GENERAL CONVENTION:
What Ails Bishop Stacy Sauls Ails Episcopalians
A critique of TEC Chief Operating Officer's criticism of the Wall Street Journal on the recent passage of General Convention resolutions
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
July 21, 2012
"What
Ails the Episcopalians?" asked journalist and Episcopalian Jay Akasie in
the Wall Street Journal.
"Its numbers and coffers are shrinking, the church votes for pet funerals but offers little to the traditional faithful," he roared.
"Legislators in the lower chamber, the House of Deputies, and the upper chamber, the House of Bishops, discussed 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.
"But the party may be over for the Episcopal Church, and so, probably, is its experiment with democratic governance," opined Akasie. Talk of a unicameral one-house-body and a resolution to "re-imagine" the church's governing body passed unanimously.
Akasie accused Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori of being "secretive and authoritarian" (there was no love lost between her and Bonnie Anderson President of the House of Deputies) and for brazenly carrying a metropolitan cross during church processions reserved for Old World bishops. He said her reign as presiding bishop has been characterized by actions more akin to a potentate than a clergywoman watching over a flock. Ouch.
He said she's sued breakaway, traditionalist dioceses which find the mother church increasingly radical. Church legislators have asked publicly how much the legal crusades have cost, to no avail. He said she sent shock waves through the church by putting forth her own national budget without consulting the convention's budget committee-consisting partly of laymen-which until now has traditionally drafted the document.
He said many dioceses are no longer willing or able to cough up money to support the national organization. Its bank accounts are running dry. He added that the church might have to sell its headquarters in New York City.
Akasie then threw in the usual figures about the church's decline, to fewer than one million today from three million in 1970. (ASA, a more accurate barometer is 675,000). He mentioned the lay Eucharist and its impact on clergy and bishops. He criticized the ability of ordinary laymen to rewrite, "in blunt modern language and with politically correct intent, of the church's historic Book of Common Prayer." Finally, he mentioned the entire delegation from the Diocese of South Carolina among the very last of the traditionalist holdouts-storming out of the convention.
Bishop Mark Lawrence did not storm out; he walked out after making a statement in the HOB while his deputation quietly left the House of Deputies leaving two members behind, to guarantee their place in TEC.
Now the irony of Akasie's article is that it OMITTED two of the most important resolutions, the passage of provisional liturgical rites for same sex marriage and allowing men and women who have had sex change operations to be priested. Why did he omit those two important resolutions, inquiring minds want to know. One suspects that, despite his rant, he is just as liberal as the institution he critiques.
However this did not stop Bishop Stacy Sauls, the Episcopal Church's Chief Operating Officer from taking Akasie to task. He wrote, "Space does not permit a correction of the numerous factual points I could dispute in Jay Akasie's, "What Ails the Episcopalians". Instead, I offer a spiritual correction. The church has been captive to the dominant culture, which has rewarded it with power, privilege and prestige for a long, long time. The Episcopal Church is now liberating itself from that, and as the author correctly notes, paying the price. I hardly see paying the price as what ails us. I see it as what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
"The Episcopal Church is on record as standing by those the culture marginalizes whether that be nonwhite people, female people or gay people. The author calls that political correctness hostile to tradition.
"I call it profoundly countercultural but hardly untraditional. In fact, it is deeply true to the tradition of Jesus, Jesus who offended the "traditionalists" of his own day, Jesus who was known to associate with the less than desirable, Jesus who told his followers to seek him among the poor. It is deeply true to the tradition of the Apostle Paul who decried human barriers of race, sex, or status (Galatians 3:28).
"What ails the Episcopalians is that this once most-established class of American Christianity is taking the risk to be radically true to its tradition. There is a price to be paid for that. There is also a promise of abundant life in it."
So Sauls feels guilty for being a Dead White (Episcopal) Male and wants all of us who happen to be DWMs to atone for that by tossing the church's traditional teachings out the window in favor of a cultural integration that is in fact leading head on to spiritual suicide.
