Mr. Arora (whose position in the Diocoese of York is not stated) has clearly misread Canon Anderson’s criticism of the Archbishop of York’s comments.  Canon Anderson did not lump the Archbishop of York together with Jack Spong. He stated that the Archbishop’s following comment:

“I haven’t found that in ECUSA (sic) or in Canada, where I was recently, they have any doubts in their understanding of God which is very different from anybody. What they have quarrelled about is the nature of sexual ethics.”

If this is indeed what the Archbishop of York feels about especially the leadership of TEC, then he is indeed badly misinformed about the theology of TEC.  He also clearly does not understand the capacity of TEC leaders to recite creeds, but interpret them to mean something very far indeed from how they have historically been understood by the Church.  Mr. Arora’s misunderstanding (and one must assume this misunderstanding is shared by the Archbishop of York, as this piece appears on his website) of both Canon Anderson’s crticism and the reality in TEC is reflected in the following statement by Mr. Arora:

“Anderson’s objections lie not in the consideration of the mainstream of TEC but rather by reference, by and large, to its extremities.

By using such a broad brush to attack the Episcopal Church as a whole, Canon Anderson conveniently whitewashes the testimony daily offered up by all those faithfully reciting the creeds and liturgy that bear evidence to those doctrines which he alleges have been abandoned. The orthodox voice of the multitude is drowned out and ignored in Anderson’s analysis in favour of selective quotation from the fringe.”

The positions Canon Anderson is citing and criticizing within the TEC are, most unfortunately, NOT from the fringe of the TEC—they throughly reflect the MAINSTREAM of leadership thought within the TEC.  If Mr. Arora, or the Archbishop of York, for that matter, wish to explore and familiarize themselves more thoroughly with the current reigning theology among the leadership of the TEC, they might begin with some of the interviews of the current and previous Presiding Bishops of the TEC.

Does anyone recognize Arun Arora? LM

Bishop Spong (who continues to republish the same best-selling book with a new title over and over again) has explained more than once in the various editions of this book just how one may recite the creed and believe not a word of it.  As a lay person who has lived in several dioceses, I can say truthfully that unless one is in a solidly reasserting diocese, the first task upon arriving in a new diocese is to begin the often months long task of visiting parishes to find the one where the priest actually does believe the Creed he recites. I have been astounded not only by subtle denials of faith, but by sometimesw egregious and unapologetic denunciation of central Christian doctrine.  Of course, after each such sermon in which a central article of faith was trashed, the congregation all stood and recited the words of the Creed.

Arun Arora is Communications Adviser to the Archbishop of York.

From the York website,
http://www.dioceseofyork.org.uk/archive/news879.shtml
“11 July 2006
Archbishop’s team complete ...
Arun Arora has just gained a first class honours degree in theology and ministry at the University of Durham, having previously qualified and practised as a solicitor. He was the Birmingham Diocesan Director of Communications for four years. Arun marries the Revd Jo Logan in July and will live in Harrogate. ”

How embarrassing for the Director of Communications to so misread David Anderson’s critique as to imagine that Canon Anderson is putting the Archbishop of York in the same company as Bishop Spong—a rank heretic—while at the same time maintaining a condescending and smug tone.

It’s one thing to be condescending and smug, but when that happens along with such a blatant reading error of the essay that he is reading, it’s awkward indeed.

I thought it was actually a pretty good comeback. But then, I was in school with Jack Spong, and still speak to him in a friendly manner when I see him. Let the Inquisition rage…

Well Patriarch the Inquistion is certainly raging and all of Jack’s friends are in charge of it!  Hope you’re enjoying it, orthodox Anglicans certainly aren’t—just ask those who are losing their churches, their pensions, and a lot more!

Patriarch was there in the formative years of J.Spong;  What went wrong?  Unfortunately, NT Wright could not now get a job in the main Episcopal Seminaries.  Aron Arora has run amok.

Chris Taylor has the right of it, “Patriarch”.

It is an Inquisition only when the inquisitors are in power.  And that clearly isn’t the case with theological conservatives/reasserters in The Episcopal Church.

It is ludicrous for liberals and progressives in TEC to complain in supercilious outrage about an “Inquisition” within The Episcopal Church, given the results of the Righter Trial in the early 1990s and the complete failure of this Church to discipline Bishop Spong for his dishonesty to his vows as a presbyter and bishop of the Church, to say nothing of the continued and approved ministry of myriad clergy (and various other bishops) of the Church who deny central tenets of the Christian faith, in their preaching and catechizing if not in their published writings.

Whether Canon Anderson has gotten something wrong about the AB of York does not remove this central Truth:  TEC has a clear and documented problem with the decay of biblical, creedal, and traditional belief in the Articles of our Religion.

When the new PB can wax glib about the equivalent truths to be found in all the world religions…when she can, likewise, delineate the Gospel as equivalent to the pursuit of the MDGs, we have a Church defining itself outside the Faith once received.  That, rather than the symptomology of homo-erotic behaviors (and whether or not to bless them), is the core issue for the AC these days.

