TEC unraveling officially begins

[Steverem]

So someone somewhere with authority for the Church catholic has declared the Millennium Development Goals heretical? And should they be a "framework" for prayers about our earth, is this some kind of apostasy? Did I miss those pronouncements from somewhere?
Or are those Millennium Development Goals evil because it appears that "liberals" - those nasty "revisionists" - seem to support them? Enlighten me.

Charles,

I think the following is an example of why some here are nervous about the increased emphasis on MDGs within the church:

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals, which disturbed the writer for being found in a Christmas sermon, most would agree, are the beatitudes of the 21st century.  When we preach a Jesus that does not reorient us in our values and actions, then we preach sentimentality and ask nothing more from people than to take their place within accepted cultural norms.

- The Rev. Pierce Klemmt, Rector of Christ Church, Alexandria, VA (http://www.alextimes.com/article.asp?article=8691)

While I think most of us can agree that the Millennium Development Goals are--as a whole--good, I would also hope that most here would agree that the Beatitudes are the "beatitudes of the 21st century."

[Charles_Austin]

Steverem writes:
While I think most of us can agree that the Millennium Development Goals are--as a whole--good, I would also hope that most here would agree that the Beatitudes are the "beatitudes of the 21st century."

I comment:
O.k., and I long ago gave up trying to base my decisions on the homiletical excesses of enthusiast preachers, be they at either end or any place on the spectrum. "Beatitudes for the 21st century" seems to me to be one of those excesses.

[Steverem]

Steverem writes:
While I think most of us can agree that the Millennium Development Goals are--as a whole--good, I would also hope that most here would agree that the Beatitudes are the "beatitudes of the 21st century."

I comment:
O.k., and I long ago gave up trying to base my decisions on the homiletical excesses of enthusiast preachers, be they at either end or any place on the spectrum. "Beatitudes for the 21st century" seems to me to be one of those excesses.

Charles,

That's true, but when the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church decides to focus one of her Easter messages (not exactly sure which--I'll have to look it up) almost exclusively on the MDGs, it makes it appear that such excesses are coming from the top down.

(Oh, and for the record, while I have many disagreements with Bishop Hanson, I must say that his Easter messages are very good.  My Episcopalian/Anglican friends are envious.)

[E. Swensson]

So someone somewhere with authority for the Church catholic has declared the Millennium Development Goals heretical? And should they be a "framework" for prayers about our earth, is this some kind of apostasy? Did I miss those pronouncements from somewhere?
Or are those Millennium Development Goals evil because it appears that "liberals" - those nasty "revisionists" - seem to support them? Enlighten me.

Charles,

I think the following is an example of why some here are nervous about the increased emphasis on MDGs within the church:

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals, which disturbed the writer for being found in a Christmas sermon, most would agree, are the beatitudes of the 21st century.  When we preach a Jesus that does not reorient us in our values and actions, then we preach sentimentality and ask nothing more from people than to take their place within accepted cultural norms.

- The Rev. Pierce Klemmt, Rector of Christ Church, Alexandria, VA (http://www.alextimes.com/article.asp?article=8691)

While I think most of us can agree that the Millennium Development Goals are--as a whole--good, I would also hope that most here would agree that the Beatitudes are the "beatitudes of the 21st century."

I have assumed that everyone can easily understand the logic behind Kendall Harmon point about TEC confusing Church with Christ, but I suppose not. Fr Klemmt calls the MDG's "beatitudes." Small point, but Christ gave the Sermon on the Mount, not a committee of politicians and economists. Jesus began with "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Not kiingdom on earth.

For me a much bigger thing is how the Sermon on the Mount drives us to ouor knees on account of our utter inability to fulfill His demands. The MDG's are easily done wiht the crumbs from the table, but the West cannot even agree to do that.

[MaddogLutheran]

That's true, but when the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church decides to focus one of her Easter messages (not exactly sure which--I'll have to look it up) almost exclusively on the MDGs, it makes it appear that such excesses are coming from the top down.

(Oh, and for the record, while I have many disagreements with Bishop Hanson, I must say that his Easter messages are very good.  My Episcopalian/Anglican friends are envious.)

I suspect they'll be envious again.  This year, the topic is environmentalism:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_95591_ENG_HTM.htm

[Steverem]

That's true, but when the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church decides to focus one of her Easter messages (not exactly sure which--I'll have to look it up) almost exclusively on the MDGs, it makes it appear that such excesses are coming from the top down.

(Oh, and for the record, while I have many disagreements with Bishop Hanson, I must say that his Easter messages are very good.  My Episcopalian/Anglican friends are envious.)

I suspect they'll be envious again.  This year, the topic is environmentalism:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_95591_ENG_HTM.htm

They are indeed.  My Anglican office mates are already asking me if they can claim Bishop Hanson's statement as their own.

