Well, new grist for the mill, but I doubt it makes into the conversations:
Can’t have those pernicious facts floating about, mucking up plan, now can they?
It was unfortunate that the book was published only after the death of the Rt Rev’d John Garton who was unkindly criticized in the chapter on Cuddesdon. Though one cannot libel the dead it’s worth saying that he was a good and faithful priest. If I think of him, I remember him on his knees praying in the chapel.
I do recall him saying something like, “liberals must also kneel before the revelation”: a sentiment the book evidently does not share.
I grew up in hurricane country and rode out many storms. Hurricanes Betsy and Camille were particularly bad. We thought we wouldn’t have to worry about hurricanes when we moved to Rock Hill, SC which is a 3 hour drive to the coast. Hugo proved us wrong. We had trees down everywhere but thankfully one only grazed the house. We had no power for two weeks. There are some things people can do to reduce the risk of loss of life and limb from hurricanes, and while my father taught me to never buy a beach house, Hugo proved that you can get hit even if you live well away from the shore.
A good article, but he lost me a bit at “I was…an early adopter,” and “Facebook soon…” Before all that there was Usenet and before that BBS. The Digital Revolution began sucking people in before the 21st century. The author is old enough that he should know that from conversation if not personal experience.
Ah, jhp, I joined ECUSA on the strength of the 1928, and I accepted the 1979 for a while, especially while Rite I services were still widely used. The Prayer of Humble Access is slightly modified in Rite I, and absent from Rite II. Not that this in itself is worth discarding the 1979, of course. A much more serious problem are that while traditional options for Morning and Evening Prayer, and Holy Communion, are provided, there is no traditional Baptismal rite, and the one which is there has been used by those with strong non-traditional faith leanings to make baptism all about a baptismal covenant, a new creation.
Part of the problem may be also the newer lectionary or lectionaries. As many have pointed out, the difficult passages about sexual immorality, among other immoralities, which we hear several times a year in the 1928 lectionary, are cut out, so the people don’t hear them any more.
And, with the varieties of worship provided in Rite II, along with the fact that many congregations use liturgies “based on” the 1979, but not actually following the 1979, we (while I was in ECUSA) no longer had “Common Prayer.”
I won’t be bothered with the next revision, since I left ECUSA behind.
I’m not a specialist in liturgics, but I really think some places in the 1979 book improved on the 1928 BCP (heresy! to be sure in the eyes of some). For example, the expansion and development of The Great Litany makes it more obviously Trinitarian in emphasis and richer in its petitions. The Evening Service remains quite beautiful. The alternative consecration prayer in Rite I Holy Eucharist also seems a worthy addition to 1928. Besides .... (parce Auden), The Prayer of Humble Access remained, and the Filioque, and many other traditional prayers too. Some things were changed and a few lost. But what was added were hundreds of historic prayers and collects that have enriched our common prayer and private devotions.
Nearly 40 years ago, I joined the Episcopal Church on the strength of its “new book.” It pains me to hear it scorned. We’ll sure miss it when the next revision comes.
One wonder in hindsight how future historians who study American History (if there are any in the future) will look upon this phase. Is it a revolution, a transition? Do political structures need redefinition every 100-150 years?
I know I wake each day and hardly recognize the government under which I was born and continually ask: Are we still a nation?
I agree with him entirely. May I respectfully suggest to those American Anglicans who insist on, or are merely used to, the 1979 book, that you return to using Rite I if you don’t care to return to the 1928?
You can refuse to believe the scriptures regarding marriage and at least be honest about your disbelief. To assert that scripture supports your belief when it does not is deceitful.
#1 In China.
Rebounding economy? Where?
I recollect from the Bible, at Matthew 4:17, say, that Jesus’s “main thrust” was repentance. To say he was inclusive of those committing sin doesn’t do right to Jesus’s expressions of righteousness and subservience to God and his commandments. In the same way one doesn’t fix a problem by ignoring it, he came to us while we were yet sinners. Not to ignore our sins, but to cleanse us and bring us forward to God as we recognized how filthy, lost, and weak we are.
I would ask the Archbishop to dwell on the fourth verse of Matthew 4 a bit, were I to meet him.
This new revelation, Bishop Morgan, comes from where?
dwstroudmd+, I think we know from where.
1 Timothy 4:1-2 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron
The Archbishop wrote, “The stories of Sodom and Gomorrah for example, associated with homosexuality and which have given rise to the pejorative word “Sodomite”, is in fact about an abuse of hospitality and what one writer calls “an attempted gang rape by a mob against two outsiders who are Lot’s guests”. Indeed Ezekiel says Lot’s relatives were punished primarily because they refused to help the poor and needy.” (emphasis mine)
Since the Archbishop has claimed to have taken “seriously what the Bible has to say in trying to discern the will of God” it is fair to point out three other passages in addition to Ezekiel 16:49 about Sodom not helping the poor and needy. Although absent from his address, these passages are “in fact” and indeed, particularly relevant to his chosen topic.