Kendall, I’ll be commenting on this on my own blog but wanted to thank you for posting it. Interesting contribution to the conversation!

RE: “Kendall, I’ll be commenting on this on my own blog but wanted to thank you for posting it. Interesting contribution to the conversation!”

Good grief, I did not know that Fred had a blog.

I didn’t either. Is there a picture of Fred somewhere on it?

I think we are all in agreement.  What’s that address again?

Just a note, when I said “Good grief” I did not mean that as a negative comment—I was just very surprised.

Canon Anderson’s objection to Dr. Sentamu rests on half of one sentence made in an hour long interview with the Daily Telegraph: “.I haven’t found that in ECUSA (sic) or in Canada, where I was recently, they have any doubts in their understanding of God which is very different from anybody. What they have quarrelled about is the nature of sexual ethics.”

Anderson’s objections lie not in the consideration of the mainstream of TEC but rather by reference, by and large, to its extremities.

My main problem with Sentamu’s remarks, and Arura’s rebuttal of Anderson, is that they are both completely missing the point of our complaint (and you would think above ALL people the Communications Director would get it):  Every word issued on behalf of the ABC today is critical to the orthodox in this Country.  It sounds trite to say “we are hanging on their every word” but that’s sort of the case, isn’t it?  We heard ++Duncan’s grief and frustration over the lack of support from the ABC and we are starving, dying of thirst for some sort of tip of the hat to let us know that they are concerned about the fate of the historic Anglican Faith.
Are they going to join us in its defense or turn against us?  Or worse still, will they leave us in limbo not knowing upon which side the Primacy will fall in these issues until it is too late to save TEC? 

They should know better, Sentamu and Arura and not utter a syllable on these issues without careful contemplation.

KTF!....mrb

I blog, therefore I am!

The communications director is correct in the accepted definition of Goodwin’s Law. The communications director errs in the suggestion that Canon Anderson claims ++Sentamu ‘has fallen in amongst a group of liberal bandits’.

++Sentamu’s comment that “I haven’t found that in Ecusa (sic) or in Canada, where I was recently, they have any doubts in their understanding of God which is very different from anybody. What they have quarrelled about is the nature of sexual ethics” is what Canon Anderson dissects with references to heretical words and practices by various ECUSA hierarchy over the years.

And ++Sentamu was incorrect in his original summation and the communications director errs, in a rather liberal fashion, by invoking Goodwin’s Law as a way of defining Canon Anderson’s attempt to sweep the dirt from under the rug,

I challenge the communications director to read Schori’s first two sermons as PB ECUSA and, as I have pointed out in two prior posts, see if indeed she may “have any doubts in their understanding of God which is very different from anybody.”

Ummm ... Sorry folks! That was me being ironic. I’ve got all I can do to keep up with ya’lls blogs to manage one of my own!

Hmmmm.  Fred’s tone is not his usual . . . charming . . . tone, but is instead the charming tone of another.

And it sounds *awfully* familiar now.

But I know better than to guess at someone’s identity who does not wish it revealed.

So . . . my bad and never mind.

There is so much that is poor in this response.  For a director of communications R.A Arora seems to lack comprehension skills.  His misunderstanding of RC D Anderson’s article is well documented in the postings above. 

What is also interesting is how he assumes that the orthodox response should be homogeneous:

  This ideological inconsistency between the critics of the Archbishop of York demonstrates that in their rush to say something (anything?) that will place TEC upon the top of a heretical bonfire, Messers. Anderson & Philips cannot even agree amongst themselves upon the importance (or not) of sexual ethics within the current malaise or upon what constitutes core doctrines of faith, belief or the Church. Until such time as they can, perhaps they would be better off refraining from making any comment at all.

Firstly I think he misunderstands the difference, if any, between Anderson’s stating that issues of sexual ethics are tertiary and Philips’ stating they are core.  Anderson means, I think, that we need to look deeper than sexual ethics to understand why we are even in the place to consider the reforms that are being posited in this area.  Basically he is saying we cannot change ethics without a change in core doctrine making his position analgous to Philips’. 

Second, does he imagine that the orthodox all sit in a room somewhere to generate consensus?  We must be doing something right to generate this kind of paranoia. 

I have a hard time getting my head around this next comment:

  By using such a broad brush to attack the Episcopal Church as a whole, Canon Anderson conveniently whitewashes the testimony daily offered up by all those faithfully reciting the creeds and liturgy that bear evidence to those doctrines which he alleges have been abandoned. The orthodox voice of the multitude is drowned out and ignored in Anderson’s analysis in favour of selective quotation from the fringe.

“The orthodox voice of the multitude.”  We were just imagining division all along.

“I haven’t found that in ECUSA or in Canada, where I was recently, they have any doubts in their understanding of God which is very different from anybody.”

In the spirit of careful reading, it is interesting that ABoY is not claiming consistent faith in North America, but only a lack of originality in doubt.

William Scott, I was just noting that he commented on “a lack of originality in doubt.” What an encouraging remark on the state of God’s church.

