Happy to read Giles' conclusions that their 21st century ideological descendants will ultimately fail in their efforts to impose their narrow dogmatism in Pittsburgh -- but let's not discount the collateral damage inflicted by the schsimatics in the meantime.
.
"I believe the new puritans will fail"
by Giles Fraser, Vicar of Putney
This week’s stop (my final one) on my American adventure is Pittsburgh, the belly of the beast. The good people of Calvary Church have been looking after me and sharing their fears.
These are not radicals or revolutionaries, just puzzled suit-and-tie churchgoers doing their best to follow God’s call. What are they to do when their Bishop, the Rt Revd Robert Duncan, wants to lead their whole diocese out of the Episcopal Church because he does not like its theology?
How did Pittsburgh diocese get so bad? The answer has something to do with the establishment of the reactionary Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in the diocese back in 1976. This school saw itself as a bridgehead for ridding the Church of progressive theology. It has been feeding clergy into churches all over south-west Pennsylvania, dramatically changing the complexion of the diocese.
In the world of business, it would be called a hostile takeover. For those who worry about the intentions of Wycliffe Hall, now that it has been claimed in an anti-liberal putsch, there is a lesson here for all those who have ears.
Will Bishop Duncan really lead his diocese out of the Church, taking its property into the bargain? I doubt it. I reckon he might not be around as an Episcopalian bishop too much longer. The Presiding Bishop, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori — whom Bishop Duncan has ordered his clergy not to pray for — has warned him of impending disciplinary action.
“Abandonment of communion” is an offence against the canons of the Episcopal Church. And if a disciplinary process gets him up before the House of Bishops on a charge, they will surely kick him out. They are sick and tired of his behaviour.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu preached about inclusion here at Calvary Church recently. Bishop Duncan squirmed through the sermon with a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp.
All the world’s religions have dangerous and arrogant people who think they are the only ones with the truth. Anglicanism has generally had a more modest and generous view, allowing various viewpoints to co-exist. But these new puritans have taken advantage of Anglican theological hospitality to mount a raid on the soul of the Church. They want to close down the very openness that allowed them space to flourish in the beginning.
They will fail. The only thing that keeps this conspiracy of conservatives together is what they are against. And it will be people from churches such as Calvary that will have to pick up the pieces and put things back together again.
10 comments:
In fairness to both bishops, Tutu is always inclusive and Duncan always looks like that. I recall that someone once defined a puritan as someone who is very upset because, somewhere, someone, might be happy. That actually was quite unfair to the orriginal puritans, but also quite fair today.
FWIW
jimB
It is not the conservatives who are being narrow here. The issue is that certain people have come with the proposition that expressions of homosexuality should be treated with equality with marriage. A relatively small minority live in a way that approximates that, but the vast majority of homosexuals practice an extremely active form of serial monogamy with most of those not even giving lipservice to the monogamy part of that phrase. This is just as true in places where homosexuality is accepted as it is in places where it isn't, and so providing the benefits of marriage has made no difference. Therefore, is it ethical to encourage the harmful behavior of the many for the sake of the very few? LET'S TAKE THE BROADER SOCIAL VIEW OF THIS. - hxupdso
Giles writes, "The only thing that keeps this conspiracy of conservatives together is what they are against."
So sad, yet so true.
Giles said: "The only thing that keeps this conspiracy of conservatives together is what they are against." If it is true that all that unites a breakaway group is the thing it is opposed to rather than its core beliefs, then how did the CoE survive the split from Rome as well as it did for so many centuries.
He also referred to Pittsburgh as "the belly of the beast" Are we to think of his reference to the beast here in terms of Rev 13? Is this man really a Christian to refer to his opponents in such terms? I don't remember Bps Duncan, Iker & co have ever referred to their opponents in the church in such terms.
And then there's this one: "All the world’s religions have dangerous and arrogant people who think they are the only ones with the truth." He couldn't possibly have in mind the leadership of the GBLTP movement and their supporters in ECUSA could he - I'm thinking of their dogmatic assertion that these theological innovations are a movement of the Holy Spirit, that homosexual tendencies are genetic on origin and outside the will of the person to control, that GBLT's must be accepted into all levels of the church or else etc. etc...
Brian ...
GLBT"P"????????? Did I miss a meeting? Where did the "P" come from?
Pardon me if I'm grasping at whatever straw may allow me to be included, but perhaps Brian F means "P" to stand for "Progressive".
I've always been "weird", but being a hetero male, I didn't wanna count solely on that.
Actually, Brian F
dogmatic assertion that.... homosexual tendencies are genetic on origin
There is clearly a genetic component to homosexuality, and also clear that it is an innate trait. You may not LIKE the science, but them's the facts.
Now, I think it would be interesting to study whether reactionary conservatism seasoned with bigotry and heterosexism has a genetic component, or whether it is a learned behaviour, a choice. Or perhaps it is the result of an abusive father? or fear of one's own sexuality? There's a thesis in there for someone.
;-)
Actually anonymous the science could be best described as "not proven". There were early studies that claimed to show either from family histories or genetics that there was a genetic link, but all of these have now been shown to be flawed.
The more recent scientific studies (eg the twin study in Australia and recent genetic studies) have shown at very very best an extremely weak genetic link. Also a number of studies (Lisa Diamond's ones for instance) have convincingly shown that sexual attraction is not immutable (which it would be if it was genetically determined)
If you are going to make science the determining thing then I strongly suggest you update your scientific knowledge.
On the other hand I would argue that science tells us WHAT it is, not whether it is RIGHT, so it is not deterministic in our ethical decision making -- eg science may tell us that someone is a psychopath and cannot control his killing tendencies -- but it doesn't by this fact tell is it is right for that person to kill - please note I have deliberately chosen an example that I am sure you would agree with so that you can see the distinction I am making.
Actually, my scientific props are pretty up to date; I don't think we need to compare whose are more impressive in this venue, but if you like you can call me Professor. ;-)
Agreed, the genetic correlation is not perfect, but then few genetic correlations are, certainly not for complex traits. it's significantly over random, and random is what it would be if there were no genetic component. Saying there is a genetic component is not the same as complete genetic determinism; there are few complex traits that are deterministic in that manner. (Conservatives prefer absolute determinism, not surprisingly).
For some reason, conservatives find it uncomfortable to think that some fraction of people do not fit in their simple binary black/white view. Yet there is some fluidity in our sexual identity for some people, and a fraction of people (regardless of culture or socieity) identify as purely homosexual.
(Why you think anyone would CHOOSE to be gay, I never have understood. Did you CHOOSE to be straight? I sometimes think you conservatives think being gay is only about having sex, which if you had ever heard a lesbian joke you would know is not true ;-)
It's similar to the percentage who are left handed; we stopped calling the lefties "sinister" and forcing them to swtich some years ago, after we figured it really doesn't matter, they aren't possessed, and can live internally consistent ethical lives regardless. Plus making them switch was actively harming them.
Of course, the "natural inclination" model does not make all traits ethical--that's a straw man argument, and you know it. But what you apparently fail to grasp is that people of good will can logically disagree on the ethics of sexuality without disagreeing on the ethics of murder. Just as they do over women voting, inter-racial marriage, or legal divorce.
(IT, who was the :-) anonymous above)
I'm sorry that Rev. Fraser denigrates with a wide brush. It is entirely wrong - but I'm sure that he rests assured that he has "figured out" everybody who makes his straight ways more crooked than his comfort allows.
Post a Comment