Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

Because they are losing money like crazy? Because seminaries and parishes and dioceses are no longer able to support themselves? Surely it is not that simple!

The executive committee of General Theological Seminary‘s board of trustees said April 19 that the school may have to sell some of its property to raise enough money in order to pay its bills after mid-November. …

The April 19 news followed a more general warning about the school’s financial future issued by the entire board after a March 29 meeting when it said it needed cash to service its debt and pay for the 2010-2011 school year. O’Pray told faculty, students and administrative staff that day that the seminary needed between $2 million and $4 million, seminary spokesman Bruce Parker said at the time.

Just one seminary needs another $2-4 million to stay afloat. Yowza. Wonder how many buildings built paid for and formerly occupied by orthodox Anglican parishes need to be sold to keep all these Episcopal seminary professors employed for another year?

For the record no it is not that simple. The Episcopal Church is not doing everything in its power to keep the property of departing parishes and dioceses simply to sell it off and pay the bills. Because if money was the primary motivation then the Episcopal Church is going about it all wrong. Millions spent each year on legal fees suing parishes and dioceses to keep said property? And refusing even to let those departing parishes to buy back the property? Indeed on one occasion selling the parish property to a Muslim group for one third what the Anglican parish would have paid?

The primary motivation has to be something like spite. Because it is costing the Episcopal Church millions of dollars each year to pursue this policy. Although one could argue that they spend millions of dollars to end up with a net gain of tens of millions of dollars. That will keep a fair number of clergy of non-self-sufficient parishes and maybe professors at non-self-sufficient seminaries going for a while.

Disclosure – I serve a small mission parish which is not self-sufficient. The issue is not self-sufficiency. The issue is simply what is the Episcopal Church going to do with all this surplus property it has no use for?

H/T Midwest Conservative Journal

A recent development in the ongoing disintegration of the Episcopal Church prompted me to address something that has been on my mind for a few years.

Quick summary. Problems in the Episcopal Church. Largely disagreements over faith and practice. More traditional Anglicans have been leaving the Episcopal Church. Individuals. Then parishes. Now even a few dioceses.

Here is the problem. The leadership of the Episcopal Church insists that while individuals can leave parishes and dioceses cannot. Which means parishes and dioceses must leave all their money and property behind with the Episcopal Church. Some have tried to keep their money and property. They have been sued. Most of the time they have lost.

Two good websites for description and analysis are Anglican Curmudgeon (focusing on the legal-canonical issues) and Baby Blue Online (focusing on history and testimony).

Now Baptists would never understand this. The money and property belong to the congregation do they not? (Although if a Baptist church splits who keeps what?) According to the leadership of the Episcopal Church the answer is no.

1. Parishes and dioceses hold the property “in trust” for the Episcopal Church (the national body).
2. The Episcopal Church has a “fiduciary responsibility” to hold on to that property even if it means suing people.
3. The Dennis Canon (passed by General Convention some time back although Anglican Curmudgeon asks whether it truly did pass) provides the legal basis and language for #1 and #2.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is technically correct. That technically and legally #1 and #3 are correct. That the money and property of a parish or diocese belongs to the national church.

What that does not really answer is why does this matter to them so much? #1 and #3 do not in my opinion lead to #2. #2 does not really explain the behavior of the Episcopal Church leadership.

Why would anyone want to keep property that a congregation mostly paid for? Why would anyone want to keep money that came from the people of that congregation?

Think about it. Would not most normal people with a sense of decency say “Look we are sorry but the money and property belong to us. But tell you what. We understand that you and those who came before you are the ones who gave the money and paid for the property. So tell you what. We will ask you to buy the property from us at fair market value”.

Does that not sound minimally decent? Heck they still have to pay for their church building all over again. They lose all the money they gave. But they can still stay in that property and continue to worship and serve in the name of Christ our God.

But the Episcopal Church leadership has not even granted that much. “No you cannot buy the property from us at fair market value. In fact when we sell your property to someone else we will stipulate that no one at any point in the future can sell that property to you or anyone else like you”.

