I have wondered why TEC did so little. Now we learn that they had not been liberated for mission. No excuses now.

Susan Russell also has said this in response to ++Rowan’s statement, as quoted in Daniel Burke’s article for the RNS:

The Rev. Susan Russell, president of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA, said it is clear the steps her church took in Anaheim “were contrary to what the archbishop said he hoped would happen.”

But Russell said she does not expect Episcopalians to back off on consecrating gay bishops or blessing same-sex unions. In fact, she said, the Diocese of Los Angeles, where Russell is a priest, is expected to consider electing a gay or lesbian candidate as suffragan (assistant) bishop later this year.

“I expect this church to move dramatically forward in the rest of the year,” Russell said, “and our deepest hope is that the rest of the communion, or at least large portions of it, continue to be at the table with us.”

There was going to be a report from a double-secret theology committee that would objectively summarize all of the diabology on the Integrity side, and all of the traditional counterarguments. Is this committee still active?

I’m frankly quite tired of hearing that they have done the theology. I have never heard one argument, not even one, that can be defended in light of Scripture and Tradition.

There is no need to stay in conversation with these people, other than to convince them of the need to repent.

Integrity regrets the Archbishop’s categorization of TEC’s commitment to full inclusion of the LGBT baptized as a “rights” issue rather than a “theological” issue—believing that it falls sadly short of recognizing all the theological reflection that has both moved and motivated this church over the years.

If this is not seen as a “rights” issue then why is that used first and foremost as an argument for it, against Scirpture, practically everywhere it is discussed? Why is the issue of what states allow what legally even brought up in the discussions at GC concerning these resolution? Why is Gene Robinson talking about a Supreme Court decision, in an interview with the NYT, during the GC itself somehow having some bearing on things?

We are frankly tired of being told we ‘haven’t done the theology,’” said Integrity President Susan Russell, “when the truth is that there are those in our wider Anglican family who do not agree with the theology we have done.

I am sure they must be very tired indeed considering practically every Christian Church, and non-christian for that matter, on the planet has flatly rejected this theology as unbiblical. She is right in saying the truth is the wider Anglican family does not agree but puts this down to lack of knowledge or animus rather than the well founded belief that it is just plain wrong.

There is one point on which I agree with Susan Russell:

“We are frankly tired of being told we ‘haven’t done the theology,’” said Integrity President Susan Russell, “when the truth is that there are those in our wider Anglican family who do not agree with the theology we have done.

Indeed.  ++Rowan wasn’t quite fully honest I think in implying that the theology “hadn’t been done” - TEC has “done” what they consider the necessary theology.  The problem is the rest of the Communion largely considers it total rubbish.

What is so ironic, is that Susan R. makes this claim that the real truth is that they just don’t accept what was said, when time and time and time again we have heard LGBT lobbyists say that the rest of the Communion has not engaged in the listening process faithfully.  We have not listened to the stories of GLBTs. etc etc.

Oh Susan, we have listened.  We did not accept what was said, and we have said so.  Like you were are tired of being told something different.  We are tired of being told it would be fine and we would all be united if we just listened.

Because we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want.

Correction: TEC has already descended into darkness.  What we orthodox madmen want is the instuments of unity to recognize this and dissociate the Communion from it so the darkness does not spread further than it has.

Clearly, the “listening process” is a one way street for “Integrity.” And “dialogue” is about gradual acceptance of false Christian doctrine, a new gnosis promoted by TEC. It is a like a drug addict wanting all his friends to join him in his “recreation activities” when they are repeatedly telling him it is substance abuse not recreation.

Their “theology” is a muddled mess of the “shellfish” argument together with “God doesn’t make mistakes, Gays are born that way, so we must bless homosexuality”. Throw in a few homosexual penguins (which apparently went straight...oops) and you have their “doing theology”. 

Oh, I forgot. Throw in a couple of “Ask me about Gene” lapel buttons and a rousing rendition of “Feelings” (performed here by the Muppet show).

Was the Integrity lot “doing theology” or “doing politics” at the GC09?

Politics!

“We are frankly tired of being told we ‘haven’t done the theology,’” said Homoiousian Presbyter Arius, “when the truth is that there are those in our wider Catholic family who do not agree with the theology we have done. But what we will do is keep doing it. We can keep reaching out, appointing homoiousian bishops, preparing homoiousian rites, combating homoiphobia etc. We can keep working together with our communion subsidiaries on mission and ministry all over this Worldwide Catholic Family of ours with those who will work with us. And we can put out a contract on those who won’t.”