[Gladfelteri]

Perhaps what we are dealing with here is what Karol Cardinal Vojtyla wrote in 1976 and is cited in "Spe Salvi and Vatican II," B. A. Graebe, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, March 2008, pp.55:  "We are today before the final struggle between the Church and the Anti-Church, between the Gospel and the Anti-Gospel."  Graebe also mentions the fact that in Spe Salvi, Benedict XVI "picks up an ancient theme of the Church - the continual struggle and untimate incompatibility between the Church and the World.

Graebe continues by citing a a Russian Author, Vladimar Soloviev who once wrote a short story, "The Antichrist,"  (Contained in his book, The Open Way to World Peace and Welfare.  Paraphrasing Graebe, in that short story, Soloviev protrays the Antichrist is a Biblical Scholar whose exegesis denies the divinity of the Christ of the Gospels.  Reducing Jesus to a mere "social worker" and "non-violent resister of the Roman occupation," the Antichrist destroys Christian's faith.  The then Cardinal Ratzinger went into this in his 1988 address in St. Peter's Lutheran Church in NYC.

Anyhow, Graebe points out that Soloviev's Antichrist steps into the same trap as did Marx:  trying to establish the Kingdom of God without a God.  Hasn't this been something man has tried to do ever since the fall - in Eden, Babel, and in today's world - arguably partially through the U.N. Millennium  Development Goals through "Stations of the Millennium  Development Goals" instead of Stations of the Cross, through the Church's promotion of secular environmentalism, and the like?  I submit that every attempt to do this, uninformed by man's ultimate destiny, and without God are are going to fail.

In Spei Salvi, Benedict XVI writes this, "There is no doubt, therefore, that a 'Kingdom of God' accomplished without God - a kindgom therefore of man alone, inevitably ends up as the 'perverse end of things.. . . " (Spe Salvi, #23)  Graebe continues:  "No earthly paradise, if such a thing were possible, would ever satisfy man, whose restless heart yearns for the infine, for the great beyond."

This, IMHO, is what we are dealing with when certain officials of a certain Church tries to promote the Millennium Development Goals rather than the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

Blessings,
Irl

[E. Swensson]

Things are really devolving fast:

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church plans to poll the House of Bishops in April 2008 for approval of a plan to move the possible deposition of Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh forward from September 2008 to May 2008.

This was announced at the post-meeting press conference yesterday. Bishops Ed Little, Roskam, Curry, and Alvarez were among those present at the conference.

The reasons for this move have not been made public, however, the effect of such a move is clear. The Lambeth Conference begins in July. Were Bishop Duncan to be deposed prior to the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury would be forced to decide whether to honor the Episcopal Church’s deposition and disinvite Bishop Duncan or to disregard it, a decision similar to the one he faces with regard to Bishop Schofield of San Joaquin.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10803/


The Living Church has posted a major breaking story this evening. Their servers are currently down ("too many connections" says the message!) and so for the time being, we're posting the full text.

Deposition Votes Failed to Achieve Canonically Required Majority

Posted on: March 14, 2008

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops' spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.

The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.

When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/10836/#more

Forward in Faith UK’s Statement on Bishop MacBurney
Posted by Kendall Harmon


From here:

Forward in Faith UK deplores the recent actions against the retired Bishop of Quincy, the Right Revd Ed MacBurney, by the House of Bishops of TEC as both pastorally and politically inept: pastorally on account of Bishop MacBurney’s age and tragic family circumstances; politically because of the certainty that it will alienate others across the Communion who have not yet grasped the extent of the graceless and totalitarian mindset which now dominates the Episcopal Church.

We are at a loss to understand why it is an offence for a bishop in good standing in one province of the Communion to offer episcopal ministry (at the request of its bishop) to a parish in another.

http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_392.shtml

[pr dtp]

Here is the actions prior to the supposed expulsion, and the response to the expulsion by both Bishop Schofield and his Archbishop.

http://sanjoaquin.anglican.org/News/News.htm

May the people of that Anglican diocese, in this Easter season, truly celebrate that they are from "the Seed" that had to be buried, rather than be concerned about the worldly matters which would distract their focus on Christ Jesus.

[Marshall_Hahn]

Deposition Votes Failed to Achieve Canonically Required Majority

Posted on: March 14, 2008

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops' spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.

The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.

When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/10836/#more

This is a stunning example of hubris mixed in with a boatload of good old-fashioned incompetence.  At this site, the parliamentary details and possible consequences are examined in some detail:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10841/
The upshot seems to be that the House of Bishops of the TEC were in such a hurry to depose two of their dissenting bishops they did not bother to follow their own rules.

Marshall Hahn

[Charles_Austin]

Marshall Hahn writes:
The upshot seems to be that the House of Bishops of the TEC were in such a hurry to depose two of their dissenting bishops they did not bother to follow their own rules.

I observe:
And you are a canon lawyer for the Episcopal church? It seems to me that the hubris here is making decisions and judgements in areas where we have no standing. The bishops said they relied upon their canon lawyers.

