During his visit to the U.S., Pope Benedict XVI addressed obstacles to Christian unity at an ecumenical gathering. Without naming the Episcopal church, the pope seemed to be addressing them and other mainlines that act in the name of being “prophetic” at the expense of classical biblical and historical Christianity. The pope worries, as do many conservatives in the mainlines, that some Christian leaders are embracing the same type of relativism popular in secular culture. Over at Kendall Harmon’s blog, there is discussion about the pope’s address. However, some have suggested Benedict was actually addressing innovators in the Catholic Church that employ similar reasoning as progressives in the mainlines; his words are appropriate for both.
I think the pope is right-on here. The mainline pursuit of a certain interpretation of “social justice” is straining ecumenical relationships. When I was in graduate school, many students and professors strongly advocated changing classical Christian positions on various moral and social issues, and disobeying current canons and rules if necessary. I found that the driving force behind this change was a trendy and militant concept of “justice” and “being prophetic.” This drive for change was so strong, that it didn’t matter who or what was trampled along the way: canons, Scripture, Tradition, ecumenism, church members, etc. Two examples of this attitude stand out in my head. The first was a future Episcopal minister who said she didn’t care what the Bible or Tradition said about same-sex unions; for her, it was a “justice issue,” and that settled it. The second was when I let a professor know that I was concerned about the effects the consecration of Gene Robinson would have on ecumenism. “What about Rome?” I asked (at a time when I was not considering joining the Catholic Church). He said, “who cares what Rome thinks!” “Why does everybody always ask what ‘Rome’ thinks?” There you have it: being prophetic trumps ecumenism, biblical teaching, and just about anything else. The Episcopal church (and, to a lesser extent, other mainlines) is pursuing its modern vision of “justice” at the expense of ecumenism and, if statistics are any indication, members.
Now, let me say, the mainlines have every right to do this, and pursue ecumenism in their own way (as the Catholic Church does). However, Catholic , Orthodox, and evangelical leaders are not fooled: many mainlines are pursuing a revisionist agenda (“revisionist” in the sense of rethinking classical Christian doctrines and morality), and they can’t claim to be theologically orthodox and morally traditional when their actual policies and actions show otherwise. A vague concept of “resurrection” is not a substantial point of unity; sharing belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is. If the mainlines want closer ecumenical relations with Rome, Constantinople, and even evangelicals, then they are going to have to rethink recent deviations from Scripture and Tradition in the name of being prophetic; if they don’t want it, that is fine, but neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism is going to betray Scripture and Tradition for the sake of being “relevant” in 2008.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
Dave Hartline
April 21, 2008 at 8:49 pm |
David,
I have had the fortune of being born Catholic, though I didn’t appreciate it later in life.
With that said, I believe the Pope was directly speaking to the Cardinal Mahony’s and the Fr. McBrien’s of America. I also believe he was also speaking indirectly to our seperated brothers and sisters that they may be harming their efforts in their persuit of Christian unity.
Tito
April 21, 2008 at 10:30 pm |
Nothing to say since you said it all! :-)
April 22, 2008 at 10:52 am |
As previous ecumencial dialogue has shown us, even in differences, we sometimes are taught something by other Christian communions. The election of Bishop Robinson presented certain challenges for ecumencial dialgoue. By why? Certainly he was not the first active homosexual (even widely know active homosexual, or known to his consecrators) Catholic or Episcopal bishop. Nor when the Episcopal Church ordained a divorced and re-married man was there the amount of discussion as is the case with Bishop Robinson. Are these matters we should reflect on? If a society allows an adulterous, divorced and re-married man to obtain even the highest positions without any social penalty yet homosexuals are victims of violence and ecomonic sanctions, are we not witnessing our Catholic beliefs against divorce and adultery or are our views on homosexuality, while valid and true, also presented in a way that contributes to a debatable social response?
April 22, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
Can you clarify the debateable social response, Sister Katherine?
April 23, 2008 at 8:37 am |
Katherine,
I agree that singling out Robinson is not consistent. However, since I became Episcopalian in 2000, and was born after many changes in the Episcopal church took place, Robinson was the “issue of the day” for me. The consecration of Gene Robinson did show me that the Episcopal church was not the church I thought it was, and it made me consider past innovations like you mention (there are even divorced and remarried clergy among “conservative” Anglicans, which 30 years ago, would have made them liberals). Nonetheless, I think Robinson’s consecration is noteworthy because it showed *official, sanctioned support* for practicing homosexual bishops, whereas before it was allowed “under the table.” People knowing that so-and-so is in a same-sex relationship is different than electing a person in that relationship and officially approving it. Gene Robinson always says something to the effect of “there have always been gay bishops; at least I am honest about it.” Well, we might as well say, “There have always been crooked politicians, so at least Nixon is honest about it” (that is for those of us who consider same-sex sex a sin; Obviously Robinson would not agree).
