TOTAL Blasphemy in the Episcopal Church

[Dale_M]

Bishop Spong stated at the last Lambeth Conference that the African Bishops had “moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity. They’ve yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we’ve had to face in the developing world. That’s just not on their radar screen.”

Pretty condescending…

Yes, very much so. (Although he apparently made the statement in 1998, not during the last Lambeth Conference, which was in 2008.) Still, I am puzzled. I would think such an inflammatory statement would get a fair amount of attention, but I could only find two sources which contain that quote. One is on an astrology site, which claims to be quoting a Church of England Newspaper article. The other is in a public letter written by Bishop Howe and made available by Virtue Online.

Why does no one else talk about it?

 

[GKC]

Yes, very much so. (Although he apparently made the statement in 1998, not during the last Lambeth Conference, which was in 2008.) Still, I am puzzled. I would think such an inflammatory statement would get a fair amount of attention, but I could only find two sources which contain that quote. One is on an astrology site, which claims to be quoting a Church of England Newspaper article. The other is in a public letter written by Bishop Howe and made available by Virtue Online.

Why does no one else talk about it?

In 1998, lots of people talked about it. As with +Holloway’s statement that the problem was that the African prelates were influenced by the fundamentalist Islamic cultures in their areas, that made them take a simplistic and legalisltic approach to morality. This was during the debate on Resolution 1.10, affirming the Communion’s support for marriage, traditionally defined.

As for Spong, one might look here:

lambethconference.org/1998/news/lc057.cfm

and here:

books.google.com/books?id=nkWfKq6nNcEC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=spong+lambeth+1998&source=bl&ots=52EOJvM-PK&sig=ZYU7PXlGhyIUiQ037vDxezS1kAQ&hl=en&ei=_HpkSpnHJanEtgfAjL3tDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

GKC

 

[Dale_M]

In 1998, lots of people talked about it.

I’ll bet. Its an outrageous thing to say. I know next to nothing about Bishop Spong, but what little I have learned while searching for his insulting 1998 comment suggests he is a bit of an extremist. Here is his 2004 pronouncement on Archbishop Rowan Williams:

"His actions have revealed a fatal character flaw. He has no courage, no backbone and no ability to lead. Seldom have I watched a quicker collapse of potential. It was an abdication of leadership so dramatic as to be breathtaking.

“He is now destined to be a long-serving but ineffective and empty man who has been revealed to be incapable of carrying the responsibility placed upon him. Leaders have only one opportunity to make a first impression. Rowan Williams has failed that test miserably.”

guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/sep/22/religion.world

As for Spong, one might look here:

lambethconference.org/1998/news/lc057.cfm

and here:

books.google.com/books?id=nkWfKq6nNcEC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=spong+lambeth+1998&source=bl&ots=52EOJvM-PK&sig=ZYU7PXlGhyIUiQ037vDxezS1kAQ&hl=en&ei=_HpkSpnHJanEtgfAjL3tDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Thank you. I was hurrying back here with the Lambeth link, but you beat me to it! I appreciate the book citation, too, as it provides another source for the startling quote mentioned earlier.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Originally Posted by VARC
I was on another message board with episcopalians to learn there views on a possible schism in the AC. They actually welcomed the idea. They have no interest in maintaining communion with the primate of Nigeria, whom they view not only as a hateful anti-gay bigot but a fomenter of schism and an invader of their province, and those who are with them. They believe that communion cannot be artifically maintained with the 3rd world conservatives.

They want a schism and a new communion. This new communion would be made up of the Anglicans from US, Canada, the UK (England Scotland Wales Ireland), Spain and Portugal. They would be united to the Porvoo Communion including the evangelical Lutherans churches of USA, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. In addition The Old Catholic Churches of the Utrech Union (Netherlands, Austria, Czech Republic) with its missions and dioceses and Italy, Germany, France, USA, Canada and Poland. This would roughly bring the new communion to 60 miilion members.

Pretty ambitious. The stage is really already set as many of these enties are already in full sacramental communion with each other. They are not afraid of schism. They are counting on it. “Out with the old in with the new” is the sense I was getting from them.

I think orthodox Anglicans should open the door and provide an honourable way out for the liberal wing of the Church to pursue this agendum. I think the agendum would fail, probably following intercommunion between US Episcopals, liberal Lutherans (ELCA) and Presbyterians (PCUSA)in the USA. A few other churches might follow (the Swedish and Danish Lutherans, for example or even the Porvoo Communion), and the Old Catholics might also join.