The Episcopal Church has catered to and been supported by elites. It has been a spiritual home to 11 presidents and innumerable politicians and leaders. This begs the question: should conservative columnist William Buckley who did more to rejuvenate the conservative political discourse disown his Roman Catholicism or should a far left Cardinal Roger Mahony disown his?
The truth is the leadership of The Episcopal Church is far to the left of even the most liberal Roman Catholic prelates, while its parishioners have generally been conservative in faith and morals. The Borgia popes in all their venality never denied the creeds; TEC bishops have. I doubt that one in a thousand Episcopalians know that a transgendered priest can now gain admittance to any Episcopal pulpit in the land, ably assisted by brainless bishops like Charles Bennison (PA) and Jon Bruno of Los Angeles.
If, as Sauls states, the church has been held captive to the culture, it has done so because it has not consulted Scripture on a whole host of issues from race, money and sexuality, preferring instead to roll over TO culture, thus having no prophetic witness or voice precisely when it should have to address the culture from the point of view of Holy Writ.
If snobby Episcopalians have been held captive to the dominant culture, which has rewarded them with "power, privilege and prestige," then they should use it not to abuse power or privilege but to help "the least of these." No one can be held accountable as to who their parents are and into what social strata one is born. It is what one does with it that matters.
I have a dear wealthy Episcopal friend in the South who is starting a school for people far less fortunate than himself. It will be his legacy when he is gone. He is using his money and privilege constructively for the Kingdom. What's wrong with that? Should he browbeat himself about his wealth and white privilege?
"The Episcopal Church is now liberating itself from that and paying the price. I hardly see paying the price as what ails us. I see it as what it means to be a follower of Jesus," writes Sauls.
No, Bishop, If one is a bigot, then cease being a bigot. If you are a racist, repent of your racism. If you are gay, live with it and don't expect the Church to endorse your behavior. (The same applies to single heterosexual males or females.) Jesus told a woman caught in adultery to cease. He would have done the same to a homosexual caught in the vortex of homosexual sin. "Neither do I condemn thee go and sin no more," would have been his words to the "gay" man.
"It is deeply true to the tradition of the Apostle Paul who decried human barriers of race, sex, or status" (Galatians 3:28), says Sauls.
Sauls truncates the text and twists its meaning to suite his predetermined purposes.
Here's the full text: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The context of Gal. 3:28 IS about ALL believers, without distinction, being sons of God and heirs of the promise. In using these couplets, instead of denying the distinctions of race, status and gender, Paul is actually maintaining their diversity. The revolutionary fact is their unity with Christ, or oneness in him. The context and content of this verse reveal that Paul is concerned to demonstrate salvation as being available to all, without racial, legal or gender distinction, through being united in Christ.
Sauls gerrymanders the text to include non-celibate homosexuals like V. Gene Robinson, Louie Crew, Mary Glasspool et al to make himself and presumably the church feel like the grand inclusivists (can one out inclusive our Lord) even though Sauls position actually defies what St. Paul said and meant.
Sauls and his fellow revisionist bishops have short memories. It was the great Reformer Thomas Cranmer who gave us the Book of Common Prayer and who went to his martyrdom courtesy of Queen Mary because he upheld the true faith, (a truly counter cultural act) while TEC's revisionist bishops are abandoning it. What about that does Sauls not get?
In his desire to conform to the culture, Sauls is sweeping away the very gospel he swore to uphold that has the power to change lives. Today, Cranmer and his prayer book are deemed too traditional for the likes of TEC's majority bishops and in their desire for inclusion and change they are killing the church. Where is the "abundant life" in that?
Wrote Ross Douthart in the New York Times; "Today the leaders of the Episcopal Church and similar bodies often don't seem to be offering anything you can't already get from a purely secular liberalism which suggests that perhaps they should pause, amid their frantic renovations, and consider not just what they would change about historic Christianity, but what they would defend and offer uncompromisingly to the world. Absent such a reconsideration, their fate is nearly certain: they will change, and change, and die."