This being said, I think that some conservative Anglicans do seem to be singling out gays, because many accept divorced and remarried clergy, and women priests, which just a few generations ago would have made them the revisionists.
April 23, 2008 at 10:55 am |
Mr. Bennett:
“…there are even divorced and remarried clergy among “conservative” Anglicans, which 30 years ago, would have made them liberals… This being said, I think that some conservative Anglicans do seem to be singling out gays, because many accept divorced and remarried clergy, and women priests, which just a few generations ago would have made them the revisionists.”
Great point.
This was one of the things I picked out of a book that was instrumental in my path to Rome (and for a fleeting moment, almost to Constinople) titled Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity by Dave Shiflett.
Paraphrasing, the “liberal” of today is the “stick in the mud” of tommorow; each time taking the faith another degree of separation away from where it started. To those interviewed (former mainline Protestants who have moved on to Orthodox/Evangelical/Catholic folds), that the election of V.Gene Robinson, was not in itself the pivotal point, but more like the last straw in a long line of perrenial deviations from the faith of their Fathers. IMHO, I think the fact that Shelby Spong can retire with a pension from TEC, and not run out of town on a rail tarred and feathered (metaphorically, I am not condoning violence) is a much greater travesty than V. Gene Robinson’s election. But that election could not have happened without the parade of “innovations” that precluded it.
Two metaphors/analogies come to mind regarding this (1) there’san old saying, that in the jungle, it’s not the elephants that will kill you; it’s the mosquitoes (i.e., not one big thing, but lots of little things that will do you in); (2) the old addage of putting the frog in hot water, they’ll jump out; put the frog in cold water and slowly raise the temperature, and you’ll eventually have a boiled frog.
April 23, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
PMG you are dead on.
If anything, the TEC ideologues (maybe) got a little impatient and pressed ahead about ten years too soon… Waiting in the wings for decades have been homosexual clergy persons and student housing at some of the seminaries included established or de facto homosexual student housing… As the number of Episcopalians have been shrinking, bishops of certain ideologies have been quietly stacking the clergy with folks who are pro-homosexual… The representation is, I suspect, far disproportionate. Fewer faithful to serve, more and more and more clergy and bishops to serve them. How does that make sense?
Like “sleeper cells” these folks who were rostered clergy often times were merely attached to parishes – not serving as pastors. But with the laying on of hands and the issuing of the clerical “dog collars” (no slur there – I used to wear them in seminary!) these folks could, at later dates, be counted on to deliver the votes in favor of their bishops ideologies…
In the mean time they don’t pastor and either hang out at the seminary or have a “day job”… These “sleeper cell” clergy are – if you were to look at a map – largely clustered in metropolitan areas.
Ironically, while on paper the TEC (and ELCA) are in no way “hurting for clergy”, staffing parishes in small towns, inner cities, rural areas have been difficult for both leading some (like myself) to pragmatically believe the 2002 “Intercommunion agreement” (“Called to Common Mission”) was a way to take care of the small congregations in each… even though (again, on paper) it appears that there should be more than enough clergy to go ’round.
Another ten years and levels of attrition could have been achieved to the point where such a consecration was not as controversial… (when the numbers decline and the small parishes close, only the ideologues are left standing)…
But perhaps doing it when they did was a way to insure the “headline hogging” we have seen which is good free press in getting the word out (capitalizing on essentially free advertising) that TEC is now on the process to becoming a “affirming church” that will (in all likely hood) become the church of choice for dissident ex-Catholics and homosexuals as the years progress.
In the last ten years we have seen a slow but certain acceleration in inter-denominational dependence that will acually – I believe – begin to radically accelorate in the next ten years where the TEC, ELCA, and UMC (among others) are going to be doing a lot of institutional sharing, merging, and in the end, become fairly interchangeable.
April 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
asimplesinner :
…”I believe – begin to radically accelorate in the next ten years where the TEC, ELCA, and UMC (among others) are going to be doing a lot of institutional sharing, merging, and in the end, become fairly interchangeable.”