Which is truly astonishing when you think about it. I sell you something but tell you that at no point in the future can you or anyone sell it to someone that I specify. Makes one wonder if the other person truly owns what they are buying.

A better writer and thinker would phrase this better but hopefully you get the idea. Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

To quote Johnny Cochran in the famous “South Park” episode 214:

That does not. Make. Sense.

Adherence to the letter of the law does not sufficiently explain what drives the behavior of the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Oh right. Back to the present.

Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York. (Been to Binghamton many times. About one hour south of Ithaca and Cornell University.) One of the few growing and thriving Episcopal parishes in the diocese heck in the state. They left the Diocese of Central New York. They tried to keep their property. They were sued. They lost.

The family was abruptly evicted from the parsonage. The church building was closed. (People who came looking for the soup kitchen hoping for something to eat had to look elsewhere. That is an important point. I will come back to this.)

The Episcopal Church sold the building to Muslims.

Who paid one third what the Church of the Good Shepherd was offering. (There is some question about whether they had the funds to make that offer but that is not the most important issue here.)

To Muslims.

See those traditional Anglicans do not believe in same-sex relations. They do not believe in women in ministry. Oh wait the rector’s wife was associate pastor so guess maybe they do. Anyways. To heck with those intolerant jerks.

Which is why we sell the property to Muslims who do not believe in women in positions of religious leadership and who believe people who engage in same-sex relations should be put to death. Yeah. That makes sense.

Somewhat amusingly a priest in East Aurora defended this in his comments. Wondered why people were so upset that the church building was sold to Muslims. Sounds like prejudice. Sounds like a lack of regard for religious tolerance.

My response:

“Religious tolerance”.

Toward Muslims. Fair enough. I am all for religious tolerance. When Hurricane Katrina came through I headed over to the Islamic center (housing several evacuee families) with a couple Chinese congregants, greeted them in Arabic, asked what they needed, the next day we provided most of what was on their list.

But not toward fellow Anglicans…

Clearly the issue here is not “religious tolerance”.

… Adherence to the letter of the law does not explain this all consuming crusade that overrides all other considerations.

Including religious tolerance. Toward other Christians.

*If selling a property because there are 2 other parishes makes sense [ed - said priest argued that it makes sense to sell the property in a small town like B'hamton because there are 2 other parishes], why not sell another and leave just one? Because B’hamton needs more than one? Well okay. Why not 3? Not seeing the logic there.

What “fiduciary responsibility”?

What I see is pure spite. Some might call it hate.

One hardly knows where to start. General Convention 2009 of the Episcopal Church began on July 7. In her opening remarks the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori had many things to say but this paragraph in particular has attracted attention:

The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly the ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

Heresy. Besides my difficulty in understanding just what she is trying to say I find it remarkable that any Episcopalian at this stage of the game let alone the Presiding Bishop can use that word with a straight face. And all the turmoil in the Anglican Communion and in the Episcopal Church in particular? Apparently that has nothing to do with words and actions and decisions by the Episcopal Church and its leadership. No – it is all the fault of those nasty conservatives who adhere to a pernicious heresy. Thank you Presiding Bishop for clearing that up.

The Presiding Bishop is not entirely wrong. Of course salvation is not solely an individualistic matter. Nor is salvation simply a matter of saying the correct words. But orthodox Anglicans know this. The Presiding Bishop is engaging in sophistic caricature.

Another bishop, who asked not to be named, described Bishop Jefferts Schori’s view of salvation as being difficult to reconcile with the vows taken at baptism and Paul’s statement on confession (Romans 10:8-10).

Professor Christopher Seitz of the Anglican Communion Institute noted that the presiding bishop needed to define her terms. If by the “Western heresy” she meant the individualism of the Enlightenment, the priority of the individual conscience as articulated by Kant, or the need for individual certainty in science and history suggested by Lessing, “these are bedrock foundations of TEC liberalism.”

As a matter of history, there is no individualist heresy, the Rev. Ephraim Radner, professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College in Toronto told The Living Church. Jesus calls individuals “by name” and saves them “one by one,” he said, and a catholic theology cannot deny this.