In terms of the Anglicans, the UK Anglican churches would absolutely not join such a union (NT Wright, John Stott and Nicky Gumble–are you kidding?). Either would the Spanish or Portuguese Anglicans (trust me). However, the New Zealand Anglicans might, so it could be US Episcopals, Canada and New Zealand and the Porvoo.

This would probably be the best thing that ever happened to the Anglican Church. All those evangelicals who are dissatisfied with their non-denominational churches for lack of ecclesiology and apostolic roots, who currently are considering either the Roman Catholic or increasingly the Orthodox Church, would have to take a look at a vibrant, orthodox, apostolic Anglican Church. Roman Catholics with difficulties accepting papal authority or who appreciate the Anglican rite and Book of Common Prayer could also be interested. And such a church would be a serious partner for dialogue for Orthodoxy. With few changes, the anglo-catholic Anglican churches at least could seek full communion with Orthodoxy.

 

[GKC]

I’ll bet. Its an outrageous thing to say. I know next to nothing about Bishop Spong, but what little I have learned while searching for his insulting 1998 comment suggests he is a bit of an extremist. Here is his 2004 pronouncement on Archbishop Rowan Williams:

guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/sep/22/religion.world

Thank you. I was hurrying back here with the Lambeth link, but you beat me to it! I appreciate the book citation, too, as it provides another source for the startling quote mentioned earlier.

You are very welcome. The Spongster has long ceased to startle most of us.

GKC

 

[IowaJay]

Yes, very much so. (Although he apparently made the statement in 1998, not during the last Lambeth Conference, which was in 2008.) Still, I am puzzled. I would think such an inflammatory statement would get a fair amount of attention, but I could only find two sources which contain that quote. One is on an astrology site, which claims to be quoting a Church of England Newspaper article. The other is in a public letter written by Bishop Howe and made available by Virtue Online.

Why does no one else talk about it?

For many (even on the left) Spong doesn’t have any credibility anyway, so attacking him doesn’t go very far.

 

[GKC]

For many (even on the left) Spong doesn’t have any credibility anyway, so attacking him doesn’t go very far.

But TEC doesn’t attack him. They embrace him.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think orthodox Anglicans should open the door and provide an honourable way out for the liberal wing of the Church to pursue this agendum. I think the agendum would fail, probably following intercommunion between US Episcopals, liberal Lutherans (ELCA) and Presbyterians (PCUSA)in the USA. A few other churches might follow (the Swedish and Danish Lutherans, for example or even the Porvoo Communion), and the Old Catholics might also join.

In terms of the Anglicans, the UK Anglican churches would absolutely not join such a union (NT Wright, John Stott and Nicky Gumble–are you kidding?). Either would the Spanish or Portuguese Anglicans (trust me). However, the New Zealand Anglicans might, so it could be US Episcopals, Canada and New Zealand and the Porvoo.

This would probably be the best thing that ever happened to the Anglican Church. All those evangelicals who are dissatisfied with their non-denominational churches for lack of ecclesiology and apostolic roots, who currently are considering either the Roman Catholic or increasingly the Orthodox Church, would have to take a look at a vibrant, orthodox, apostolic Anglican Church. Roman Catholics with difficulties accepting papal authority or who appreciate the Anglican rite and Book of Common Prayer could also be interested. And such a church would be a serious partner for dialogue for Orthodoxy. With few changes, the anglo-catholic Anglican churches at least could seek full communion with Orthodoxy.

My, that’s a relief.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus
*

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But TEC doesn’t attack him. They embrace him.

GKC

The fact that they embrace him tells us a lot! I remember when he made the rounds with this tour promoting “the end of theism” or some such rubbish. He regularly teaches that what God the Father did to Jesus amounts to nothing more than “child abuse.” He has talked about how theism is nonsense. One wonders how a “bishop” in a church representing Jesus Christ can reject theism? It’s like working for Dunkin’ Donuts and hating sugar, lard, and cholesterol! It’s like a vegetarian working for Jimmy Dean. I never understood that guy. He isn’t firing on all thrusters.

Spong was another reason I left the Episcopal Church. At the time, my rector, a conservative (by Anglican standards mind you) said, “oh don’t pay any attention to Spong, he’s nuts, everybody knows that.” I was shocked to see how impercentive he was in that Spong had more books on the shelves at Borders and B.Dalton than any other Anglican writer? Spong was well-known and even taken seriously and given a seat at the table beside orthodox bishops. How could I not take that threat seriously? He was a threat to orthodox beliefs. And what’s more, any church with any brains or moral courage would’ve EXCOMMUNICATED this fool. But they didn’t, they’d just lampoon him while he stole souls away from Christ and made the TEC a laughing stock. How does one just push a man like this to the side and not take him seriously? He’s a spiritual terrorist and I always take nuts like that seriously. I’m sure people said the same thing about Schiori and now look at what her rise to “power” has done to TEC!!