[pr dtp]

Marshall Hahn writes:
The upshot seems to be that the House of Bishops of the TEC were in such a hurry to depose two of their dissenting bishops they did not bother to follow their own rules.

I observe:
And you are a canon lawyer for the Episcopal church? It seems to me that the hubris here is making decisions and judgements in areas where we have no standing. The bishops said they relied upon their canon lawyers.

Charles,

Please use your standard and judge your own hubris by your standard above.  Your judgments on the LCMS are legion.

You aren't a canon lawyer either, so on what basis do you have to comment on the comments?

The rules for a quorum in ECUSA's house of bishops are not rocket science.  Neither is the process by which one deals with a bishop from another province.  Bishop Scofield resigned from the house of bishops on the 7, before the minority of the bishops were assembled. 

In regards to the action at hand, it doesn't matter what the canon lawyers said.  They didn't have enough representation to make the decision they made.  The presiding lady of TEC, recently played a game, stopping the consecration of a east coast bishop, using the very same by-laws that would deny this action.  Not enough bishops to render a decision in that matter last year, and it was far more than were at the meeting this week. 

Further interesting is the article in the San Diego papers, where they Bishop Scofield was kciked out of the Anglican communion.  Gee shucks, since when did the TEC have that right?

[Charles_Austin]

My point is that since - so far as I know - no one here is tight with the intricacies of Canon Law for Episcopalians, we should refrain from making declarations on whether it is being followed or not.
And I will say again that I do not understand this fascination - a fascination that I think slops over into the area of ghoulishness - with the intricacies of the difficulties faced by our brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church.
We in the ELCA are in full communion with them; and that has established a certain kind of relationship. We should be praying for them, we should be hoping that they find a way through their difficulties that is enabling of the mission of the Church.
We should not be taking sides, making fervent declarations about who is right or wrong, pronouncing "legal" judgments on one segment of that church or another. If someone is ousted from their fellowship, it seems to me that we are honor bound to recognize that action.
We should be doing all we can to further the common mission in the Gospel that our ecumenical agreement proposes.

And someone writes:
Your judgments on the LCMS are legion.

And I respond yet again:
And how many zillion times do I have to swat down this canard? I do not, have never, and will not "judge" the LC-MS. It is, in my opinion a Lutheran church body where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered. I believe it to be wrong on some things, ordination and communion practices, for example. This is not a "judgment," it is a disagreement.
On the other hand the LC-MS, officially and among some (not all) of its members, has declared the ELCA heterodox, heretical and "non-Lutheran." So who is judging?

[Scott5]

And how many zillion times do I have to swat down this canard? I do not, have never, and will not "judge" the LC-MS.

From Charles' personal blog:

"Based on the online discussions here (and a couple of other places) in the last several years, I no longer advocate full fellowship with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
     The theological and pastoral approaches presented have convinced me that what was once a beloved denomination has now gone so far astray that full fellowship, or even the dialogues leading toward it, would damage the ministry of the ELCA, confuse our parishioners and bring additional pain to all those who have been hurt by the errors of that church body.
      I fear that it is only a matter of time before the LC-MS approach destroys or at least seriously damages Lutheran World Relief and Lutheran Disaster Response, the way it virtually destroyed our common campus ministry."

And:

"But I believe that the rest of the nation’s Lutherans should get on with our mission without them, and without spending time and money on dialogue. From what I have experienced here, it would be wasteful and fruitless."

And:

"So I now sadly conclude that to pursue fellowship would be a waste of time and money. It would mean entering a rigid realm of law far too often untempered by Gospel grace. It would mean agreeing that salvation depends upon much more than faith, subscription to the creeds, acknowledging Jesus as Lord and savior and recognizing the Word of God in scripture; but comes from particular, specific and legalistic codifications of all those things."

[Do note this one condemns the doctrine of justification that is operative in the LCMS -- that article by which the church stands or falls; so it is no small, uh, judgment]

And:

"I no longer advocate ELCA fellowship with the LC-MS, nor do I support any efforts to work towards it. It would be too damaging to the broader Gospel mission which I believe must take priority."

If you like this kind of stuff, find it hosted here on ALPB at: http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1157.msg40048#msg40048

[Charles_Austin]

But I still believe that the LC-MS is a Lutheran church in which the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered. I just do not believe that it is a good use of our time to try - at this point in the history of salvation - to establish common ministry with that church body. That is not judgmental, it is simply practical.

And the comments you note are not from my "personal blog," for I have no such thing. They were posted here in the ALPB forum.

If for any reason, folks find my presence here too problematic or my comments intolerable, I shall gladly accept banishment. Surely those here who call themselves "orthodox" might - ever so slightly - understand that those of us you so frequently and gleefully condemn as nasty "revisionists" sometimes think we have to be a bit masochistic to keep hanging out here.