Doing theology is listening to other folks tell their stories. It has nothing to do with scripture and tradition but only with stories. Has anyone ever heard from the Exodus folks at one of the dialogue sessions?

I suspect that this last GC will turn out to be the straw that brings the camel to its knees. That is, TEC’s footprints are now so clear, none may mistake them however much the sympathisers try to sweep them away.  The upshot may well be that Susan Russell and her coterie will discover that they have got TEC about their necks as n albatross. Integrity and Co. intend to go their own way, TEC or no TEC. TEC just happens in this case to be as useful as it is handy to them. Integrity has a good many more cards up it lawn sleeve than ssm, and being tied to TEC will eventually become being tied to an anchor. TEC may be radical, but Integrity is more radical still and vastly more abnormal (I use the word in its literal sense), so that TEC’s middle-of-the-road aberrance will become a hindrance and a liability. On the other hand, TEC is going to discover that one of its feet is cloven and they shall be forced to own it or cut it off.
Larry

Integrity already has a place to go.

Re; # 1…No excuses now.
I don’t know. Bishop Otis Charles can only gather about 75 people for his gay-FRIENDLY-FRIENDLY parish. So few that they have to close off their historic sanctuary. Wasn’t Bishop Charles THE example of liberated-to-the-hilt and ready for the New Thing mission?  Why the poor results?
What of the Rev. Dr. Cynthia Black, former dean and pastor of the now-defunct/closed up Cathedral of Christ the King? Didn’t she show up all over the globe taking pictures for gay propaganda, including at Lambeth? She was so liberated and free in mission that her primary responsibility back home (THE CATHEDRAL) went under.
Methinks that we have plenty more examples of parishes run and lead by the LGBT voices….many of which have been run right into the ground.
(DIOCESE of NEWARK, anybody).
But…there is always an excuse for why things don’t work out well at home when gay clergy are in charge of a gay Super-Friendly, liberated for mission parish.
There are ALWAYS going to be plenty of excuses.

The Chicago Consultation has issued a response here:
http://www.chicagoconsultation.org/article.php?id=45

Karen B., that Chicago Consultation statement ups the ante. To view LGBT inclusion as “simply one of civil liberties or human rights” is a “grave injustice.”  Rather, it is “nothing less than a Gospel mandate and a requirement of our baptismal vows.”  The line between the Archbishop’s statement and the LGBT groups could not be more clear.

Katherine, yes. exactly.  I picked up on exactly the same line of the Chicago Consultation’s statement.

It makes it very clear there are two different gospels being preached.  Or should I say: There is one Gospel being preached, and a very different “gospel.”

“Bishop Otis Charles can only gather about 75 people for his gay-FRIENDLY-FRIENDLY parish. So few that they have to close off their historic sanctuary. Wasn’t Bishop Charles THE example of liberated-to-the-hilt and ready for the New Thing mission? ” Bishop Charles is the recent interum at Trinity which by the way has been gay friendly for more than 30 years.  And it’s main sanctuary was closed due to potential earthquakes, not particularly gay related unless you still believe that God sends them as punishment (one dare not rule that belief out).  I would not think that Trinity is any more or less gay friendly than any other parish in San Francisco most all of which have gay members and many gay clergy, so being gay friendly is not a real draw.  As for comparison, one might wish to take a look at the Baptist Church a few blocks away and see if it’s doing any better in the membership department. Or for that matter, the Roman Catholic Cathedral also in the same neighborhood, recent seat of no less a figure than the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and note the recent massive cuts in their budget and closing of parishes.  One can hardly blame that on being too gay friendly.  Which all raises the question to my mind of all the snipish bitterness?

In Numbers 16, two hundred and fifty Israelites insist to Moses that they are just as holy as the priests are, and that the Lord is among them too, and therefore they should be able to carry out priestly functions just like Aaron and Aaron’s family.  When these 250 then appear before the Tent of Meeting with their lighted bronze censers, the Lord God Almighty vaporizes them.  The Lord then directs Moses to have the 250 bronze censers, which are scattered amongst the remnants of the inferno, hammered into an altar covering to remind the people of Israel that eligibility to perform priestly duties is defined by the Lord God Almighty and the penalty for disregarding that rule can be severe. 

Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
July 28, 2009

Because we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want. And as we continue to move forward in mission and ministry with those who embrace historic Anglican comprehensiveness, we believe those “outer darkness” threats are going to ring more and more hollow until they fade away altogether.

And here you have the evidence as to why Rowan Williams’ strategy is a failure.  Susan Russell is simply calling his bluff.  She says “Rowan, you can huff and you can puff, but we don’t care.  We know that in the end we can ignore you, and even poke you in the eye, but you will never actually do anything.”

Rowan might speak against the federation model for Anglicanism, but that is the model to which he is leading the Communion.

Rowan Williams is a theologian.
N.T. Wright is a theologian.
Pope Benedict XVI is a theologian.

Susan Russell is not.
If she were she would have heard what the ABC said in his missive which is that theology must be TESTED within the context of the wider Christian community, with tradition and most certainly with Scripture.  Just stating an opinion does not make theology.  Getting votes in a General Convention does not make theology either.

Reading Susan Russell’s remarks above have given me some comfort. TEC and Integrity have each made a Faustian bargain. Will they get what they have wished for? Indeed they will. Have they sold their souls that this wish may be granted? Does anyone doubt this? In a way, TEC and S. Russell also remind me of “The Monkey’s Paw,” which reinforces the old cliche that one should be careful what one wishes for.
  When I read the original entry, I got furious - as I always do when I read such - well, the elves will have my head again. But TEC and Integrity have chosen to pursue the radically abnormal     as if the normal - a man and a woman - were a social construct, not a fundamental evolutionary mandate. This cannot succeed for long, or the word “normal” would be meaningless, and we can all see that it is not. And so I remind myself to be patient. If you will forgive another cliche, “The mills of the gods grind slow, but exceeding fine.” It makes no difference in the long run what the ABC says, however important it is to us right now, because nothing stops the grindstones. The is plenty of water in the millrace, and the stones turning is inexorable. Larry

As someone across the pond observe, TEC doesn’t do theology, it does politics. The whole argument is for justice and rights, not about what God has ordained.

Theology is “thinking about God.” That’s not the same thing as anthropology or sociology, which are “thinking about fallen man.”

“...when the truth is that there are those in our wider Anglican family who do not agree with the theology we have done”.

What theology have you done other than “because we feel like it”?  The inclusion of the Gentiles argument is your best one, and it’s rendered moot because you can’t get the Biblical scholars around the definition of porneia.  The Gentiles were included, but only in the absence of practicing porneia; which, in and of itself, includes gay sex. 

Then there’s the “oriented” argument.  Orientation and action are two different things.  “Creation as good” is also moot; one could argue that God created murderers, too.  Not to mention, as a straight female maybe I am “oriented and created” to have six husbands instead of one.  That doesn’t mean I do it, or demand the Church’s blessing on it, or automatically get to redefine the sacrament of Christian marriage to include polygamy. “Validate me” is not a theological argument, either. 

“And meanwhile, we can live into the liberated-for-mission message our General Convention sent home from Anaheim and bless those who come to us asking for the church’s blessing on their already-blessed-by-God relationships”...

You’re not supposed to be liberated for mission, you’re supposed to be liberated FROM the corruption of the world, the flesh, and the devil. 

“Already-blessed-by-God relationships”?  Says who?  Did you reach Him on the bat phone? 

Karen B, in #2, quoted Susan Russell as saying:

“I expect this church to move dramatically forward in the rest of the year,” Russell said, “and our deepest hope is that the rest of the communion, or at least large portions of it, continue to be at the table with us.”

Is it just me or is there something significant in Russell’s framing of her statement in this way? It seems to me that Russell misunderstands both *who* is sitting and at what table they are sitting. She and TEC are sitting at the table of the Anglican Communion; the Anglican Communion is not seated at her table.

The “TEC” theological reflection on this issue is to have looked in the mirror and approved the way they look.  None else.  Nothing more.  And I frankly am tired of their calling this “theology” when its clear name is narcissism.

Doing theology requires listening to voices who disagree with you, and despite countless hours of conversation few in the Integrity camp will. It also means coming up with a rational and informed response to those who believe you are wrong. This has not happened, either.