 

[emeraldcoast]

But TEC doesn’t attack him. They embrace him.

GKC

You know better then to generalize about Anglicans/TEC, GKC.

God Bless!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think SpiritMeadow is referring to the unsubstantiated claims which have been made during this discussion that many Episcopalians look down on the African bishops has backwards.
Try post #46 and the post it quoted. There are other posts, but I think those were the originals.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5457626&postcount=46

I beg to differ, Dale. “Unsubstantiated” is an exceptionally poor adjective to describe the soft racist remarks of TEC leaders in the last 20 years about Africa. You have heard GKC and others quote the exact remarks and nasty condescention that I have been concerned about in TEC for years. The remarks are out there and you’ve heard them quoted here. African primates/bishops have been considered by many, not all, in the TEC to be backward and influenced by primitive factors and Islam rather than by the Holy Spirit and traditional values. There is that elitism in TEC. It’s just a sad fact.

 

[emeraldcoast]

The fact that they embrace him tells us a lot! I remember when he made the rounds with this tour promoting “the end of theism” or some such rubbish. He regularly teaches that what God the Father did to Jesus amounts to nothing more than “child abuse.” He has talked about how theism is nonsense. One wonders how a “bishop” in a church representing Jesus Christ can reject theism? It’s like working for Dunkin’ Donuts and hating sugar, lard, and cholesterol! It’s like a vegetarian working for Jimmy Dean. I never understood that guy. He isn’t firing on all thrusters.

Spong was another reason I left the Episcopal Church. At the time, my rector, a conservative (by Anglican standards mind you) said, “oh don’t pay any attention to Spong, he’s nuts, everybody knows that.” I was shocked to see how impercentive he was in that Spong had more books on the shelves at Borders and B.Dalton than any other Anglican writer? Spong was well-known and even taken seriously and given a seat at the table beside orthodox bishops. How could I not take that threat seriously? He was a threat to orthodox beliefs. And what’s more, any church with any brains or moral courage would’ve EXCOMMUNICATED this fool. But they didn’t, they’d just lampoon him while he stole souls away from Christ and made the TEC a laughing stock. How does one just push a man like this to the side and not take him seriously? He’s a spiritual terrorist and I always take nuts like that seriously. I’m sure people said the same thing about Schiori and now look at what her rise to “power” has done to TEC!!

Gurney,

Your rector was correct when he stated “Oh don’t pay any attention to Spong, he’s nuts, everybody knows that.” to you. I have NEVER heard any of my pastors hold Spong up in some great manner–NEVER. It is not like I have been isolated to one Episcopal parish either–we are military and move all over the place.

Get off your high horse about excommunicating Spong, when you belong to a Church that moved around parish priests that stole the innocents of childhood from many and I am sure that many lost their faith as well.

God Bless!

 

[slyboots]

"By the late 1960s, national church authorities were dispensing millions of dollars of missionary funds collected from parishes and dioceses to radical political movements across the land - Black Power groups, migrant farm workers, Afro-American thespians, native American organizers, Puerto Rican nationalists, Marxist documentary film producers, and Third World liberation movements. "
episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/TrendierThanThou.html

Presiding Bishop Hines and the Archbishop of Canterbury were also very pro ABC.

The TEC has been in trouble for a long time. WO was not the first issue.

“Episcopalians have seen it all: bishops proudly ordaining active homosexuals and an official church court declaring (with more than a tinge of satisfaction) that no discernible doctrine prohibits such a practice; general apathy toward moral issues such as abortion that engage other Christians; disrespect for scriptural authority; sluggishness in evangelizing; the trial and conviction of the national church treasurer on charges of embezzling $2.1 million to support herself and her Episcopal priest-husband; bishops implicated in adultery; seminary approval of homosexual living arrangements for students; a major East Coast diocese riven by the style and agenda of its radical bishop. Unsurprisingly, membership in America�s formerly most prestigious church has fallen by a third since 1965”
leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9711/opinion/murchison.html

“…Bishop Frank Griswold, the current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA. Bishop Griswold has put out to sea in favor of homosexuality–and it just might get his church put out of the Anglican Communion.”
albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2003-10-02

"Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori: “Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation. And you and I are His children.”
breusswane.blogspot.com/2006/06/new-episcopal-presiding-bishop-our.html

Black Panthers, Homosexuality, Mother Jesus, and then there is the strange life and death of Bishop Pike…

"Personal problems caught up with Bishop Pike as the 1960s reached their turbulent climax. A chain smoker with an active attention-seeking personality, he had overcome a drinking problem in 1964. The suicide of his oldest son in 1966, and subsequent paranormal events, led him on a long and highly public search, aided by noted psychics and mediums, to reach and reconcile with his son. In 1967 he divorced Esther Pike, and the following year married his secretary, Dianne Kennedy. "

gracecathedral.org/content/arts/cry_20011114.shtml

 

[GKC]

You know better then to generalize about Anglicans/TEC, GKC.

