In particular, comes yesterday's piece on the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and its place in the wider Anglican saga of these days. Here is the following quotation:
The drive to divorce the Episcopal Church arose after the election of V. Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire. But the secessionists say the issue is not simply about homosexuality. “Bishop Robinson is a symptom, not the cause of our disagreement with the Episcopal Church,” Mr. Frank said.
The dispute includes complaints that the national church allows open debate on whether Jesus is the Son of God, or that the only way to God is through Jesus — tenets of faith that conservatives find indisputable.
Now, it is indeed true that the 'secessionists' argue that the Episcopal Church is plainly apostate and heretical. And maybe we are - that's for the Lord Jesus to decide. Yet, while some Episcopalians may doubt whether Jesus is the Son of God, we do not as a church debate this. Certainly, we have our share of notably heterodox voices doing a lot of talking in the Episcopal Church - Spong being the poster bishop.
But, there is no debate that I'm aware of about the creedal faith - or in particular about the core proclamation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, who by our definition is one with God.
Jesus is not merely the way to God we affirm, we proclaim that the Father and He are One.
It is worth saying that not only are we rank and file Episcopalians on this same message, but so is Gene Robinson himself.
No, the key issue continues to be whether or not Christians - who call Jesus Lord - can come to new ethical understandings based on the experience-, reason-, prayer- and tradition-informed interpretation of Scripture. That's what this is all about.
That and the weaknesses of human beings in a frail institution rife with baggage, structural difficulties, serious fissures of churchmanship and theology, and a world context bent on radical polarization.
6 comments:
Here's a piece of the article that can be argued with: "If secession is approved, the national church will select a new administration and begin work to retain ownership of church property,..."
I'm a layperson and convention deputy in Pittsburgh from a parish that is staying in TEC. The group "Across The Aisle" is well organized and working hard to ease what looks like a likely transition. While the group has been in contact with the Presiding Bishop's office and with others at '815', the PB is on record saying, "The reconstituting of the diocese in Pittsburgh is being led by the people in Pittsburgh.”
If realignment is approved it will be a very sad day for everyone. But at the end of the day we will have our own 'administration', made up of a very wide variety of theological viewpoints, all choosing to work together.
See www.episcopalpgh.org for current information.
Keep us in your prayers.
Andrew,
You are in my prayers. My grandfather's people were Pittsburgh follk, and I've spent lots of time there. A great city indeed!
Liberal?! The New York Times?! After the way US news outlets behaved between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, I marvel that the myth of "the liberal media" still exists. And the Gray Lady was no exception. with their propping up of the myth that there were WMDs in Iraq.
More directly to your point about religion coverage, I became resigned to the abysmal nature of the US media's treatment of the subject long ago. With respect to Christianity, at least, it seems to start from the assumption that "real Christians" are either literalist, fundamentalist Protestants or slavishly Ultramontanist Roman Catholics. And, oh yeah, there are "liberal Christans" that love the gays and all, but we all know that there's something not quite right about them.
The godless French cover religion with a much greater degree of nuance and accuracy than we do, so I don't see that the Times's failings have anything to do with its imagined liberal bias.
Now Douglas, you have got to stop bringing the French into things.
Thank you for your article. I wrote a letter to the editory of NYT upon reading the paragraph you quote and correcting this egregious error.
A major part of the problem is that the media usually go forthe statements of the dissident or departing, seeking the sensational statement, and seldom get the truth of the matter. Sometimes, moreover, spokespersons for TEC don't do the best job of correcting these falsehoods.
I pray that those reorganizing the diocese will be filled with God's healing grace and the spirit of Pentecostal fire.
The NY Times has printed a correction to the article on October 7, 2008:
“An article on Thursday about a scheduled vote by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh on whether to secede from the national church misstated the process for selecting a new administration for the diocese in the event of secession. Because the diocese did indeed vote to secede on Saturday, the remaining local church members - not the national church - will now choose the administration.”
Post a Comment