entanglement, which can be proven experimentally.  TEC rather enjoys this sort of retroactive reach, having mostly gotten away with the notorious Dennis Canon which claimed to create a trust interest in parishes’ real property without putting the parish through the inconvenience of actually creating a trust.

Rather in the same class of recurring phenomena, it appears that the soon to be retired Bishop of New Hampshire, who, in case you have not heard, is gay, has settled on a place of quiet reflection and withdrawal from society for his retirement: Washington, D. C., and has raised a pretty penny for his new parish, St.  Thomas, Dupont Circle.  Where there will be a chapel named after him.  Which he hopes will be a pilgrimage destination.  The mind boggles.  In more modest times, it was customary to wait for death, and perhaps a miracle or two, before establishing a shrine and place of pilgrimage.  The architects’ work is available here, if you need proof that this is actually occurring.

All of this gives rise to the thought that a New Anglican Reformation needs  – Thomas Cromwell.  Any applicants?

 

In the shambles that used to be The Episcopal Church, a purge is heading to some sort of conclusion.  Changes to the disciplinary rules (they’re called ‘canons’ to make them sound nicer than ‘regulations’) allow anyone to accuse anyone else of anything, at any time, and for the accusation to proceed to disposition and sentence without the impediment of defense or trial (I’m abbreviating, but in practice that is what is happening) or appeal.  These changes were designed to suppress dissent over the direction that the current management wishes to take.  They have very tender ears, and the very mild objections they have heard from some of the officers, crew, and passengers aboard the Ship of Faith has hurt them deeply.

The most recent purgey actions have been the Presiding Bishop (or “Queeg,”) actions to suspend (the ecclesiastical term is “inhibit”) the Bishop of South Carolina for . . . well, that’s hard to say.  Being a Christian, one suspects.  Disagreeing with her, certainly.  This, preparatory to firing him (“depose”).  More recently, she has also dismissed that Diocese’s Standing Committee (think, “cabinet”) and declared the Diocese to be salvage.

In another but similar situation, the Queeg and her minions have taken aim at a number of current and retired Bishops for the unspeakably vile offense of disagreeing with her in public about the nature of her authority.  Bear in mind that for the most part these are bishops who have stuck to the possibly naive opinion that they could maintain an orthodox and faithful Christian witness within The Episcopal Church despite the current climate and the somewhat grand conception of her authority possessed by the Queeg.  Their responses are usually a mild tut-tuttery, blaming the court around the Queeg rather than the Queeg herself.  “She is but misled!”  My oh my.  It’s amusing to consider a counterattack – the Communion Partner bishops could unilaterally declare any see vacant where the incumbent has ever said anything remotely at odds with Nicene Christianity, or declare the Queeg’s office vacant for uncanonical acts and misdemeanors.  But that won’t happen.

The Queeg, however, quite obviously sees herself as the hammer of the faithful, a hammer whose task it is to shatter and sweep away all opposition.  She was elected to her position for that purpose, and embraces it happily.

Sardonic commenters, who realize what is going on, amuse themselves by speculating whether this or that lackey is best likened to Felicks Dzerzhinsky or Genrikh Yagoda, but that amusement only serves to mitigate what is a rather sad scene.

Some informative links; they’ll take you to others to give the full picture of this risible mess.

http://themcj.com/?p=37402

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29676

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/11/deranged-and-delusional-charges.html

 

 

 

 

Duh.  It finally occurs to me that the reason for the timing of the Great Purge (see below)  is to finagle a way to subject the unconfirmed bishops-elect to a loyalty test.  *Headsmack* Of course.

 

Deny it as they might, there’s a quality of the (self-defined) progressive mind that admires strong-arm leadership, dislikes dissent, and is uncomfortable with the chaotic haggling and discussions of democracy.  Since it is, to them, self-evident that what they want is right, absolutely right, discussion or dissent or questioning is not merely a waste of time, it is nearly treasonous.

