In its recent Debunking 815’s Spin, the American Anglican Council’s Web site offers a paragraph-by-paragraph response (known as “fisking”) of a recent letter from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold to Archbishop Robin Eames, chairman of the Eames Commission. I thought I’d return the favor here:
In various statements, interviews and again in the letter to Archbishop Eames, Bishop Griswold focuses on two major goals: to downplay the crisis ECUSA faces and to discredit those who stand in opposition to the divisive innovations of General Convention 2003. Ironically the result of this “misinformation” succeeds in outlining the downward spiral and destruction of the Episcopal Church which culminated last year at General Convention.
It’s only a “crisis” because the bibliolatry wing of the church insists that we worship at the altar of their invincible certainty. The rest of us wish everyone would admit that we don’t know everything, agree to disagree (with love), praise God, and get back to work — together.
The Presiding Bishop seeks to justify the actions of General Convention 2003 based on the “experience” of the Episcopal Church. This is postmodernism at its best – we experienced it, and so it must be right and good.
Consider Deut. 18:21-22: “If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.” (Emphasis added.) Obviously that’s a commandment to pay attention to experience, to take into account God’s on-going revelation in the real world, not just what self-styled prophets presumptuously pronounce to be Truth.
There is no pretense at solid theological debate or exegetical study.
What cave has the AAC been living in? The “solid theological debate” and “exegetical study” have been going on for years. As just one example, see this thoughtful piece by Bishop Michael Curry, or the famous response of a task force of the Episcopal Diocese of California to the 1998 Lambeth resolutions. I guess it only counts if you agree with the AAC.
There is no justification for “new revelation” which clearly contradicts Scripture.
When you were a toddler, you probably asked your parents where babies come from. The odds are that they didn’t tell you “the truth” right away. Instead, they told you a story they thought you could understand and deal with — something along the lines of, God planted a seed in Mommy’s tummy. Then later, as you grew in maturity, they told you what really happens.
Conceivably, God could be choosing to reveal his truth to us in the same gradual way, as we grow in our ability to handle it. But the AAC seems to think that’s categorically impossible. (Isn’t the AAC view, I dunno, blasphemous?)
The truth of the Gospel is unchanging – it is certainly not based on context. Context is actually irrelevant because the nature of the Gospel is timeless and for all times and all places.
And just which timeless truth of the Gospel would that be? The truth about Jesus having come only for Israel, not for the “dogs” of the nations? The truth about divorce being impermissible except for unchastity? The truth about epileptic seizures and mental illness being caused by demons?
The authoritative bodies of the Anglican Communion have in fact reached a “common mind” on human sexuality. Many in ECUSA simply disagree and moved unilaterally to shatter the communion.
As a friend of mine aptly put it, I’m not an Anglican, I’m an Episcopalian. We have nothing to apologize for concerning our church’s actions at Minneapolis. (See also the comment below about Minneapolis vs. Nicea.) Other churches in the Anglican Communion are free to say, do, and believe what they wish. If another church feels it must “break communion” with ECUSA because of what we did in Minneapolis, that’s entirely up to them.
The vast majority of Anglicans worldwide uphold orthodox, historic, traditional interpretations of Scripture across the board.
Hey, if we’re going to play a numbers game about Scripture, why should only Anglicans get to vote? Why not Roman Catholics, because after all, we’re all part of the Church Universal, right? Oh, wait: If we let the RCs vote — and there’s a whole lot more of them than there are of Anglicans — then we’d all have to submit to the authority of the papacy, on the strength of the RC interpretation of the Petrine commission. Never mind ….
ECUSA has canons and resolutions from General Conventions – who needs Scripture or the weight of Christian tradition? For enlightened advocates of liberal Protestantism, human reason, understanding and experience are paramount. Rather than canons and resolutions of the democratic process conforming to Scripture, revisionists attempt to conform Scripture and tradition to their innovations.
Let’s leave aside the dubious virtue of abdicating to Scripture one’s duty to use one’s (God-given) power of moral judgment. It seems clear that these AAC guys are simply sore losers. It was a fair contest, and they lost, but they can’t seem to accept that.
On a related subject: I fail to see why the conservatives should regard the decisions “in council” in Minneapolis as any less legitimate than, let’s say, those of the Council of Nicea. It would be instructive to compare those two councils in terms of openness, transparency, participation, thoughtfulness, prayerfulness, and peaceability (to say nothing of freedom from government interference). I don’t understand why Nicea’s decisions should be sacrosanct, while those of Minneapolis are regarded as anathema. (For background information on the contentious proceedings at Nicea, see this informative piece at the Christianity Today Web site.)
Leave a Reply