Letters
from 11 October 2004 to 17 October 2004
If you'd like to
write a letter of your own, click here.
Give
me a break
INCLUSIVITY?
GIVE ME A BREAK. The Episcopal Church is dead keen on including gays and lesbians, most
of whom detest the church and don't give a damn about being included
in it, but give no quarter to others who conscientiously object. If African
bishops object to ECUSA's policies, good Liberals question their "Literacy
level" and
express the "hope that American Episcopalians
realize the influence of scientific and education progress that has formed
our progressive beliefs."
Mr. Carl Bell who,
in his letter to AO, expresses this hope does not seem to have heard
of the dictum that you cannot deduce ought from is. Even if we grant
that sexual orientation is hardwired, that a significant percentage
of the human population is hardwired to prefer sexual relations with
members of the same sex, and that sexual preferences cannot be changed,
it does not follow that homosexual activity is morally ok. I doubt
however that this would give pause to Mr. Bell or other advocates
of inclusiveness since their interest does not appear to be in advocating
morally correct doctrine so much as in positioning themselves on
the politically correct side of Culture Wars, with the prestigious
blue state liberals and against the benighted rednecks, hillbillies
and Africans.
There's nothing
new in this stance: with notable exceptions Anglican clergy have
always taken the side of the elite, from the British aristocracy
to the American robber barons. The difference now is that most members
of the secular elite to whom they are pandering do not make fine
distinctions between mainline Christians and fundamentalists, Episcopalians
and holy rollers, view all as equally benighted and, to the extent
that they are aware of Episcopalians' attempts to represent themselves
as "progressive" and cool, regard them as all the more pathetic and
despicable.
H. E.
Baber
University of San Diego
San Diego, California, USA
baber@sandiego.edu
11 October 2004
Another
sort of trinity?
IT
APPEARS FROM THE VARIOUS NEWS STORIES about
the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Nigeria, and the Episcopal
Church USA that we are rapidly heading for a time where there may
well be three "Anglican" churches:
- The
Episcopal Church USA and other churches that welcome gays and
lesbians in Holy Orders, are leaning towards formally blessing their
relationships, and fully support the ordination of women.
- Moderate
Anglican churches (including the Church of England) that
support the ordination of women but either have not come to a consensus
on the issue of homosexuality or condemn ordination of homosexuals
and blessing of same-sex unions.
- Conservative
Anglican churches that are against ordaining both women and homosexual
persons as well as blessing same-sex unions.
It appears,
to me at least, as if the church is huddling up, circling the wagons,
and driving out "those people" rather than proactively engaging the
increasingly postmodern world with the Gospel. In short, the church
seems to be defensive, reactionary, and apologetic (not in the defending
the faith sense, but in the apology for giving offense sense) rather
than confident and unapologetic. Sometimes I think we just need to
get over ourselves and be about the work of the Kingdom.
The challenge
for the church (whether progressive, moderate, or conservative) will
be to seperate the essentials of the Gospel message from the non-essentials
of the cultural message in a world in which the culture is in flux
from modern to postmodern. Of course, that has always been the task
of the church, but as Anglicans for whom church and culture have
often been opposite sides of similar coins, it will no doubt be particularly
challenging. I continue to pray for us.
The Rev.
Tom Sramek, Jr.
St. Alban's
Albany, Oregon, USA
11 October 2004
Closer
to Stalin, closer to god
AS
SOMEONE WHO IS CONSIDERING different
churches, I found your editorial
for October 10 very hopeful. I think
it is terrific to find a church that would accept Hitler, Stalin,
and Pol Pot. So many churches are tied to a narrow Western and rationalistic
approach, when who are we to condemn Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot.
They no doubt believed in their own way that they were doing what
god wished them to do, and I think it says a lot for the Anglican
church that it would include them. It may be a paradox, but the closer
we can draw to Hitler, Stalin, and others that society might condemn,
the closer we draw to god.