“Her remarks would suggest simple ad hominem arguments against conservative evangelicals, masking as theological incoherence,” Fr. Radner said.

Read the whole thing at Living church.

Precisely. Professor Seitz recognizes the irony and hypocrisy behind what the Presiding Bishop says. And Ephraim Radner articulates well her underlying intent.

Doctor Mark Thompson offered some of the most trenchant and devastating dissections of what the Presiding Bishop offered:

The Presiding Bishop’s “ignorance of the Bible and Christian theology is nothing short of breathtaking” the Dean of Moore College in Sydney, Dr. Mark Thompson told CEN.

The presiding bishop’s condemnation of the culture of individualism was not misplaced, Dr. Thompson said, but the theological approach she was taking to address the problem was erroneous. “No one was suggesting that Paul ignored the corporate implications of shared salvation,” he observed, but an “unrelenting dichotomy between the individual and the corporate” was a modern phenomenon.

Augustine, Luther, the Protestant Reformers and the Anglican divines all taught that “God’s purposes are deeply relational and hence the very opposite of fragmented, isolationist individualism. Yet they also extend further than simply corporate identity to call on human persons as persons to repent and believe the gospel,” Dr. Thompson said.

For evangelical’s “more serious still” was the presiding bishop’s “caricature” of a confession of faith that she said made salvation dependent “on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus,” Dr. Thompson said.

The confession that “Jesus Christ is Lord” was “certainly a form of words,” but “they are never simply words,” he explained. “They represent a fundamental orientation of life which includes a willingness to have our thinking and behaviour shaped by the One we acknowledge has such a supreme claim upon us,” he noted.

Read the whole thing at Conger. You do not have to register.

This is why I say the Presiding Bishop is partly right – but for all the wrong reasons. She does not appear to understand what she is talking about. And insofar as she does understand it appears she is projecting onto others what is most true about herself and the Episcopal Church. Something about beams and motes.

One of my best friends – who was ordained a deacon and then a priest in the Episcopal Church through this diocese – commented that many of the clergy in this diocese have an “infantile theology”. I am afraid Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori demonstrates this all too well. Bishops are not just theologians – but bishops should be theologians. Something about teaching and defending the faith once delivered to the saints.

John Smyth

Oh dear. There is something just wrong about saying “I am not participating in this particular forum any more” and then responding to comments which recently have appeared on that forum. It is like those celebrities or politicians who “respond” to each other on camera or in print – but never have the courtesy to speak to and with each other if in private.

You understand I am criticizing myself here.

But with so much traffic from there this week – perhaps I need to reply.

1) “Rick Wright is not comfortable with the CBF because he’s clearly uncomfortable being a Baptist”. There may be some truth to that overstatement. I do not have any current plans to convert to any other Christian tradition – although for about one year seriously considered even pursued the possibility. Like most people I strive to understand better the Christian faith. In recent years this has generated an increased concern for “orthodox theology”. Not because correct beliefs are super important in and of themselves. But because they matter in terms of our mission, our worship, our spiritual formation, and our life in communion (ecclesiology). Even in seminary I was much more open to and fond of creeds in Baptist life. I am aware many Baptists would disagree with me strongly on this point.

2) I would suggest however that perhaps I understand being “Baptist” a little differently from some. To me the quintessence of the Baptist vision is – in a word – freedom. But if the heart of being Baptist is freedom – then Baptists are free to embrace “orthodox” theology and practice and even ecclesiology. And yes that means weird “un-Baptist” things like creeds and sacramental theology. I am aware many Baptists would disagree with me strongly on this point. They would probably argue that even if freedom is the heart of being Baptist – that this freedom expresses itself and must express itself in certain concrete patterns of belief and practice. They might be right.

3) But even then – can we look to other Christian traditions for wisdom and insights and even specific ways of practicing the Christian faith? I do not ask others this so much as myself. To what extent can one study Anglicanism or Catholicism or Orthodoxy or Judaism and so on – and learn/borrow/adapt from them – without going ahead and converting?