God Bless!

I sure do. But I’m not talking about the individuals. I’m talking about that GC just did.

GKC

 

[Dale_M]

I beg to differ, Dale. “Unsubstantiated” is an exceptionally poor adjective to describe the soft racist remarks of TEC leaders in the last 20 years about Africa. You have heard GKC and others quote the exact remarks and nasty condescention that I have been concerned about in TEC for years. The remarks are out there and you’ve heard them quoted here. .

Gurney, when I wrote my post, the word “unsubstantiated” was accurate. The claims were made with no supporting evidence. Yes, I have now seen Bishop Spong’s statement and was appalled by it.

Assuming his thoughts are shared by others in the rank and file seems a bit speculative, but I don’t doubt that liberals can be racist. And it is plausible that those whose religious beliefs are threatened are liable to think extreme thoughts in defense, so I believe that that the earlier allegations are credible. But let’s be fair… besides Spong’s comments, no additional evidence has been presented concerning the “soft racism” you mention. However, I have not followed TEC controversies and so defer to your, and others, greater experience with this topic. Nonetheless, when making such eye-opening charges perhaps offering evidence for the consideration of outsiders such as myself might be a good idea.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Gurney,’

I’ll not quote all of your lengthy posts. And I do thank you for responding with such breadth and depth. I’ll answer as best as I am able.

What I hear from your statement is that you over time came to see that some of your original beliefs were wrong and that more Catholic explanations were true. You attempted to remain with the TEC but in the end found that you could not.

See, I don’t have a problem with that. We all in the end must determine what we believe is true. You ultimately moved to the Church you believed best represented the beliefs you have come to have. You have interpreted the Bible in a way that makes sense to you and seems true. You have read a variety of materials and found that they ring true as well. So you now contend that that is the truth. And well you should.

My only argument is that I and others like me have done likewise. We read and digest, pray and study, ask questions and arrive at what we believe is truth. We seek the church that best represents that. Once we do that, like you, we might find that the Church asks us to believe additional things that are easy or hard in addition. We do our best, and we stay until and unless we are convinced that our conscience tells us that what we are being led is wrong and against God.

I view the scriptures quite differently than you, but I believe that I am reading them correctly just as you believe that I am not. I may believe that if your mind would open to the teachers I have had, you would agree. You would undoubtedly say that you would not and could not. This may never change. And perhaps God is just as happy one way or the other, I cannot say.

What I can say, is that we can work together for the betterment of the world in areas where our doctrine doesn’t matter. We can worship together since we both love God and that should be paramount. We both revere and love Jesus as well. Those are bases for agreement.

I have had occassion to know and be around rather ultra orthodox Catholics before. The parish I had most reference to as a child before I became Catholic was Polish and never ever accepted Vatican II an continued to say latin masses. I find them beautiful and certainly never begrudged that, though it was not my parish of choice.

What I find unseemly here and from some of you posts is the attitude that because you think us wrong, we are to be made sport of and cruelly remarked upon. I object to the pictures and the captions used to ridicule that which you don’t like and don’t agree with.

We are real people, with feelings, and we believe just as intensely in the rightness of our interpretation as you do. You cause pain and intend pain and that I cannot understand. Morality is more to me at least than sex, orientation, marriage and divorce. It certainly is about life and death as well. Jesus spoke of marriage and divorce. He said nothing about sex or certainly homosexuality. He, by example elevated women to equality, and he certainly removed the onus of “other” from all aliens and untouchables. Most of his teaching had to do with social justice, as to women, aliens and so on. He included rather than excluded. On occasion, you are right, he reminded folks to sin no more, but more often he exclaimed over their faith. He by his behavior and teaching transformed his followers in a true new birth of being.

That is all I ask of you, that you speak with respect to and about those whom you don’t agree with. I try to do the same, though undoubtedly I often fail. I have for all my life loved the RCC, and it was with real pain that I left. But I certainly never blamed the RCC. It had not changed, I came to realize I could not agree no matter how much I wanted to. My conscience called me otherwise.

I hope we can lay this ugly business to rest at last.

Peace

 

[slyboots]

My favorite Episcopalian joke…remember our family was previously all Episcopalian

How many Episcopalians does it take to change a lightbulb?
5, One to actually change it and 4 to stand around and fuss about how much better the old one was.