John Blenkiron
not a current member of a church
Denver, Colorado, USA
j_blenkiron@yahoo.com
11 October 2004
Ignoring
the faithful
FOLLOWING
THE DEFEAT OF A MOTION at
the recent General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia to allow
the consecration of female bishops some bishops, in expressing regret
at the failure of the motion to pass, claimed: 'there's a great deal
of pastoral and healing work to be done'
That would
be among those supporters of female bishops; had the proposition
succeeded those in anguish at that result would have been told pretty
peremptorilly -- 'get over it and move on'. In
many cases that has been the treatment of congregations where
female priests have been introduced against the wishes of many. Often
this has been without any discussion or involvement of a local worshipping
congregation and the assumption has been that, because these people
are faithful they are unlikely to revolt!
And that
has been true- but clergy who have taken that aggressive stance shouldn't
believe they have won the hearts of minds of the dissenters. It's
just that this faithfulness allows them to lay aside any bitterness
in order to continue in worship of the Lord Jesus Christ despite
the bureaucratic insults they have to bear.
Come mrs
or miss or ms bishop those same faithful will be ignored and treated
with that same pitying contempt at their failure to "move with the
times".
What a
way to run a church!
Trevor
G Cowell
Christ Church, Illawarra, Longford
Perth, Tasmania, Australia
platcha1@optusnet.com.au
12 October 2004
Geese
and ganders
IF
THE MOST REVD PETER AKINOLA, Archbishop of Nigeria, would like to be able to increase his "flock" by
trolling through congregations unhappy with the leadership policies
of the ECUSA. Then is it alright for the ECUSA to troll through Nigerian
Anglican congregations who are unhappy with Akinola's governance,
to realign themselves under ECUSA jurisdiction? If our boundaries
vanish doesn't that become the issue at hand?
Robert
Wiard
St. James's Episcopal Church
Richmond, Virginia, USA
12 October 2004
Do scripture
and tradition support inclusivity?
YOUR
EDITORIAL OF LAST WEEK (10
October 2004) raises
an issue that has confused me for some time now. "Inclusivity" is,
of course, one of the code words that indicates which side one intends
to take in the upcoming Anglican Civil War, but I prefer to think
that you meant something more than that.
Anglican
Christianity has usually been rather less exclusive than some forms,
and it is certainly so today. However, it seems to me that Christianity
by its very nature involves some exclusions of some people from some
things. My own feelings tend towards the inclusive end of things,
and I do not care to say just who should be excluded from what – but
both Anglicanism and Christianity are something more than how I feel.
Clearly,
everyone is called to return to God and will be accepted as His children
if they do return. No matter how despicable someone may have been,
it seems well-attested that God will accept any and all who return
to Him.
However,
a return to God is necessary, and He does seem to set some standards.
The prodigal is always welcome back, but is not expected to simply
drop in for a loan before heading back out to the fleshpots. Sinning
brothers and sisters are, at some point, to be excluded from worship
(1 Cor 5:11, Articles of Religion XXXIII). And ultimately, the sheep
will be divided from the goats at the final judgment (Mt 25:41).
I do not
usually like to play the proof-text game, nor am I of the sola scriptura
party. But scripture (just the New Testament, mind) does provide
plenty of other examples of excluding some people from the community
or from salvation itself. Historically, Anglican tradition
has taken
the same view (see, for example, Articles of Religion XVIII and XXXIII – and
yes, I know how moribund the Articles are now).
If by "God
loves absolutely everyone" one means that everyone is eligible for
God's love and salvation, it is clearly true. However, if it is taken
to mean that everyone has God's love and salvation, unconditionally
and regardless of their own efforts and behavior, Reason must support
this view against Scripture and Tradition; Anglicans are not Universalists.
We should
all be willing to listen to Reason, but it seems to me that Reason's
burden of proof in arguing for radical inclusivity against Scripture
and Tradition is not being well met.
Thomas
Holloway
Fayetteville North Carolina, USA
13 October 2004
Letter
to the editor
I'M
WRITING IN RESPONSE to
Carl Bell's letter (10
October 2004). I was
rather hoping somebody else would write a response, but maybe they
were too busy rolling their eyes to be able to see their keyboards.
I think
the attitude displayed in that letter is startlingly imperial and
condescending, perhaps even racist. I don't recall anywhere in scripture
where it says you need to be well-educated or even literate in order
to be a faithful Christian.
Brian
Reid
Christ Church, Los Altos
Palo Alto, California, USA
brian@reid.org
17 October 2004
Earlier
letters
We launched our 'Letters to
AO' section on 11 May 2003. All of our letters are in our
archives.
|
