The American Episcopalian Church held its General Convention in Indianapolis this week, and it was apparently quite a show. Back in 1970, when the population of this country was considerably smaller, there were three million Episcopalians in our midst. Today, there are only one million. But one thousand of them gathered this year for the debates that took place in its House of Deputies and its House of Bishops.

In the evenings, Jay Akasie reports, they behaved in accord with the stereotype:

General Convention is also notable for its sheer ostentation and carnival atmosphere. For seven straight nights, lavish cocktail parties spilled into pricey steakhouses, where bishops could use their diocesan funds to order bottles of the finest wines.

During the day, he adds, the legislators in the two chambers gathered to discuss

such weighty topics as whether to develop funeral rites for dogs and cats, and whether to ratify resolutions condemning genetically modified foods. Both were approved by a vote, along with a resolution to "dismantle the effects of the doctrine of discovery," in effect an apology to Native Americans for exposing them to Christianity.

I wish that I were making this up, but I am not doing so -- and it looks as if things are going to get worse, for the Episcopalians are on the verge of formalizing what Akasie calls "the reality that many Episcopalians already know: a church in the grip of executive committees under the direct supervision of the church's secretive and authoritarian presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Shori, [which] now set the agenda and decide well in advance what kind of legislation comes before the two houses." I am not myself a republican in ecclesiastical affairs, but it looks as if what Lenin once called "democratic centralism" is going to become the order of the day.

A number of dioceses have withdrawn and are being sued so that Bishop Shori can take control of their assets. The entire delegation from the diocese of South Carolina walked out of the General Convention on Wednesday, which suggests that the South Carolinians will also soon withdraw.

What comes next? Is the Episcopalian church still a Christian church? If so, will it be one in ten years? Can it be saved from itself? Or is it too far gone to be saved?

I have long thought that the Catholic church should establish an Anglican rite. With a tweak or two, the Book of Common Prayer would work rather well. And the music, oh my God, the music? In my days at Oxford -- as a student and, much later, as a visiting fellow at All Souls -- I frequently attended evensong, and nearly always I found it moving.

Comments:


James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Pseudodionysius:I have long thought that the Catholic church should establish an Anglican rite. 

Ahem. · 6 hours ago

One of the proudest moments of my life was listening to my wife, who was pretty involved with Ordinariate/ Forward In Faith politics, explaining some of the intricacies to Bill McGurn. If y'all have any questions about it, I'd be happy to pass them on; I don't often have the excuse to grill her (she's more of a listener than a talker by choice), and she's always interesting on the subject (to me, at least).

Douglas
Joined
Mar '11
Douglas
Jim Flenniken:  I was left feeling like I had been in a political pep rally. I long ago came to the conclusion that the Episcopal Church was a political party and not a faith… · 56 minutes ago

And this is where I directly compare such "mainline" churches with the UU's. Have you ever looked in your Sunday paper in the church listings, and seen the sermon topic for your local UU fellowship? In my area, every time I've seen their Sunday listing, the "sermon" topic is always something political or environmental. In years of seeing them, I don't recall a single instance where there was an outright religious sermon, let alone a Christian one. Never have I seen them list messages like "saving souls" or "grace" or "The Power of God". I"m not sure I've even seen "God" in any of their sermon titles. It appears to be more of a Democratic Party club with a churchy building than an actual church. If you're not actually worshiping God... why is it even a called a church? At least the mainliners haven't gone that far, but they're surely headed in that direction.

M1919A4
Joined
Nov '10
M1919A4

Overdraught: Just for the record, it's the American EPISCOPAL Church. It's members are Episcopalians.

That said, much of the criticism of our church is warranted. We are slowly withdrawing to our diocese and parish for spiritual leadership. The local parish will probably be our last stronghold! · 5 hours ago

My situation exactly.  When the push from the national or local bishop comes to shove, I will resist so long as it is possible and then depart, in great sadness, for the Church has been an integral part of my life. 