4) It was concern for (the health and survival of) Anglicanism that led to increased interest in Orthodoxy. I have been haunted by a conversation with a friend who is the only evangelical Episcopal clergy in the diocese in which he said that if the Anglican Communion falls apart that would mean “the Protestant experiment is a failure”. I also have been haunted by something Episcopal Bishop Charles Jenkins said when a close friend was ordained a deacon: “It is the nature of fallen humanity to seek community which pleases”. I wonder if Protestantism is inherently incoherent. By that I mean so much comes down to what you (singular) think and feel. Yes we speak of biblical authority and the lordship of Jesus Christ – but how we understand and interpret and apply these is still largely a matter of personal feeling and opinion. No wonder then if Protestantism (by nature?) fragments. I could be wrong about this – just sharing thoughts and impressions.

5) Which is why I have been wondering if Orthodoxy offers solutions to many of these problems that seem to plague Protestant Christianity. My “orthodox” Anglican clergy friends agree strongly. I can understand if Baptist friends do not. Maybe I should just convert. I do not know that and am not planning on it.

6) So yes – there are times I would like to see more “orthodox theology” in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Although one can understand if people are uncomfortable with that given the excesses they experienced in the Southern Baptist Convention. And I am indeed impatient with the whole “more Baptist than you are” debate – which one hears from Southern Baptist and moderate Baptists alike. I acknowledge this attitude may reflect a lack of appreciation for “Baptist battles” and those who experienced them. My seminary professor Cecil Sherman would probably give me a compassionate pastoral scolding. But I do believe “we should be more concerned with being Christian than with being Baptist”.

7) To make a short answer long – I think both our excellent friend in Texas and in Kentucky are largely correct. Even if it looks like they are disagreeing. But then that is how I handle a whole bunch of issues – that the answer is not either/or but more both/and.

Enter Metropolitan Jonah and his presentation before the Anglican Communion of North America 2009 on June 26 – just three days ago.

H/T Fr Cantrell at Apostolicity.

Frankly I have not paid much attention to this because I do not care an whole lot.

The Rev. Alberto Cutié, the celebrity priest removed from his Miami Beach church after photos of him kissing and embracing a woman appeared in the pages of a Spanish-language magazine earlier this month, has left the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami to join the Episcopal church and announced that he will marry the woman he has dated for two years.

Read the whole thing at Miam Herald. You do not have to register.

You may not have followed this closely but perhaps you heard about this. The paragraph above is remarkably well written – good journalism if nothing else – because in just a couple sentences you get the picture. (I taught writing to university students for about a year. I try to recognize and acknowledge when people write well.) Catholic priest has relationship with woman. Comes to public light. Catholic priest leaves Catholic church – or does he? therein lies a rub – and joins Episcopal Church.

I have no interest in criticizing or judging Father Alberto Cutie. Really. Yeah he broke his vows. Yeah he should not have been doing that while a Catholic priest. But celibacy has got to be tough. Especially when you meet a woman you really like. Should he have left the Catholic church before pursuing this relationship? Yeah probably. But think about the practicality of that. (Counterargument below – he may have made his vows of celibacy while in this relationship. But set that aside for a moment.) If you want to leave the Catholic church in order to pursue a relationship with a woman…

Think about it. How can you even consider leaving (the “honorable” thing to do) before you have already started down that road? And are you really going to leave all that behind when you have been “dating”? One cannot terribly blame a fellow for pursuing that relationship to some extent before saying “oh man – I cannot keep doing this and remain a Catholic priest”.

Anyways. That is not what this post is about.

This post is about the Episcopal Church. And how Episcopal bishop Leo Frade of Southeast Florida has handled the matter.

“Well. What a great opportunity to kick the Catholic Church in the nuts”.

There is a certain diseased cynicism in immediately and publicly saying “Well – we would love to have this guy come join the Episcopal church. Our church allows clergy to get some”. Rank self-serving opportunism.

One wise parish priest in Baton Rouge summarized the problem in the Episcopal Church this way. “They have turned pastoral theology into dogma”.

But one wonders if this is even pastoral theology. Certainly not very pastoral toward the Catholic church or those whom Father Curie served. The reporter nails it with more good journalism:

At a press conference late Thursday afternoon, Archdiocese of Miami officials expressed disappointment in Cutié and had strong words for the Episcopal Church, especially Bishop Frade.