A critique of TEC Chief Operating Officer's criticism of the Wall Street Journal on the recent passage of General Convention resolutions
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
July 21, 2012
"Its numbers and coffers are shrinking, the church votes for pet funerals but offers little to the traditional faithful," he roared.
"Legislators in the lower chamber, the House of Deputies, and the upper chamber, the House of Bishops, discussed 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.
"But the party may be over for the Episcopal Church, and so, probably, is its experiment with democratic governance," opined Akasie. Talk of a unicameral one-house-body and a resolution to "re-imagine" the church's governing body passed unanimously.
Akasie accused Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori of being "secretive and authoritarian" (there was no love lost between her and Bonnie Anderson President of the House of Deputies) and for brazenly carrying a metropolitan cross during church processions reserved for Old World bishops. He said her reign as presiding bishop has been characterized by actions more akin to a potentate than a clergywoman watching over a flock. Ouch.
He said she's sued breakaway, traditionalist dioceses which find the mother church increasingly radical. Church legislators have asked publicly how much the legal crusades have cost, to no avail. He said she sent shock waves through the church by putting forth her own national budget without consulting the convention's budget committee-consisting partly of laymen-which until now has traditionally drafted the document.
He said many dioceses are no longer willing or able to cough up money to support the national organization. Its bank accounts are running dry. He added that the church might have to sell its headquarters in New York City.
Akasie then threw in the usual figures about the church's decline, to fewer than one million today from three million in 1970. (ASA, a more accurate barometer is 675,000). He mentioned the lay Eucharist and its impact on clergy and bishops. He criticized the ability of ordinary laymen to rewrite, "in blunt modern language and with politically correct intent, of the church's historic Book of Common Prayer." Finally, he mentioned the entire delegation from the Diocese of South Carolina among the very last of the traditionalist holdouts-storming out of the convention.
Bishop Mark Lawrence did not storm out; he walked out after making a statement in the HOB while his deputation quietly left the House of Deputies leaving two members behind, to guarantee their place in TEC.
Now the irony of Akasie's article is that it OMITTED two of the most important resolutions, the passage of provisional liturgical rites for same sex marriage and allowing men and women who have had sex change operations to be priested. Why did he omit those two important resolutions, inquiring minds want to know. One suspects that, despite his rant, he is just as liberal as the institution he critiques.
However this did not stop Bishop Stacy Sauls, the Episcopal Church's Chief Operating Officer from taking Akasie to task. He wrote, "Space does not permit a correction of the numerous factual points I could dispute in Jay Akasie's, "What Ails the Episcopalians". Instead, I offer a spiritual correction. The church has been captive to the dominant culture, which has rewarded it with power, privilege and prestige for a long, long time. The Episcopal Church is now liberating itself from that, and as the author correctly notes, paying the price. I hardly see paying the price as what ails us. I see it as what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
"The Episcopal Church is on record as standing by those the culture marginalizes whether that be nonwhite people, female people or gay people. The author calls that political correctness hostile to tradition.
"I call it profoundly countercultural but hardly untraditional. In fact, it is deeply true to the tradition of Jesus, Jesus who offended the "traditionalists" of his own day, Jesus who was known to associate with the less than desirable, Jesus who told his followers to seek him among the poor. It is deeply true to the tradition of the Apostle Paul who decried human barriers of race, sex, or status (Galatians 3:28).
"What ails the Episcopalians is that this once most-established class of American Christianity is taking the risk to be radically true to its tradition. There is a price to be paid for that. There is also a promise of abundant life in it."
So Sauls feels guilty for being a Dead White (Episcopal) Male and wants all of us who happen to be DWMs to atone for that by tossing the church's traditional teachings out the window in favor of a cultural integration that is in fact leading head on to spiritual suicide.