Jude:  Mr. Rahe, 

As to the cheap shot from the WSJ article you quoted, I wonder why it didn't say that the Bishops could have used their diocesan funds to buy cocaine too? He offered just as much evidence for that as he did that they spent their church funds on the most expensive wines. Really? I expected more from you. · 2 hours ago

What makes the article a "cheap shot", Jude, and what evidence do YOU have that the assertion is untrue?  Did you attend the conference?

Your spurious argument about cocaine must have a name; surely our brother Berkat Kelisle has a name for it.

Douglas
Joined
Mar '11
Douglas
Jim Flenniken: Years ago I moved my family from Charlotte, North Carolina to Suwanee, Ga. In need of a local church, and having been raised as an Episcopalian, I went to a Sunday service at the local Episcopalian church and attended the adult Sunday school class. In the course of an hour at Sunday school we discussed racism (it’s bad), gun control (it’s good), segregation (it’s bad), racism (it was still bad), the KKK (they aren’t nice) and prejudice (it’s bad). All of this in the scope of 1 hour without one reference to scripture or Christian teaching based on the Episcopalian faith. While I might agree with the assertions presented I would have rather had something of a more spiritual nature being taught. I was left feeling like I had been in a political pep rally. I long ago came to the conclusion that the Episcopal Church was a political party and not a faith… · 1 hour ago

BTW, have you looked at any of the breakaway Episcopal churches that are aligning themselves with the traditional Anglican movement? Are there any in your area?


Joined
Jun '11
michael kelley

This won't win me a popularity contest (few of my opinions ever do) but a few years ago, I went through several of Bishop Spong's books and was and am to this day wildly challenged by his research, scholarship and perception.

He flies in the face of those who insist upon a "literal" interpretation of Scripture.  He drags us back to a point in time when "literal" documents were not the norm, when the mythos of existence and the stories told made human lives more noble and more legible.

Before I run over the Episcopalians and leave tire tracks on their champagne and caviar conventions, I gotta get by the work of Bishop Spong.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

He flies in the face of those who insist upon a "literal" interpretation of Scripture. 

I believe Spong - a sort of warmed over syncretist soup of Tillich and Eckhard Tolle -- also flies in the face of those who believe in God since he now considers himself an atheist, which certainly saves money on missionary work to the pagans.

Please stand for the creed. Oh, wait.

Umbra Fractus
Joined
Nov '10
Umbra Fractus
Donald Todd: She was moved to continue and he was moved to direct her to the local Assemblies of God (which is where I met her) , and he did tell her that she was no longer welcome at that Baptist Church.  She is apostate to the Baptist position.  That is not an act of hubris (pride), that is an act of definition being played out.  If Baptists believe that God brought tongues to an end, to Whom should they give their obedience?  They obeyed God as best they knew.

An apostate to the Baptist church; not to the Christian faith writ large. No one, presumably not even the Baptists, doubts her devotion to Christ. Personally, I think the "speaking in tongues" charismatics do is a gross misreading of what the Bible actually meant by that phrase*, but I don't doubt your friend's  Christianity.

You can say they disagree with and/or are not welcome in your church, but nothing short of denying Christ's divinity should be grounds for declaring anyone, let alone a whole denomination, "no longer Christian."

*I believe "speaking in tongues" and "speaking so that all understand" both refer to the same act.

Edited on July 14, 2012 at 3:27am

Joined
Jun '11
michael kelley

Pseudodionysius

He flies in the face of those who insist upon a "literal" interpretation of Scripture. 

I believe Spong - a sort of warmed over syncretist soup of Tillich and Eckhard Tolle -- also flies in the face of those who believe in God since he now considers himself an atheist, which certainly saves money on missionary work to the pagans.

Please stand for the creed. Oh, wait. · 27 minutes ago

Pseudo, I don't know what he is now.  He could be worshipping pine trees in the hills of Ireland for all I know but.....he has researched and published some things that make me stop.  And think.

Also, please, if you will, provide a link to the atheism thing

And also, what was wrong with Liberating the Gospels?

