I don’t think this description is quite accurate. While I do believe TEC is in the wrong, both doctrinally and in how it has acted in the current conflict, what I advocate is not punishment but that TEC stop claiming to value the Communion while simultaneously rejecting the mind of the Communion expressed in Lambeth resolutions, requests from the ABC, proposals from the Primates, etc. It would not be “punishment” for the Communion to conclude (if indeed it does so conclude) that TEC’s actions speak louder than its words, and that those actions indicate a desire to be something other than what the Communion has agreed within its own councils to be.

I would also add an impasse #6, Ownership of church properties. Who is the rightful owners of the buildings and grounds of parishes or dioceses, and how should disputes over ownership be settled?

Thanks for your reply Karen.  I think #6 is an impasse of sorts.  You refer to TEC respecting or not respecting the “mind of the communion” (whatever that is, there are no agreed upon structures for imposing such a thing) and your point may be valid.  However #6 arises because people who claim with deep fervor that the mind of the communion rules, violated that mind in crossing jurisdictions and alienating property and assets.  This was done against the explicit sense of the Windsor report and the ++ABC and others.  So I think it is silly to talk about respect for the mind of the communion when those folks who tout it violate it at will and without consequences.

I do not care to argue moral equivalence, the issue is Do you respect the mind of the communion or not?  The schismatics did not and in fact the ultimate hypocritical irony would be to admit the ACNA to the Communion since it only exists by virtue of violating the mind of the communion with respect to jurisdiction jumping.  So all the lawsuits can go away instantly when those who luvvvvvvv the mind of the communion return the property and assets they alienated in violation of that very mind.

And I want us to sign the Covenant so we can begin filing specific complaints against every province, primate and episcopal prelate who violated the jurisdiction moratorium.

Finally, there is yet to be mentioned the vaster hypocrisy factor.  England now allows same sex marriages and CoE clergy and Bishops are blessing them.  They are allowing and blessing such unions of clergy.  It is allowed in the ++ABC’s own diocese of which he is the diocesan.  Now you can hardly expect any of us progressives to take any criticism or correction seriously when it spews from the mouth of hypocritical action and statements.  Let GafCon go chew on the C of E for awhile and let the C of E crack down on same sex blessings.  Please don’t tell me that they have to obey Parliament in this.  Frankly if the blessing of same sex unions of both a communion breaker and an issue relevant to salvation then the ++ABC and other conservative prelates have a moral duty to defy the government no matter the cost to themselves.

That they don’t leaves me with little to respect in their pronouncements about TEC.

Michael Russell - 11 January 2010 09:07 PM

I don’t think this description is quite accurate. While I do believe TEC is in the wrong, both doctrinally and in how it has acted in the current conflict, what I advocate is not punishment but that TEC stop claiming to value the Communion while simultaneously rejecting the mind of the Communion expressed in Lambeth resolutions, requests from the ABC, proposals from the Primates, etc. It would not be “punishment” for the Communion to conclude (if indeed it does so conclude) that TEC’s actions speak louder than its words, and that those actions indicate a desire to be something other than what the Communion has agreed within its own councils to be.

I would also add an impasse #6, Ownership of church properties. Who is the rightful owners of the buildings and grounds of parishes or dioceses, and how should disputes over ownership be settled?

Thanks for your reply Karen.  I think #6 is an impasse of sorts.  You refer to TEC respecting or not respecting the “mind of the communion” (whatever that is, there are no agreed upon structures for imposing such a thing) and your point may be valid.  However #6 arises because people who claim with deep fervor that the mind of the communion rules, violated that mind in crossing jurisdictions and alienating property and assets.  This was done against the explicit sense of the Windsor report and the ++ABC and others.  So I think it is silly to talk about respect for the mind of the communion when those folks who tout it violate it at will and without consequences.

Michael, this is nothing but a “straw man” argument. There are plenty of people, including I think nearly everyone who posts here at Covenant, who agree that TEC has violated the mind of the Communion—and while there may be no means of imposing the mind there are ways of expressing it, which I mentioned above—but who also disagree with the actions of GAFCON/ACNA. Why do you persist in bringing up the issue of boundary crossing, when nobody here is advocating it?

I do not care to argue moral equivalence, the issue is Do you respect the mind of the communion or not?  The schismatics did not and in fact the ultimate hypocritical irony would be to admit the ACNA to the Communion since it only exists by virtue of violating the mind of the communion with respect to jurisdiction jumping.  So all the lawsuits can go away instantly when those who luvvvvvvv the mind of the communion return the property and assets they alienated in violation of that very mind.

And I want us to sign the Covenant so we can begin filing specific complaints against every province, primate and episcopal prelate who violated the jurisdiction moratorium.

Who is looking for a way to “punish” now?

Finally, there is yet to be mentioned the vaster hypocrisy factor.  England now allows same sex marriages and CoE clergy and Bishops are blessing them.  They are allowing and blessing such unions of clergy.  It is allowed in the ++ABC’s own diocese of which he is the diocesan.  Now you can hardly expect any of us progressives to take any criticism or correction seriously when it spews from the mouth of hypocritical action and statements.  Let GafCon go chew on the C of E for awhile and let the C of E crack down on same sex blessings.  Please don’t tell me that they have to obey Parliament in this.  Frankly if the blessing of same sex unions of both a communion breaker and an issue relevant to salvation then the ++ABC and other conservative prelates have a moral duty to defy the government no matter the cost to themselves.

That they don’t leaves me with little to respect in their pronouncements about TEC.

If C of E clergy are indeed blessing SSU’s, then I agree with you that they should refuse to do so, but still, what the C of E does or doesn’t do is a red herring. The request that TEC cease blessing SSU’s and not elect nor consent to any more bishops engaged in such unions, did not come from the C of E only, but from the Commission on Communion, which was drawn from the Communion as a whole, with the concurrence of the Primates of the Communion as a whole, in response to violation by TEC of a resolution which was agreed on by the bishops of the Communion as a whole.

Karen

If the mind of the communion is a straw man, others raised it not me.  There is either a mind that ought to be respected by everyone or there isn’t. If there is one that TEC must respect then all must respect it.  This is not an unreasonable expectation.

It is irrelevant that the “Communion” only asked TEC to not do SSBs.  It is either a standard or not.  It is totally unacceptable to suggest that one province not do it why other, complaining provinces do.

But here we identify another impasse.. the notion that special conditions apply to TEC that do not apply to everyone.

And yes I will endorse taking full advantage of the covenant to hold ALL parties accountable in the new spirit of mutual accountability.  Read Numbers 11:19-20 for the principle I hope to apply.

Michael Russell - 12 January 2010 01:23 AM

If the mind of the communion is a straw man, others raised it not me.  There is either a mind that ought to be respected by everyone or there isn’t. If there is one that TEC must respect then all must respect it.  This is not an unreasonable expectation.

It is irrelevant that the “Communion” only asked TEC to not do SSBs.  It is either a standard or not.  It is totally unacceptable to suggest that one province not do it why other, complaining provinces do.

But here we identify another impasse.. the notion that special conditions apply to TEC that do not apply to everyone.

Perhaps I was not clear. I meant that raising the issue of boundary crossing here on Covenant is a straw man, because nobody here is advocating boundary crossings as a solution.

You are also mistaken if you suppose I think that special conditions apply to TEC. Respecting the mind of the Communion applies to all members of the Communion and that includes SSB’s in Canada, Sydney’s moves toward Lay Presidency, and also to boundary crossing. However, neither of us is in a position to affect what happens in other provinces. We only have influence over what TEC does, and in my case, not much of that. The fact that other Provinces are also acting contrary to the mind of the Communion is no excuse whatever for us to continue to do it.

And yes I will endorse taking full advantage of the covenant to hold ALL parties accountable in the new spirit of mutual accountability.  Read Numbers 11:19-20 for the principle I hope to apply.

Your repeated, unabashedly vindictive statements are to me a continuing source of amazement and dismay. I will pray for you.

Sorry that my side comment has taken this thread off track. Back to evangelism and Epiphany.

A more interesting question (for this thread) is how can conservatives and progressives do evangelism together? Both senses of the question are pertinent: Is it possible and if so, what would it look like.

Karen Younge - 12 January 2010 03:02 AM

Perhaps I was not clear. I meant that raising the issue of boundary crossing here on Covenant is a straw man, because nobody here is advocating boundary crossings as a solution.

You are also mistaken if you suppose I think that special conditions apply to TEC. Respecting the mind of the Communion applies to all members of the Communion and that includes SSB’s in Canada, Sydney’s moves toward Lay Presidency, and also to boundary crossing. However, neither of us is in a position to affect what happens in other provinces. We only have influence over what TEC does, and in my case, not much of that. The fact that other Provinces are also acting contrary to the mind of the Communion is no excuse whatever for us to continue to do it.

And yes I will endorse taking full advantage of the covenant to hold ALL parties accountable in the new spirit of mutual accountability.  Read Numbers 11:19-20 for the principle I hope to apply.

Your repeated, unabashedly vindictive statements are to me a continuing source of amazement and dismay. I will pray for you.

Dear Karen,

The entire point of the covenant is for mutual accountability.  Indeed the whole effort is to make it so Provinces have a say so in what other provinces do.  Under the covenant, Provinces can expect to have other Provinces “supervise” their choices for Bishops, their ecclesiastical decisions and anything else anyone decides is “Communion significant”.  So indeed I expect TEC and everyone to have a hand in what other Provinces do and believe.

Is God vindictive in Numbers 11:19-20?  God is clearly sufficiently fed up with the whining in the wilderness to use disgusting excess to teach the people about whining when they are living totally at God’s hand.  I think it is fair indeed and in the spirit of the Covenant as written, to force mutual accountability upon people who profess to want it, but pay no attention to it at all with respect to their own lawless actions.  If that is vindictive, so be it. 

TEC and its good people have been abused and battered more than enough by the ilk of ANCA and the GafCon bullies.  All I propose is setting clear boundaries and exacting accountability when they are crossed. Your dismay over my statements rings as convenient, given that you apologize for the treatment of TEC by the schismatics.  The notion that they are somehow the only possessors of righteousness is sinfully prideful given their behavior.  I do appreciate your prayers for me, but you might also appreciate that I am direct and honest about what I intend to advocate with respect to the Covenant.  You may not like where I stand, but you know where it is.

Charlie Clauss - 12 January 2010 11:01 AM

Sorry that my side comment has taken this thread off track. Back to evangelism and Epiphany.

A more interesting question (for this thread) is how can conservatives and progressives do evangelism together? Both senses of the question are pertinent: Is it possible and if so, what would it look like.

Occasionally people here talk about one group not being able to recognize another group as being kin.  I think this may be true for styles of evangelism.  If there is a way for it to be done, then most likely the social justice minded evangelicals like the folks at Sojourners and kindred movements in the evangelical world might have a pattern that would work.

I am a Dick Gregory sort of evangelist.  He once said, “If you have a good thing you do not need to cram it down people’s throats, they will steal it.”  He was speaking of democracy, but I think it applies to the Gospel as well.

Charlie Clauss - 12 January 2010 11:01 AM

Sorry that my side comment has taken this thread off track. Back to evangelism and Epiphany.

A more interesting question (for this thread) is how can conservatives and progressives do evangelism together? Both senses of the question are pertinent: Is it possible and if so, what would it look like.

I don’t see how this would be possible, Charlie. The two views are so different, and in some cases even mutually contradictory, that leading someone into the Church (as seen by one group) would of necessity also be leading them out of the Church (as seen by the other). How could a joint effort between contradictory teachings avoid incoherency? This is another facet of the as-yet-unresolved question I posed in “How can two walk together?” It is logically impossible for the views of both to be true, since they contradict each other, and while it is logically possible that both could be wrong, I don’t think that an evangelistic outreach based on the proclamation “we are both leading you into error” would be a workable plan.

Do you see any way of getting over this hurdle?

Hence Matthew 5:28-32?  Thanks for the Dick Gregory quote, Michael.  It is sermon material and will undoubtedly come in handy.  It certainly does apply to the Gospel, along with the old saw about leading a horse to water.  On the other hand, just because people don’t steal it, doesn’t mean it’s not a good thing.

I obviously share some of Karen’s concerns over incoherency.

But I wonder if the road we need to take is the road that acknowledges the fractured nature of the world. I have seen much movement on the part of Evangelicalism to recognize that God’s redemptive mission includes the restoration of all things, including the structures of society. On issues of racial justice, the environment, human trafficking, and other issues, Evangelicals have begun to take their place in the fight.

The question is if progressives can allow for some talk of personal sin and repentance. But this language is almost always heard as an infringement on personal freedom. The way to approach each other here would be to talk more about personal culpability with respect to issues like the environment and racial justice. [This has evangelistic implications in that as people begin to see that God cares about matters of global justice, they will more likely believe that this God cares for them, and that He wishes to heal their brokenness too.]

The question of kin is a foundational question. Who do we recognize as brothers and sisters in Christ, and why? It goes without saying that the Bible gives us reasons to be very wary of making any pronouncements [The parable of the sheep and goats should keep us all awake at night!]. But evangelism for the Evangelical is based on the pronouncement that some are in fact *not* kin. There are those who need to hear and respond to the Gospel who have never done so. What that response needs to be can be debated, but response is called for [there maybe some objection to the need for response, but as a community that practices infant baptism, we show our core conviction of the need for personal response in the rite of confirmation]. Are some who sit in pews in that category? Probably. But we must be careful in requiring all to make the same response that we have.

So who am I going to acknowledge as kin? Do they need to prove their bone fides to me? Are only those who have “prayed the prayer” included? How orthodox does their theology need to be? Must they be able to testify to a conversion experience?

My fellow Evangelicals of a “pure church” orientation will have one set of answers - answers that will exclude many. I am not going to push the pendulum all the way to the other side and say that everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. But I will say that if you claim to be a follower of Jesus, than you are kin. The Satan figure in the movie *Simple Things* at one point says, “Kill them all, let God sort them out.” I don’t advocate the first part, but the second it most certainly true!

The acknowledgment of kinship does not make everything rosy and warm kitten-ish! Some who I said were kin will turn out to not be kin. And some who I didn’t recognize will be. Some of my kin will get in my face and tell me off and I will repent (this is the case for many white Christians who come up against African American Christians on the issue of race!). And I will do likewise to some other kin.

Which brings us back to the Magi [three gifts - not three kings!]. What an unlikely group of kin! Their theology is a mess and they have dabbled on the edge of the acceptable. They (lucky ducks!) get direct directions on the course of their travels, while I stumble along. But they went out of their way to worship Jesus. Puts me to shame.

What I find strange about where this thread had led is that there is a possible conversation about doing evangelism with a group that has a different gospel.  The inclusivist Jesus is not the same as the biblical Jesus.  There appears to be more concern, at least from Charlie, with aligning with liberals in pecusa than with those who share the same gospel but who are outside of pecusa.

I would like to keep this on track with Evangelism and for the “conversation” thread to continue elsewhere.

Tony Seel - 12 January 2010 06:45 PM

What I find strange about where this thread had led is that there is a possible conversation about doing evangelism with a group that has a different gospel.  The inclusivist Jesus is not the same as the biblical Jesus.  There appears to be more concern, at least from Charlie, with aligning with liberals in pecusa than with those who share the same gospel but who are outside of pecusa.

I have a few questions Tony.
1   How can a Universalist Evangelize?  The prevailing teaching of the PB etc is that Jesus is not the only way.
2   How can you evangelize if making a decision for Christ is a “heresy” - following the PB’s GC sermon?
3   How can anyone be saved if there is no understanding of Hell, judgement or the reward of Heaven.

My conviction is that there is little possibility for Evangelism without orthodox doctrines of salvation.  Dare I ask what baptism and confirmation mean when the need for salvation is questioned.  Also what happens at baptism?  Is it connected to salvation by inclusion, affusion, ritual - perhaps I should rephrase the question as one of righteousness.  Is righteousness imputed, conferred or infused?  According to the Articles I believe that imputed righteousness is the ANGLICAN way.

Lots of questions!
Ian

I noticed that TEC’s use of the word “evangelism” became more enthusiastic in the last years after it noted the trend in the software industry (starting with open source software, I think) using the term “evangelism” to describe telling people the good news about what the software could do - and in the case of open source software, this was very good news since it’s free.  Businesses started picking up on the word and it quickly became sort of a buzzword.

So I suppose “evangelism” could be more or less telling someone of the salient qualities of any worthy cause.  In the case of TEC, the emphasis on public narrative was a type of evangelism in this sense - finding a way of telling the story of how TEC has come to mean something important to one, and one’s satisfaction in serving the goals of TEC.

I should add that MDGs are NOT evangelism, sadly they seem the only description of mission that comes out of 815

Tony Seel - 12 January 2010 06:45 PM

What I find strange about where this thread had led is that there is a possible conversation about doing evangelism with a group that has a different gospel.  The inclusivist Jesus is not the same as the biblical Jesus.  There appears to be more concern, at least from Charlie, with aligning with liberals in pecusa than with those who share the same gospel but who are outside of pecusa.

Ahhh another of those impasses.  I would affirm that the inclusive Jesus is the biblical Jesus and that in fact his harshest criticisms were for those who were the rigorists who spent their time deciding who was a Jew and who was not.  If you pile up all that he had to say, there is far, far, less talk about hell and damnation than there is about how those rejected by the Jewish puritan elites will enter the kingdom before them.

Not you, Tony, nor Charlie, nor anyone here has been tasked with deciding who is Christian and who is not.  You may choose to exclude people from your local Christian Society, but you are not in charge of who God lets in or doesn’t to the mystical body.  The hubris of those who believe they have that charism is astonishing.  You are not competent to judge anyone elses soul and you should be careful in pretending you are.  It is exactly this sort of judgmental guff that makes progressive gag at the world evangelism.  DO remember that the goats of Matthew 25 were surprised to find themselves rejected.