”This is truly a setback for ecunemical relations and cooperation between us. The Archdiocese have never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination,” said Archbishop John Favalora. He said he had not heard from Frade about the transition and had not spoken to Cutié since May 5, adding that Cutié never told the archbishop he wanted to get married.

Great quote. “We don’t made a big public display when your guys join us. But when one of us joins you… you rub our faces in it”. Favalora is a real Christian bishop who refrains from calling Bishop Frade… a jerk.

But one more point. And I posted this over at Midwest Conservative Journal (which I no longer visit much – just interested in other issues right now):

The uproar (among a vocal few) about President-elect Obama asking Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration has been illuminating. On the one hand conservatives who complain that Warren is somehow “endorsing” what they view as Obama’s more repugnant policies need to chill. (Although note Cal Thomas’ warning that Warren might do well to follow the example of Nathan the prophet – not because of Obama but because of the problems of being too friendly with any government.) On the other hand liberals who demonize Warren because of his opposition to (a) abortion rights and (b) same-sex marriage have perhaps revealed too much of themselves to the rest of the nation.

“Goodness gracious – I thought you guys were like you know liberal and tolerant and inclusive and all that. This is how you treat someone who practices a great deal of what you talk about – and more than you do quite frankly – but does not line up with you on a couple key moral-social issues?”

Amidst the brouhaha is an astonishing comment by Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire whose consecration in 2003 catalyzed the crisis-already-in-progress within the Anglican Communion:

“I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” Bishop Robinson said, “but we’re not talking about a discussion, we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”

(From article at New York Times. You do not have to register.)

The part of what Robinson says that is so shocking is this part:

The God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.

Whoa.

The whole issue of “do those people (in that different religion over there) believe in the same God we do?” has generated much discussion the last several years particularly with regard to Islam. Even President Bush (although I cannot confirm this years after the fact with a specific citation) tried to forestall violence toward American Muslims by claiming “we all pray to the same God”.

Do we?

The problem of course is it all depends on what you mean by “same”. I addressed this at length in a post at Baptistlife.com:

There has been some debate/discussion on this board concerning “is Allah the same as God?” (Also expressed exactly as the article does. “Do Muslims pray to/worship the same God (as Christians)?” Some even replied that Jewish people do not – because of the Trinity.

I have always thought this a tough question if only because… well… what does it mean exactly? The “same God“? Haruo and Hal point out correctly that one can find texts which seem to indicate some overlap between what “others” worship and the one true God who has revealed himself and acted most decisively through his son Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul in Athens. “What you worship as unknown…” The quote from James. And also in Acts – God shows no partiality but accepts everyone who…

Hal’s question – are there actually other Gods that can be worshiped? I think the Hebrew and Christian scriptures for the most part would say, “Well yeah. Duh!” There are places where other gods are other deities (real – but they s@ck compared to Yhwh) or “mere idols” (and therefore theoretically… not real – but they are worshiped as gods). I believe there is tension within Scripture on this, although the “only God is even real” seems to be the dominant position (hence Genesis 1 and exilic/post-exilic theology).

When people answer the “do Muslims worship same God?” question with reference to language – that is where they truly mess up. Linguistically Allah is not more a “different God” than is Dios in Spanish. My Arabic Bible quite plainly translates elohim (meaning Yhwh) or theos (meaning the one God who created heavens and earth) as allah(u). Just because Muslims call God “Allah” absolutely does not mean a different (not-same) God. So some critics of Islam need to be careful there. I think most people on this forum have that figured out.

But when we are careful, we might ask, “The same concept of God? same understanding? conceptualization? story of God?” Latter Day Saints use almost the exact same language. Even to Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But the theology is radically different. The “same“? The Islamic concept of God is also different. (Not sure I am prepared to say “radically”.)

How about “the same in terms of a religious idea and its development?” Then one could argue they are indeed the same. Muhammad was trying(?) to follow in the “Abrahamic (Ibrahimic) tradition”. He saw Allah/God as a continuation(?) of Yhwh in the Tawra(tu) and the Injil(u) (Torah and Gospel). He saw himself as a prophet of the same deity/God as that of Moses and Jesus. And if one is talking “history of religion”, yeah probably the same. ….