First, Ezekiel 16 also describes the behavior of Sodom as detestable, depraved, and vile. Ezekiel’s point is that God’s own people who were behaving more sinfully than those in Sodom would “bear the consequences of your lewdness and detestable practices” (Ezekiel 16:58). This is in addition to whatever abuses of hospitality occurred when Lot and his family stayed in ancient Sodom.
Second, when Jude described the sin of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah he named it as “sexual immorality and perversion.” His point was that ungodly people were facing God’s judgment because they polluted their own bodies and rejected authority (Jude 7-8). I leave it to the Archbishop to explain how the refusal to help the poor and needy actually pollutes the body and is a rejection of authority.
Third, the Apostle Peter described the inhabitants of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah as ungodly, depraved in conduct and lawless. In light of this, the Lord knows how to rescue his own godly people from trials and to hold for punishment the unrighteous, those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh, those who despise authority, the bold and the arrogant (2 Peter 2:6-10). Again, the failure to show hospitality does not fully explain the force of Peter’s exhortations to the godly.
I am not claiming that the sins of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah are equivalent to all homosexual practices today. I am merely pointing out that one does not take the Bible seriously as one seeks to discern the will of God by failing to carry all of the most obvious and relevant parts of the Bible on the topic at hand into the discussion. This should be self-evident to all, especially those who take the special care, time, study and conversation to be spiritually discerning. The Archbishop’s omission of the rest of Ezekiel 16, 2 Peter, and Jude is at best naive and at worst deliberate. In all fairness it does not deserve to be called “discerning.”
Surely the will of God before the people of God rests on the scriptural testimony behind us. The Bible describes that “great a salvation” which we must not ignore lest we imperil ourselves.
In the words of another biblical text (also not cited by the Archbishop of Wales), “We must pay the most careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away” (Hebrews 2:1).
In the challenging work of discernment, let us all strive to do better than what the Archbishop of Wales has done in his 2016 presidential address. With God’s help, we can and we must.
79% of Millennials with low levels of religious commitment do not identify with a religion, pretty amazing stuff.
The reckoning we have now of the beginning of human life hasn’t affected attitudes toward abortion, so just why is it the (falsely) alleged different modern understanding should affect this issue?
There is no gay gene. The activity has not changed. The Scripture has not changed. The Church’s understanding nor teaching for two millenia has not changed. The Jewish understanding from two thousand years prior to that has not changed.
This new revelation, Bishop Morgan, comes from where?
Psa 137:5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
Psa 137:6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
So, all he can offer is shallow, patent distortion. In order to distort, obscure, and denigrate the Gospel to such great extent, he must have motivations of greater value to him…
“Did God really say?” - Genesis 3:1
Fortunately for Wales, he is on the way out. Unfortunately for Wales, his (as yet unnamed) successor is not likely to sing a different tune.
Forget it Jake. It’s Chinatown.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is a wretched sinner, just like you and me. Of course he is going to fail and give in.
In this life, sin always wins.
It has always been thus. Recall the Israelites asked Aaron for a god in keeping with the times and culture and he made them one. Then that strict old literalist, Moses, came down and started throwing holy writ around. Thankfully, Jeroboam came along and revived the practice.
Lovely. Thank you for sharing this.
Disappointing that Shanksville Penna. is missing from this set.
We were lied to from Day 1. As a result of Obamacare, my family premiums have skyrocketed from $19,000 to $30,000 a year, with less coverage and all sorts of “exceptions” that are no longer covered. My doctor “retired” in disgust last year, and wrote a scathing letter to all his patients about how Obamacare and the resulting red tape have destroyed the healthcare system. I now am stuck in a “group practice.” It takes me 3-4 months to get an appointment.
End it, don’t mend it. President Trump needs to issue an executive order on Day 1 saying Obamacare is no longer effective and permanently suspended.
OK so what is the answer? The piece is long on criticism and short on alternatives beyond some vague references to flexibility and selling insurance across state lines.
I gather you guys across the Atlantic don’t like our socialized medicine over here in Europe. The NHS has lots and lots of problems. But still: I don’t fear massive costs. Full disclosure: I have been on the waiting list for spinal decompression for six months and no operation date in sight. People say that the French system is pretty good, though, with a mixture of state and private funding.
I have not subscribed to read it all: I merely offer commentary on what is published here.
These Sea-of-Faith-er types seem a bit off track.
Where is the ACLU?
This is certainly a case that deserves our attention—the ruling will be watched far outside of Wyoming.
This is the blatant application of a religious test by a group who ought to know better but have obviously no comprehension. Perhaps they need to exclude people who object to capital punishment on religious grounds as well, especially those who have never had to address the issue other than by a reporter with an antagonism.
This problem has an answer articulated for centuries and admirably summed up by Dorothy L. Sayers. See here: http://tnl.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Work-Dorothy-Sayers.pdf
What we have needed is application.
We still do.
“Facts on the ground” on the other side of the pond…
What would be acceptable about a heterosexual priest or bishop living with a partner of the opposite sex to whom they are not married for legal or other reasons? Would claiming a celibate relationship with this life partner be enough to credit this as within Christian morals?