I have already seen this. In Northboro, Massachusetts there is a United Church of Christ/American Baptist church. I had to do a double take. I said to myself, that is almost impossible theologically. One believes in infant baptisim, one believes in adult baptisims, for one glaring example. But, there it is…
The only thing that that I do know they have as a complimentary theological doctrine is the rainbow flag, and the code word “open and affirming” on the reader board out front. And I guess that’s all that is needed, as the other stuff seems not to be important anymore apparantly.
April 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
Ah PMG, how silly of you!
“One believes in infant baptisim, one believes in adult baptisims, for one glaring example. But, there it is…”
Understand that is a source of theological speculation akin to “how many angels on the head of a pin?”… If there are never any infants or other new members to baptize… Well, is it an issue that will be that devisive?
It is rather like arguing over what should be on the wine list at a soup kitchen…
April 23, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
Katherine –
The differnce between Robinson and say for example the infamous Weakland is that Weakland kept his homosexuality and gay affair a secret, well at least he tried, so Rome thought they picked a alright guy. Robinson on the other hand lives in an openly sexual relationship with another male and the PECUSA had no problem with him being made a bishop. If Rome knew Weakland was an active gay (or just gay for that matter) then they never would of picked him to be a bishop. It is the principle of active homosexuals or individuals strongly inclined to homosexuality should not be bishops (or members of the priesthood) that is important.
April 23, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
PGM, Simple Sinner – it actually has already happened in France. The French Lutheran church and the Huguenot church merged a year or two ago. Which theologically is of course impossible. Heck it happened in Germany too a long time ago.
April 23, 2008 at 6:09 pm |
“PGM, Simple Sinner – it actually has already happened in France. The French Lutheran church and the Huguenot church merged a year or two ago. Which theologically is of course impossible. Heck it happened in Germany too a long time ago.”
I vaguely recall reading that the German mergers actually happened decades ago into general “state Evangelical Churches”… but my German is too rusty to read about it anymore. Any info on that? I know the Nazi regime consolidated all the state (Lutheran) evangelischen Landeskirchen churches into the Deutsche Evangelische Kirche in 1933 with a view of controlling them via a single Reichsbischof… Moves had been made already in 1922 for a united North German Church between the Lutherans and Reformed… After 1945, what had been put in place largely remained…
In the modern instances I think – again David’s “prophetic” comes into play – a “prophetic” triumph of unity over doctrine is taking place. Minority parties in the TEC and ELCA respectively were displeased by the intercommunion agreement of 2002. The ELCA disaffected were displeased about taking on “apostolic succession” via cross-consecration and the lack of a confessional statement from PECUSA. The PECUSA disaffected parties were a bit miffed that Lutheran minsters not in “apostolic succession” (as they believe they have) were essentially “grandfathered in”… In the end, neither disaffected minority party succeeded in stopping it – I believe the Lutherans forestalled it once, and then when it came up for a vote again, the merger won the day.
In both instances, having successful debates and dialogues about what was to be believed took a backburner to “unity”… Frankly I think the “mainline modern” parties in both saw ways to get common cause… PECUSA clergy will be useful allies in the pro-homosexualization of the ELCA which has already begun, but is still about 5-10 years behind PECUSA… (ELCA congregations have been leaving at a faster and faster pace each year… Without the Episcopal Church™ prestige, they don’t get the headlines… Given the fact most parishes are likely congregationally owned, I have not read of lawsuits… it is easier to leave…)
I am fairly confident that what is left of the failing mainlines will be – even if not in name – a functionally united denomination in the next few decades, sharing facilities, institutions and training. Episcopalian endowments could perhaps be a source of disparity…
April 24, 2008 at 10:15 am |
If a society allows an adulterous, divorced and re-married man to obtain even the highest positions without any social penalty yet homosexuals are victims of violence and economic sanctions, are we not witnessing our Catholic beliefs against divorce and adultery or are our views on homosexuality, while valid and true, also presented in a way that contributes to a debatable social response?
asimplesinner Says:
April 22, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Can you clarify the debateable social response, Sister Katherine?
The various ways society or some segments of society have or do treat gay people differently than divorced and re-married persons. Physical violence, economic penalties, criminal sanctions, contractual options, exclusion from positions of high public trust, banning from military service, etc.
April 24, 2008 at 10:24 am |
Zan/Simple Sinner,
I was struck by yesterday’s Gospel reading at Mass, as it relates to this topic:
I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower. He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and everyone that does he prunes so that it bears more fruit. You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you.
Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. By this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.
The Mainlines are withering, that’s for sure. And I think this Gospel reading tells why, IMHO…