How about “the same ontologically”? Whether Muslims understand/conceptualize/describe God “correctly” or not – is this the same deity (in terms of the being-that-is-there-getting-worshiped)? I ain’t much of a philosopher (got A’s but hardly remember anything) and would not know how to answer the question. I’m not quite sure I can agree with Jim that Muhammad “fashioned, created, constructed” Allah. I believe Muhammad had a real experience with a real, powerful, spiritual being/force. (Read any biography of the prophet – such as ibn Tabari – and how Muhammad experiences God and/or Jibrail/Gabriel. I don’t think he’s imagining anything.) Just not the same, uh, being that we normally call “God“. (And no I will not elaborate.) I suppose I would agree with Jim if we mean Muhammad mistakenly called this being “Allah (God)”. And especially on the issue of Muhammad borrowing from the Bible (one has to qualify that – he had no Arabic translation, only Syriac, and clearly was borrowing from jumbled second hand oral retellings as well as from non-canonical “pseudo-Christian” writings.)

But the question also leads to “the same in terms of intent?” Ah. Perhaps.

And how about “the same in terms of God‘s point of view?” Does the God who became human in Jesus Christ (the second person of the Trinity to be more precise) accept worship of Allah/God (that is, Muslim worship) as if it is to himself? Christians of good will debate this. I think Scripture actually seems to answer sometimes yes, sometimes no. (I believe there are “tensions” within Scripture. The challenge is what to do with them.)

How about “phenomenologically the same?” The experience of God? The intent to worship the same God (again – whether correct or not, accepted or not)? This is where I tend to be a bit more “liberal”. I would say “Mormonism is not a true Christian religion”. But what if a Mormon sincerely believes in (even a deeply flawed understanding of) Jesus as Lord and Savior? Perhaps the Mormon is subjectively a “Christian”. I still think their theology is whacked. But do I really know what the heck is going on in the deep places of the heart between that person and Christ? Can one be a follower of Christ with a screwed up theology (Christian or Mormon or…)? Subjectively, I mean.

All of which is a long, messy post intended to argue that the question “the same God or not?” is almost unanswerable unless one is careful to specify “the same in terms of what? theology? linguistics/name? experience? ontology? phenomenology? history of religions? how God accepts or not the worshiper? and so on”. Even then – I hardly know how to answer sometimes.

(Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.)

Okay – time to put all this together.

The point is that those of a more “liberal-tolerant-inclusive” presentation often tell us “golly gee whiz we are all God’s children and pray to the same God”. They do this in order to emphasize unity for the sake of getting along peacefully. We should not fight because gosh we are all kinda the same. And conservatives get frowns when they talk about real differences between religions or even real differences within a religion. “We shouldn’t talk about our differences. We should just talk about what we have in common”. (For the record – I believe that is complete and utter rubbish and in fact shows less true respect for othe religions. We can and should talk frankly about our differences as well as our similarities. Otherwise what kind of friendship is that?)

Meanwhile – Anglicanism. And the conflicts within the Episcopal Church.

The leadership of the Episcopal Church tries to emphasize same-ness. Why? So that conservative Anglicans will not leave along with their money and buildings and relatively high attendance. Critics of the Episcopal Church (or more precisely its current leadership and dominant direction) maintain we functionally have two religions which is why we need to separate.

So… in light of all this… in light of:

• the liberal tendency to emphasize commonality and same-ness
• and the Episcopal tendency to minimize theological differences that might generate conflict and departure

It is remarkable and astonishing that Bishop Gene Robinson of all people should state “the God he prays to is not the God I know”. As if there really can be such a thing as “not the same God” or at the very least “functionally not the same religion that I follow”. (And think about the implications. That Robinson prays to the “true” God while Rick Warren does not. Fair enough I suppose.)

Robinson has backed into a powerful truth. (Although – see the long post above – one has to be careful here.) And has accidentally endorsed what more orthodox/conservative Anglicans have been saying for years.

We do not believe in the “same” God. (I do not necessarily mean ontologically.)

So why on earth should we remain in the same church together – hmm?

There is plenty with which to find fault in what Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori had to say to the National Press Club on December 16. Baby Blue characterizes it as:

… an amazingly sophomoric speech (which she lectures the press to be nicer and stop writing about schism and sex).

But what deserves particular emphasis amidst the usual drivel is a good old fashioned outright lie.

Concerning the Episcopal Church’s various lawsuits against dioceses, parishes, and even individual parishioners the Presiding Bishop asks us to believe:

We tried for a very long time to negotiate and came to a place where there was no willingness to negotiate so at that point you ask the courts to enforce the laws of the land.

If you ever are tempted to wonder if these are basically good honest people who are sincere in their “error” do keep such statements like this in mind. The Presiding Bishop is lying.

The Diocese of Virginia was all set to work out a settlement with parishes leaving the Episcopal Church – and then 815 (which is shorthand for the leadership of the national church including especially the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor David Booth-Beers) stepped in and told Bishop Lee to change course and sue the dickens out of these people.

William Witt – who has a doctorate in systematic theology and according to my sources has finally gotten an opportunity to teach at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry – was challenged by Toedt on TitusOneNine and decided to compose a more thorough response.

(The specific issue at hand is whether Luke-Acts assumes a “low” or more specifically adoptionist Christology. That is Jesus was a regular human being who was elevated at his resurrection.)

What I appreciate about Witt’s reply is not only that he so resoundingly refutes Doedt’s weak argumentation but that he does so by using critical biblical scholarship:

One of the causes for frustration in the current discussions between the orthodox and revisionists in the mainline churches these days (especially on the blogs) is that so often the debates are between an uncritical orthodoxy and an uncritical revisionism. Many of the orthodox seem under the impression that critical biblical scholarship is essentially unchristian, and always leads (or will inevitably lead) to heresy. Many revisionists endorse a kind of popularist uninformed version of biblical scholarship that amounts to little more than a philosophical prejudice that “miracles don’t happen” combined with a search for “gotcha” difficulties. In my opinion, both of these approaches represent a kind of naïve epistemological fundamentalism that has its roots in the Enlightenment, specifically in the Cartesian methodology of doubt and a “foundationalist” or “methodist” rationalism. (Perhaps more on this later some other time.) A single difficulty is thought to uproot the entire faith, so “conservatives” launch an all out attack against any recognition of genuine diversity or plurality or development in the Scriptures as attacks on Christian faith, while the revisionists regard such diversity, development, or pluralism, as definitive arguments against orthodoxy.

Read the whole thing here. In fact save it for future Bible studies on Luke-Acts and/or on christologies of the New Testament. (By the way notice who the first comment is from. Does that name ring a bell?)

This is partly why I composed the post on why “The Presiding Bishop is not entirely wrong about everything”. Religious conservatives sometimes go too far and reject the baby (critical scholarship) along with the bathwater (such scholarship used badly to advance theological revisionism/liberalism). For years I have been a strong advocate for the idea that the Bible contains more than one point of view on many theological issues – and yet these multiple views co-exist in a kind of semi-coherent tension (apologies to John Barton). Conservatives want everything to be a little too neat and clean. Liberals think the slightest hint of diversity means everything is up for grabs. (How is that for a little gross overgeneralization?)

In any case this is how Dr Witt lands the plane:

Luke is making the same point in Acts, and in his account the apostles’ sermons are summaries of this. It is not that Jesus was an ordinary human being, who received a celestial promotion after the resurrection; rather, from the beginning Jesus was the Lord (kyrios), the Son of God–and Luke lets his reader know this from the beginning of his gospel. However, Jesus’ Lordship and Deity were hidden in humility until the resurrection–he is the Lord who waits at tables. It is only after his resurrection, that Jesus is exalted to the right hand and his identity as “Lord of all” (panton kyrios) is finally recognized and proclaimed by his followers.

Thank you not only for a fine response to Toedt but for such a model of careful scholarship that represents well “critical orthodoxy”.