#2—This is pretty much already the case, pharmacists are now legally required to provide abortifacients despite religious objections.
I heard Helen Roseveare speak at Urbana ‘81, and she shared this story there. So amazing. Her books are some of the best I’ve read…
This is an area where the next Supreme Court Justices could do the most damage to religious liberty. How about a doctor who will not perform an abortion? This goes far beyond baking wedding cakes.
The American Bar Association has just passed ethical rules that would arguably make it unethical for an American attorney to be involved in the preparation of such materials, to the extent that they constitute “harrassment or discrimination” or would encourage people to engage in conduct that is “harrassment or discrimination.”
Under the American Bar Association ethical rules, it is now unethical conduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Conduct related to the practice of law includes “participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.” Exempted from “harassment or discrimination” is “conduct undertaken to promote diversity and inclusion.” (Resolution 109, revising Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted on August 3, 2016.)
The prohibition was weakened to a certain extent from prior drafts, in that the earlier drafts provided a lawyer could be disciplined for “perceived” harassment or discrimination as well as actual harassment or discrimination. These new rules would have to be enacted in a state (usually by its Supreme Court or other disciplinary authority) before they could be applied against a state’s attorneys, and I suspect they may be subject to constitutional challenge, but the threat and chilling effect is now already out there against Christian attorneys.
This is going to be the scenario for lawyers as well.
Why in the world would any Christians not flee from the persecution which has been violent, blatant, and un-condemned by the world at large? It’s one thing to be a martyr; it’s something else entirely to simply let the steam-rollers of Islam wreak havoc, and expect that maybe, just maybe, someone will take notice…
The business rule with respect to conflicts of interest is to avoid impropriety and also to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Surely with respect to behavior outside of church teaching the same rule should apply. This strikes me as playing pretend.
It’s also worth saying that I have heard that, in various dioceses, bishops in fact do not ask for an assurance that civil partnerships are celibate.
Back when civil partnerships were introduced they were explicitly “not marriage”. Yet the legal rights of civil partnerships and marriages were very, very similar.
The RC church took the view that this similarity, and the possibility for confusion, meant that its clergy could not enter civil partnerships. The CofE HOB decided that, though civil partnerships were only possible for same sex couples, and the rights enjoyed were very similar to marriage, that they were not a legal marriage, and thus did not imply consummation, that clergy could enter civil partnerships so long as they were willing to give an assurance to their bishop that the partnership was celibate.
However after gay marriage was introduced, I believe that civil partnerships could be legally “converted” into marriage by simply signing a form: exactly the sort of confusion that the RCs desired to avoid. Yet the CofE stuck with their initial view. Clergy may enter same sex partnerships so long as those partnerships are assuredly celibate.
In theory clergy may not enter same sex marriages - though in fact a handful of parish clergy have done so, without being removed from their their posts. (You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…)
Whether all of this would have been possible before the the 21st century, others will need to judge.
Help me out here. It is my understanding that civil partnerships or whatever the UK calls them, and legal gay marriages both assume, legally, a sexual relationship between the partners. One cannot establish such a partnership with one’s sibling or parent. Is that correct? So, are the multitude of UK clergy who have done this, but tell the Church that they are “celibate,” lying to the State or to the Church? I make no judgment on this particular man as to his veracity. But there are many dozens of such clergy, I think.
Crying now. Praise God for His blessings.
Really, title should be “General Secretary muddies the waters with nuanced press release written by PR dept. at Lambeth Palace.”
“In fact, his lifestyle would make him acceptable to serve the church at any time in its history.”
1 Timothy 3 gets thrown under the bus.
There’s no doubt that his pronouncements caused much unhappiness to many his diocese at the time.
On a personal note, however, even though my late father had been part of the delegation to John Hapgood asking that he not consecrate David Jenkins as Bishop of Durham, it was David who was one of those to reassure him that it would be proper for him to resign the seat in General Synod to which he had (reluctantly) consented to be elected, in order to accept a chair at the Catholic University of America (1990-1991, 1992-1994).
Without such reassurances I suspect my father would have refused what he later viewed as his happiest three years since his Oxford days (1949-1952), so our family has cause to be grateful to him for that.
Shadowstats, which computes the real unemployment rate, says that real unemployment in the U.S. is still somewhere between 22-25%, has increased from 2007-08, and is as bad as it was in the worst days of the Great Depression.
Of course, besides manipulation of economic statistics, the Government is masking the country’s dismal economic situation through handouts, printing of money and artificially low interest rates. This is all being done on borrowed money the government cannot pay back—at some point the piper will have to be paid.
Meanwhile, the government distracts us from the real problems through such things as “Black Lives Matter,” “climate change” and the need for to give transgenders special legal preferences.
“He was a cleric who believed the church had to break free of dogma if it was to retain a place in the modern world.”
He has broken free of his place in this world. May the Jesus he might have believed in have mercy on his soul.
I’ve heard this story before and each time it makes me cry.
I’ve personally seen times when God answered before the request was made. I experienced Him teaching me skills He would need me to have years later. He is truly Awesome!
Return to blog homepage
Return to Mobile view (headlines)