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

You can listen to the screed of the poor old fellow here: Denying the resurrection has been a bit of a yawner since the 3rd century gnostics, but that doesn't stop Spong from recycling the apple juice.

As a Raving Papist, I consider the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams quite wobbly on matters of doctrine and leaking members like a cartoon character shot full of holes drinking a glass of water. But even had quite enough of Spong's deranged Atheo-Unitarianism in 2003/2004 when he penned his rejoinder to Spong's "theses" (which were presumably some banal attempt at Luther's 95 theses):

...It seems he has not found life here, and that is painful to acknowledge and to hear. Yet I see no life in what the theses suggest; nothing to educate us into talking about the Christian God in a way I can recognise: no incarnation; no adoption into intimate relation with the Source of all; no Holy Spirit. No terror. No tears.

Rocket City Dave
Joined
Jul '12
Rocket City Dave

If Episcopalians still baptize babies in the name of the trinity, affirm the creeds and preach the gospel I'm not ready to say they're not Christian. I'd wager most Episcopal Churches are still Christian in a minimal sort of way.

Now I'd not commune with them or expect clear gospel from them but they've not equivocated on the trinity or the Gospel have they?

Paul A. Rahe

Jude:  Mr. Rahe, 

If you are going to be snarky about the Episcopal Church and go after the Presiding Bishop, get her name right. It is Schori. And yes, she is a woman. And OH! we have homosexuals serving in the clergy! And OH! Silly things happen at the convention. Get the log out first.

As to the cheap shot from the WSJ article you quoted, I wonder why it didn't say that the Bishops could have used their diocesan funds to buy cocaine too? He offered just as much evidence for that as he did that they spent their church funds on the most expensive wines. Really? I expected more from you. · 5 hours ago

I apologize for the typo: it is a blunder I often make.

I do not, however, remember having said a word about female bishops or homo-erotically inclined clergymen.

My focus was on funeral rites for pets, the condemnation of genetically modified food, and apologizing for seeking conversions. If these three items were, in fact, approved -- as, alas, they seem to have been -- then, surely, questions should be raised. If Jay Akasie's report is inaccurate, you should instruct us.

Paul A. Rahe

Pseudodionysius: I consider the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams quite wobbly on matters of doctrine and leaking members like a cartoon character shot full of holes drinking a glass of water. But even had quite enough of Spong's deranged Atheo-Unitarianism in 2003/2004 when he penned his rejoinder to Spong's "theses" (which were presumably some banal attempt at Luther's 95 theses):

...It seems he has not found life here, and that is painful to acknowledge and to hear. Yet I see no life in what the theses suggest; nothing to educate us into talking about the Christian God in a way I can recognise: no incarnation; no adoption into intimate relation with the Source of all; no Holy Spirit. No terror. No tears.

11 minutes ago

Rowan is an old and dear friend (we were students together at Wadham College forty years ago). He can be silly and often is when it comes to politics. But he is a very serious Christian, and in matters theological he is as erudite as one can get.

Once upon a time, he seriously considered becoming a Benedictine monk at Downside Abbey. Those were the days.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

But he is a very serious Christian, and in matters theological he is as erudite as one can get.

I don't believe his personal erudition implies a charism for governance or political prudence. When Diogenes compares your 2008 conference allowing the ordination of women to the Soviet Agricultural Conference of 1951 and the 1995 decision of the Society of Jesus to use gender inclusive language -- not to mention a World Wresting Federation takeover of Olympic freestyle wrestling, I'd say history will not look kindly on his oarsmanship of the via media.


Joined
Jun '11
michael kelley

Pseudodionysius: You can listen to the screed of the poor old fellow here

As a Raving Papist, I consider the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams quite wobbly on matters of doctrine and leaking members like a cartoon character shot full of holes drinking a glass of water. But even had quite enough of Spong's deranged Atheo-Unitarianism in 2003/2004 when he penned his rejoinder to Spong's "theses" (which were presumably some banal attempt at Luther's 95 theses):

...It seems he has not found life here, and that is painful to acknowledge and to hear. Yet I see no life in what the theses suggest; nothing to educate us into talking about the Christian God in a way I can recognise: no incarnation; no adoption into intimate relation with the Source of all; no Holy Spirit. No terror. No tears.