As a part of it’s litigation to secure the property of various dioceses unhappy with the Manifest Progressive Destiny of The Episcopal Church (TEC), TEC has claimed that it is a “hierarchal” church to a degree that makes the Roman Catholic Church look like an especially boisterous commonwealth.  This assertion, if accepted by the various courts in which TEC is litigating, would give it certain advantages.  It is, however, a somewhat novel assertion, and one with which not everyone would agree.  The alternative understanding, that TEC is a union of equal partners over which the Presiding Bishop presides but does not rule, has probably prevailed historically, but it is inconvenient for the purposes of the current litigation.  Yet it is a position which has historic roots, and can be held with integrity.

Until today, it seems.  Someone, as yet unknown officially, has lodged complaints against ten count them ten bishops of TEC for agreeing with an amicus curiae brief filed in connection with TEC’s litigation against the Diocese of Quincy.  This brief argued the position that TEC is not nearly so hierarchal.  This seems to have miffed someone immensely, so immensely as to file charges (I’m betting on something to do with “abandoning the Doctrine and Discipline of this Church”) on the eve of TEC’s General Convention.  The investigation and show trial will proceed accordingly.  If we are very, very lucky, the term “breaker” will appear in the prosecution.

Today’s Episcopal Church:  Where Dissent is Cause for Dismissal.

 

The ACNA Provincial Assembly is in full swing, and I rather wish I could be there, but travel is probably out for at least one more year, so that’s that.  The Assembly has been carefully designed not to be a General Convention, and has comparatively little power, and so it has rather the quality of an extended pep rally, and that’s really not so bad a thing.  I know that I could use some pepping.  Since my personality ranges from dyspeptic to dour and everything in between, it takes a lot to pep me up.

Observing from the bottom of the well, it seems that there are three lines of emphasis:  continuing local organization, dealing with the implosion of the Anglican Mission, and the Anglican 1000 church planting process and its related theme, evangelism.  The first, the development of local structures into something vaguely like dioceses, involves an immense amount of not terrifically interesting grunt work behind the scenes.  ACNA so far seems willing to experiment with structures as needs become clear – or sort of clear.  That seems to be a good idea.  The Anglican Mission implosion is essentially incomprehensible.  The last, church planting, is necessary.

The Episcopal Church, from whose ashes ACNA struggles to emerge, as a whole lost any notion of evangelism and growth a couple of generations ago.  As ACNA tries to be Anglican but not Episcopalian, a recovery of an evangelical if not always Evangelical attitude is part of the restoration.  The Episcopal Church became sort of famous as the Church of the Cold Shoulder.  That attitude has to be junked.  Tactically, ACNA needs to grow as large a footprint as it can as fast as it can.  It seems clear that the Episcopal Church as an organization is now entering it death spiral.  ACNA will need to be strong enough to pick up the shards.

From the bottom of the well, I would like to see a more overt emphasis on developing robust, sustainable parishes as well as planting a lot of them. It doesn’t seem to be that difficult to string together groups of small, rather dependent communities.  It is probably a little harder and requires a different type of imagination to put resources in to build up robust communities that are not only self supporting but capable of expansion, of planting their own seedlings.  I’m experimenting with the notion that although people have an inclination toward hierarchic, pyramidal structures of authority and responsibility, the best structure for the local community is geodesic.  I’m probably talking through my hat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This supposed mock up of a publicity poster has been floating around.  Seeing it, I could not believe it to be serious, not ironic, not a joke.  I realize that the completely committed radical progressive is marked by a complete absence of humor, but this was too much to be believed.  Yet this site, whose author is by not on the ACNA side of the discussion, seems to accept the authenticity of the image.  On the other hand, no one has bothered to cite an original source, and several searches using image search bots did not find the original.  So I’m going to withhold further comment.  While it’s hard to believe that even Episcopalian progressives are this tin-eared, they might be.  I still prefer a provenance.

© 2013 And Pilgrims Were They All Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha