I also question the word ‘inextricably’, but also add my name anyway. The general points made are well worth supporting. But when I click on the link that says ‘see the full list of signatories’, I’m not taken to such a list. Can that be corrected?

I did NOT write this to order!  You seem to have requested a reply while I was working on it.
(I’m good, but I’m not that good.)

Scott,

I welcome your comments about justice.  It’s well worth exploring.  And you certainly give good examples of prophetic action.  But, so that we can communicate clearly, could you please clarify how you are defining “justice?”

Phillip,
The list is there, but you have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to reach it.  I will see if we can do something to make that more obvious.

I was writing to ask you to explicate what you meant, by “unilateralism” and “self-sufficiency,” and assumed that by “justice,” your meaning and mine were a lot more in-sync than it appears. Quick and dirty: fair, equitable, deserved, merited, proportional, etc.

So what do you mean by “justice?”

pause

Now that I’m thinking about it, it’s a better question than I first thought. But you started it, so the ball’s in your court.

I appreciate your comments, but of course, pious hope is all that enables some of us to consider the future of TEC at all (or mainline protestantism more generally). Where the points above lack specificity, the hope is to follow with more substantial pieces to deal with these issues in an appropriate way.

Thank you, I realize the enormity of the problem. The basic issues as I see them are: 1. what does TEC actually believe; 2. Diocesan boundaries if TEC does not have one clear set of beliefs

I was struck by how the early Church addressed a similar problem (?) at the two Synods, Whitby and Hertford. Archbishop Theodore at Hertford began by requesting the Bishops in attendance to deliberate in harmony for their Faith preserving inviolate the decrees and definitions of our holy and respected Fathers. Each Bishop then agreed in turn to observe all canonical decrees of the Ancient Fathers. Given that basic agreement, it then made sense to respect Diocesan boundaries. Interestingly, Chapter 1 suggests that Whitby had not finally settled the synoptic dating of Easter and Chapter 10 dealt with marriage and divorce, apparently a problem but the details of separation were not yet worked out.

If TEC and the Anglican Communion were prepared to risk a real break, we might actually forge a real union. There probably are certain bishops who would not commit to observing previous decrees and resolutions, but we should expect TEC to hammer out what actually are the decrees and canons TEC is prepared to honor. By honor, I mean a new bishop should be required to commit, what I call an oath of fealty, and all existing bishops should engage in the debate realizing the choice, quit the Dioceses or take the oath. Without that basic agreement, there is absolutely no reason to respect Diocesan boundaries.

Looking at the highest common factor, I see the BCP and the Sacraments, maybe English as the lingua franca with the vernacular encouraged in certain (maybe many) situations.

In other words, I believe we need frankness, honesty, courage and above all trust in Jesus Christ in order to see that salvation through Jesus Christ is available to all, liberals and conservatives, slave and free, Greek and Hebrew . . . . and that our liturgy, teaching and tradition can provide inspiration to all.

cheers Michael

Scott,
I will need to develop this some more when I have more time, but let me note quickly in response that I tend to think of justice theologically.  All we know of justice is revealed not in the acts of men, but in the acts of God; so we begin properly with revelation.  Thus, for me to have any idea of what justice is, I turn to the grand acts of God in human history, which leads me to the Cross.  When we contemplate the Cross, what is revealed about justice is that its substance is grace.  It is the gift of Godself so that we might be at one with God and with each other.  What’s revealed is that justice is not at all about getting what we deserve, but about getting what we don’t deserve.  So justice doesn’t seem to be about fairness or just deserts or retribution at all.  Justice is about reconciliation and transformation.  When we contemplate the Cross we see that justice is creative and life-giving; justice is the form of that of which love is the substance; and since love is that which drives towards the reunion of the separated, justice is the form of reconciled, reunited, resurrected creation.  Thus, the way we recognize justice is that we witness real unity, real restoration, real healing, a return to wholeness for that which is broken.  The powers and principalities that prevent any of God’s children from participation in the abundant love God intends for all are conquered so that all are restored.  In short, justice takes the form of creative reunion that makes peace and joy with God and neighbor possible.

So justice is not about just deserts, but essentially about the reunion of the separated, and for us humans, it means reconciliation with God and each other.  It’s not about what we deserve, but about making the new birth into abundant life possible.  So, in seeking justice, our task is to seek the path not to fairness, but to the new life we are called to walk together.

quickie reply to #37.

I’m pretty short on time myself, but at first glance, what you are calling “justice” is a big hunk of what I would call “mercy.” Just sticking to the world of retributive (criminal) justice for a moment, I think of justice exactly in opposition to you: that “justice” depends at least on proportionality and deserts.

I think that most people would agree that lengthy imprisonment or execution for a relatively minor crime, say, theft of $10, is unjust, because it is disproportional. Similarly, it is not uncommon for “victims’ rights” advocates to complain of injustice when a criminal is sentenced to less than the maximum. To many crime victims, it feels like there is no punishment harsh enough to be proportional to the victimization they have suffered (often an understandable feeling). At the same time, I think most people would agree that any imprisonment or execution for a crime one is known not to have committed is also unjust, for it is not deserved.

So it seems to me prima facie that “the substance of justice” is proportionality and deserts, not grace. In fact, the reverse might be closer to the truth, that grace is the substance of injustice, or of freedom from justice, or meta-justice, or something like that. The Cross, then, is less God revealing something about justice (it was a supremely unjust act, after all), as about injustice revealing something about God: that God is concerned about justice and injustice at least (but not at most - that is the shift between the Old and New Covenant), and that God is willing to die in order to kill death, the greatest injustice of them all.

Scott,
That’s why I asked the question about justice first, because if we did not expose the fact that we are using the same language to mean different things, we would talk past each other and not experience a fruitful discussion.

I understand, I think, the way you are describing our common experience, and also have an idea of the resources you are drawing on that inform the way you interpret justice and injustice.  As I understand it, when you read of the biblical concept of justice, you are interpreting it in terms of the concepts of retributive justice like we find in our legal system.  So you are taking what one might call the world’s notion of justice and understanding it to be synonymous with divine justice.  If that is the way you understand justice, then of course our statement about justice makes no sense to you.

In our statement, we are presupposing a distinction between divine justice and worldly justice that seems to need more development in order for you (and I am sure many others) to make sense of our statement.  We’ll undertake that development for the sake of clarity, because that development will undoubtedly expose other areas in which our unstated presuppositions get in the way of communicating about something that is really quite important to all of us.

I appreciate your responding to me on this, and I will also take on your questions about “unilateralism” and “self-sufficiency” and ensure we give some explanation of what we mean by those phrases, too.

Craig Uffman - 08 April 2009 12:37 PM

And what’s the story behind this?

Encourage the Bishops and Deputies to engage in the work of reconciliation by not making pronouncements on public policy and other issues where there is no theological or moral consensus among Episcopalians, and to focus instead on those things that bring us together, rather than those that drive us apart.

Why is it necessary to say this?  Are there particular examples that “drive us apart?”

One that comes immediately to my mind is the RCRC. There is at least one list member who takes care to give to their local parish in such a way that none of the money they donate reaches the National church level, specifically because of disagreement on the abortion issue.

David Thomas - 08 April 2009 11:29 AM

B033 did not cause me (personally) any “intense pain”, but I can not say the same of a great many in the gay and lesbian community. I know people who were terribly hurt by it’s passage, most of which knew that it would not ultimately do any good. I know a person who voted for it, literally in tears, because she knew the pain it would cause but felt it was the right thing to do at that point in time.

The far-right dismissed B033 the moment it passed. It really served as little more than a speed bump in the race to create schism.

Not only the far right. It was also repudiated by several bishops (exact numbers unknown because they signified their disagreement with B033 by standing up in a closed HOB meeting) before they left Cincinnati.

I have to agree with you that it didn’t do any good. I think it dealt a painful slap to advocates of “full inclusion” but failed to convince most theological conservatives that TEC had any real intention of complying with the moratoria requested in the Windsor report.

I have posted Part I of an extended response to the question regarding justice discussed in this thread.  Specifically, why do we claim that we “reject the way of unilateralism and self-sufficiency as undermining the very justice it seeks to establish.”

Read Part 1 of “Justice and Communion in Prophetic Ministry” here.

Craig Uffman - 08 April 2009 11:26 AM

Karen,
While some felt they did not go far enough, we must recall that the Instruments of Communion acknowledged the efforts of TEC in responding to the Windsor Report and to the requests of the Primates.  While TEC has not yet complied fully, it has made some efforts to comply, and it has repeatedly affirmed its desire and intent to stay in the Communion.  Dean Nicholas mentions a few items that are representative of these efforts. So we are affirming those steps that have been taken in good faith.  Justice is to give others their due, and certainly the HoB and HoD are due an acknowledgment of their efforts towards maintaining unity, just as they are also due an acknowledgement of the insufficiency of some of those efforts.

I am among those who don’t think B033 even came close to meeting the requests of the Windsor report. If B033 is an indication of the extent of TEC’s intention to remain in full communion, that intention is at best partial. Rather than an unequivocal yes to the WR requests, TEC gave an evasive answer about further consecrations of non-celibate gay bishops, said nothing at all about SSB’s, and has not (that I know of) suspended or withdrawn a single lawsuit. Those actions which are conducive to maintaining communion should be affirmed, but the fact that some of TECs recent deeds have tended to widen the breach should at least be acknowledged to avoid the appearance of attempting to sweep these latter under the rug. And perhaps B033 is not anything to point at as evidence of TEC’s intentions anyway, because it has been targeted for repeal at this summer’s GC.

• The Anglican Covenant is the only viable path at present for maintaining communion and should be adopted by the Episcopal Church.
As must be quite apparent by now, I’m thoroughly suspicious of the trustworthiness of the people at the top in TEC. IMO, the Covenant should only be adopted by TEC if they are going to comply with it. I had far rather see an honest “no” or “not yet” than a “yes” with the fingers crossed—and I think that is the only kind of “yes” TEC is able to give at present—IMO it still has not decided which it values more, autonomy or Communion. Please! Let “yes” be “yes” and “no” be “no”. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. (Eccl 5:5)

Hi Craig,

In reference to #37 and #39, it is so refreshing to hear others speak of justice as being primarily about reconciliation and not retribution.  I still await further clarification of your thoughts on the connection with unilateralism.  As Scott pointed out, there are compelling examples of how unilateralism led to further reconciliation….eventually.

In Christ,
Shawn

Hi Craig,

Affirm that the rite of Holy Baptism in our Prayer Book stands in continuity with the received faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of the creeds, and articulates no theology that is unique to the Episcopal Church, but only makes explicit that which is common to all Christians for whom the catholic and apostolic faith as expressed in the creeds is normative.

What is the history behind this?  I came to the Episcopal Church long after the new Prayer Book.  I was only 8 years old when it was ratified.  I keep hearing about these “big changes” but I’m not sure what they are.  I’ve thought of going through and doing a study of the 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books but just haven’t had the time.  What were the big changes?

Many thanks,
Shawn