23 minutes ago

Thank you, Pseudo, for the links.  They provide little to nothing in the way of convincing.

As a raving Papist, do you find the Christ story even and accurate  between all four accounts?  Because you are a raving Papist? Or does it not matter? The chronology, I mean.  The literal interpretation, I mean.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

As a raving Papist, do you find the Christ story even and accurate  between all four accounts? 

As a raving Papist, I familiarize myself with the patristic, monastic, scholastic theology and commentaries on scripture and doctrinal derivations thereof. And since If Christ is not resurrected, then the faith is in vain. And since the Trinity is supposed to Divinely dwell in the serious Christian, I find most of my spare time reading Arintero's Mystical Evolution. I also recognize four senses of scripture and do not believe the Vietnamese Dominican martyrs had their limbs ripped off because of some exegetical mistake in reading the four gospel accounts.

Since Thomas Aquinas make use of Pseudodionysius in his response, I usually find it helpful to periodically reflect on what faith is before getting terribly hung up on difficulties resulting from a lack of faith.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Once upon a time, he seriously considered becoming a Benedictine monk at Downside Abbey. 

He wrote a perceptive work on Dostoevsky as well but I'm afraid I have the same reaction to his erudition as I would to a Fortune 500 CEO who was composing technical monographs in finance or engineering journals: I'd read the papers while shorting the stock.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Spong's critics have been numerous and highly qualified. Below are just a few examples. (The emphases are ours).

Fr Gerald O'Collins, S.J., who lectures in Scripture at Rome's Gregorian University, delivered a severe critique of Bishop Spong's latest book in a London Tablet review (30 April 1994): "... a kindly heart and lots of fine rhetoric cannot make up for the lack of scholarship and critical judgment shown throughout this book ... His work simply does not belong to the world of international scholarship. No genuine scholars will be taken in by this book. But ordinary readers who are not too familiar with modern biblical studies could easily be impressed by Spong's title of 'bishop' and his pretended scholarship."

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Canon Peter Jensen, Principal of the Anglican Moore Theological College, Sydney, and a specialist in Systematic Theology, commented of Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality?: "The sort of resurrection of which he writes seems to be no resurrection at all but leaves Jesus a failure. If this is Christianity, I would prefer to be an agnostic or atheist. The Bishop blows huge holes in two key areas of Christian gospel. They are first, how we come to know God, and second, how we are saved by God."

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Fr John McDade S.J., Editor of The Month (a leading British Jesuit publication) and Lecturer in Systematic Theology at Heythrop College, reached similar conclusions in an April 1994 review: "The editors of HarperCollins must have ordered a crate of champagne when they heard that the mighty Spong mind was at work dismantling traditional Christian belief in the Resurrection. His earlier work on the Virginal Conception had proved that this man is unmatched at getting things wrong and selling well precisely because of that ...".

Reviewing Spong's book in the Church Times (18 March), Bishop Richard Holloway of Edinburgh commented: "Spong leaves us with a God who cannot save because He has no control over nature and history. He offers us a dead Messiah who only 'lives' because of the wishful thinking of his first disciples."

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Now I'd not commune with them or expect clear gospel from them but they've not equivocated on the trinity or the Gospel have they?

I don't know if you've had the pleasure of attending an Anglo-Catholic women's conference where the plenary speaker leads a prayer to "God, our mother" and praises "Christa" -- the "female" Christ.

At that point, I was looking for a Wiccan to enter the room and add some sobriety to the proceedings before the discussion turned to using environmentally friendly light bulbs during Lent as a fasting exercise, presumably because when God said "Let there be light" in the book of Genesis, He noticed that the first two letters of the word Genesis were the initials for General Electric.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In