No offence. I have always loved that joke.

 

[GKC]

My favorite Episcopalian joke…remember our family was previously all Episcopalian

How many Episcopalians does it take to change a lightbulb?
5, One to actually change it and 4 to stand around and fuss about how much better the old one was.

No offence. I have always loved that joke.

None taken. The old one was better.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There is an underlying issue that separates us and that is a question of epistemology or what is truth. For the liberal wing of the Church, truth is subjective, whereas for the orthodox wing, truth is objective and has been defined clearly in Scripture, by the consensus of the Early Church Fathers and in the councils. Your definition of “radical inclusion” means condoning sin. Jesus never did that. You are subjectively defining Christianity and turning it into something completely unrecognisable from the early Church.

I would not agree. Truth is ongoing and continuing to be revealed as far as I see it. I don’t think that even the RCC would disagree since it maintains an active group of theologians and biblical experts continuing to investigate and explore scripture in an attempt to inlarge the depository of truth. You should know that the ECF were not at all in agreement on any number of things. Radical inclusion doesn’t mean condoning sin, it means that the that is not a reason to reject people from God’s table. Jesus turned no one away as I recall. To the contrary, I think we are in fact retrieving the early church from the overlay of post Church redactions.

Yes, we have a radically different approach to interpreting scripture. You would have that I look to Mssrs Borg and Spong every time I find a difficult passage. I would have that you look to the Church, particularly the consensus of the ECFs. Without going into the relative veracity of your theological position regarding the authorship of Paul, you only have to look to the disciples of the disciples, for example St. Clement I, Paul’s disciple, to know that your interpretation of Paul is errant. He writes like Paul and is very focused on personal holiness, calling all into repentance for acts such as lust and adultery. The Early Church Fathers are replete with condemnations of many things which the liberal TEC supports such as abortion and homosexuality, as can be seen here:
catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

Yes and we know what Jesus thought of tradition don’t we? We have the same material my friend. We consider scripture and the EC part of our heritage as well. We embrace a theology at odds with the RCC’s tradition. It is of course apostate as to you, but not generally so objectively speaking. We are happy to go it alone pursing the teaching of Jesus if that is what is necessary, but of course we aren’t. There are plenty denominations and factions within all churches that agree.

Blessings.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

"By the late 1960s, national church authorities were dispensing millions of dollars of missionary funds collected from parishes and dioceses to radical political movements across the land - Black Power groups, migrant farm workers, Afro-American thespians, native American organizers, Puerto Rican nationalists, Marxist documentary film producers, and Third World liberation movements. "
episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/TrendierThanThou.html

Presiding Bishop Hines and the Archbishop of Canterbury were also very pro ABC.

The TEC has been in trouble for a long time. WO was not the first issue.

“Episcopalians have seen it all: bishops proudly ordaining active homosexuals and an official church court declaring (with more than a tinge of satisfaction) that no discernible doctrine prohibits such a practice; general apathy toward moral issues such as abortion that engage other Christians; disrespect for scriptural authority; sluggishness in evangelizing; the trial and conviction of the national church treasurer on charges of embezzling $2.1 million to support herself and her Episcopal priest-husband; bishops implicated in adultery; seminary approval of homosexual living arrangements for students; a major East Coast diocese riven by the style and agenda of its radical bishop. Unsurprisingly, membership in America�s formerly most prestigious church has fallen by a third since 1965”
leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9711/opinion/murchison.html

“…Bishop Frank Griswold, the current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA. Bishop Griswold has put out to sea in favor of homosexuality–and it just might get his church put out of the Anglican Communion.”
albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2003-10-02

"Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori: “Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation. And you and I are His children.”
breusswane.blogspot.com/2006/06/new-episcopal-presiding-bishop-our.html

Black Panthers, Homosexuality, Mother Jesus, and then there is the strange life and death of Bishop Pike…

"Personal problems caught up with Bishop Pike as the 1960s reached their turbulent climax. A chain smoker with an active attention-seeking personality, he had overcome a drinking problem in 1964. The suicide of his oldest son in 1966, and subsequent paranormal events, led him on a long and highly public search, aided by noted psychics and mediums, to reach and reconcile with his son. In 1967 he divorced Esther Pike, and the following year married his secretary, Dianne Kennedy. "

gracecathedral.org/content/arts/cry_20011114.shtml

And of course you would raise the roof should we start down the road to all the errant priests and clergy in the RCC down through the ages wouldn’t you? And rightly so. There is no need, since both of us have more than enough persons in our respective faith communities who are embarrassments. Please refrain from this tit for tat.