Bill Witt, re: “As a lay person who has lived in several dioceses, I can say truthfully that unless one is in a solidly reasserting diocese, the first task upon arriving in a new diocese is to begin the often months long task of visiting parishes to find the one where the priest actually does believe the Creed he recites.”

Second the motion - been there, done that.

I believe that Mr Arora is practicing his own version of Obfuscatory Episcobabble.

How have the leaders of TEc failed? Where is the error of former PB Griswold and current PB Schori? Can anyone show me the ambiguity in the decisions of GC 2003 and GC 2006?
What must the American Conference of Bishops do, which they have not done previously?
TEc is doing a new thing. TEc is doing a thing which has not been done previously. TEc has discarded any notion of the theological inerrancy of Genesis. TEc has found a new rationale for human sexuality. Genesis is out, and commitment is in. Genesis, and its demand for one man and one woman to be joined together until death, has been declared irrelevant and outdated. What have the leaders of TEc failed to do to communicate this fact?

Where is truth? Well, it seems that truth is found in the witness of the spirit in GC 2003 and GC 2006. And the spirit told the delegates at those two conferences that a new truth had emerged, and that a male-male or female-female committed union was exactly equivalent to a male-female committed union. That you can look up.

Furthermore, GC 2006 found the Holy Scriptures to be oppressive. They also found the Name of Jesus objectionable, since there are (at least from my reading of GC 2006 and PB Schori) other ways of obtaining salvation.

Herein is the Elephant in the Room: is salvation only available to all humankind through the sovereign name of Jesus, or are there other doors?

So long as the Bishop of York is unable to speak in a manner consistent with the Creeds on the issue of the uniqueness of Jesus, anything that his Lordship has to say must be accepted with a grain of salt.

I might say that the Bishop of York has much to do to demonstrate his saltiness.

However, #25, is it not really the case that sexual ethics is indeed at the heart of the present pas de deux? We have often heard the case that sexuality is in the REAL issue, but VGR is more than just a proximate cause. Sexuality is now a core issue because it has created around it a penumbra of a-scriptural propositions,  which are now all of a piece and all of which challenge Christianity itself. Moreover, sexuality by itself is a core issue for the church because it is a core issue for all mankind - hard, indeed, to find another so thoroughly central to our being.  LM

#31 LM, #30 MM, I am and remain convinced that what we are becoming subject to is a House of Bishops that has decided, for its own reasons, to bear out Jesus’ predictions about himself, namely that his existence and teachings would be “hard sayings” and that those that could bear them would be limited in number (who can hear it?).  We just have the misfortune of living in a time when those who have chosen not to hear are activists, in charge, and ruthless in dealing with dissent from their positions.  It’s like a perfect storm. 

But this too will pass.  Or as the Waterboy’s Mom would say:
“The chickens have come home to roost, Bobbie Bouchet!”.
They will begin to understand that a Church that does not separate itself from the world is not a church.  It’s a club. 

KTF!....mrb

I agree that sexuality is a core part of our teaching.  On this I disagree with our recent decision at the GCoC.  I was merely trying to show how Arora misunderstands the thinking of Andrews and Philips. 

I suppose the heretical teachings both precede and follow the sexuality debate.  Without a weakened stance toward Scripture they would have never gained any ground.  After homosexual culture has taken hold in the communion, the new theologies are legion to justify this culture.  We started with a top down intellectual liberal theology that created a justification for the inclusion for homosexuality in the church.  And now we have all manner of convoluted reasoning.  There is an increasing emotional anti-intellectualism rising from the reappraiser’s side.  The old Liberals had a hand full of scientific, social-scientific and philosophical premises that they formed a system on; they were somewhat formidable because they were hard thinkers.  Not so anymore.  We are increasingly up against a system based on a handful of emotional premises.  Sure they flatter themselves that they are thoughtful because they are ‘innovators’.  This somehow necessarily implies that they are intellectuals (spend a bit of time at ‘Thinking Anglicans’ and the self congratulation is thickly mixed with newspeak.)  But it is not good hard thinking.  It is the same clever claptrap you hear from any neophyte radical college freshman.  We are up against changeling now.

I suppose Arun Arora knows not the difference between Orthodoxy and Neo-Orthodoxy.

Assuming he knows the difference between Orthodoxy and Neo-Orthodoxy, I suspect he would wonder why you are dragging Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Reinhold Niebuhr, et al., into this discussion. Whatever the reappraisers in TEC might be (Neo-Protestant, Liberal Protestant, whatever), they are clearly not Neo-Orthodox.

34
My last comment is probably not too careful.  I was meaning Arora’s claim that a multitude of Episcopalians are Orthodox because they recite the creeds and liturgy.  One basis of neo-orthodoxy is the irrationality of our faith.  Under this view one can recite the creeds without believing they are true in a real world sense. It is this ‘as if’ spirit I was loosely referring to.  To be orthodox means to believe that the facts of our faith are true, not to engage them as if they were so.

I will be more careful in the future.