The Episcopal Church has catered to and been supported by elites. It has been a spiritual home to 11 presidents and innumerable politicians and leaders. This begs the question: should conservative columnist William Buckley who did more to rejuvenate the conservative political discourse disown his Roman Catholicism or should a far left Cardinal Roger Mahony disown his?
The truth is the leadership of The Episcopal Church is far to the left of even the most liberal Roman Catholic prelates, while its parishioners have generally been conservative in faith and morals. The Borgia popes in all their venality never denied the creeds; TEC bishops have. I doubt that one in a thousand Episcopalians know that a transgendered priest can now gain admittance to any Episcopal pulpit in the land, ably assisted by brainless bishops like Charles Bennison (PA) and Jon Bruno of Los Angeles.
If, as Sauls states, the church has been held captive to the culture, it has done so because it has not consulted Scripture on a whole host of issues from race, money and sexuality, preferring instead to roll over TO culture, thus having no prophetic witness or voice precisely when it should have to address the culture from the point of view of Holy Writ.
If snobby Episcopalians have been held captive to the dominant culture, which has rewarded them with "power, privilege and prestige," then they should use it not to abuse power or privilege but to help "the least of these." No one can be held accountable as to who their parents are and into what social strata one is born. It is what one does with it that matters.
I have a dear wealthy Episcopal friend in the South who is starting a school for people far less fortunate than himself. It will be his legacy when he is gone. He is using his money and privilege constructively for the Kingdom. What's wrong with that? Should he browbeat himself about his wealth and white privilege?
"The Episcopal Church is now liberating itself from that and paying the price. I hardly see paying the price as what ails us. I see it as what it means to be a follower of Jesus," writes Sauls.
No, Bishop, If one is a bigot, then cease being a bigot. If you are a racist, repent of your racism. If you are gay, live with it and don't expect the Church to endorse your behavior. (The same applies to single heterosexual males or females.) Jesus told a woman caught in adultery to cease. He would have done the same to a homosexual caught in the vortex of homosexual sin. "Neither do I condemn thee go and sin no more," would have been his words to the "gay" man.
"It is deeply true to the tradition of the Apostle Paul who decried human barriers of race, sex, or status" (Galatians 3:28), says Sauls.
Sauls truncates the text and twists its meaning to suite his predetermined purposes.
Here's the full text: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The context of Gal. 3:28 IS about ALL believers, without distinction, being sons of God and heirs of the promise. In using these couplets, instead of denying the distinctions of race, status and gender, Paul is actually maintaining their diversity. The revolutionary fact is their unity with Christ, or oneness in him. The context and content of this verse reveal that Paul is concerned to demonstrate salvation as being available to all, without racial, legal or gender distinction, through being united in Christ.
Sauls gerrymanders the text to include non-celibate homosexuals like V. Gene Robinson, Louie Crew, Mary Glasspool et al to make himself and presumably the church feel like the grand inclusivists (can one out inclusive our Lord) even though Sauls position actually defies what St. Paul said and meant.
Sauls and his fellow revisionist bishops have short memories. It was the great Reformer Thomas Cranmer who gave us the Book of Common Prayer and who went to his martyrdom courtesy of Queen Mary because he upheld the true faith, (a truly counter cultural act) while TEC's revisionist bishops are abandoning it. What about that does Sauls not get?
In his desire to conform to the culture, Sauls is sweeping away the very gospel he swore to uphold that has the power to change lives. Today, Cranmer and his prayer book are deemed too traditional for the likes of TEC's majority bishops and in their desire for inclusion and change they are killing the church. Where is the "abundant life" in that?
Wrote Ross Douthart in the New York Times; "Today the leaders of the Episcopal Church and similar bodies often don't seem to be offering anything you can't already get from a purely secular liberalism which suggests that perhaps they should pause, amid their frantic renovations, and consider not just what they would change about historic Christianity, but what they would defend and offer uncompromisingly to the world. Absent such a reconsideration, their fate is nearly certain: they will change, and change, and die."
No comments:
Post a Comment