Bishop Lawrence Out of the TEC

higgs2 said:

I can't imagine anyone is surprised by this. We've just been wondering "when?"

Click to expand...

Well, I believe that there were many people who thought that there would be a trial or charges brought or that Bp. Lawrence would actually have to abandon the communion of the church in order to trigger it.

brevis said:

That is a very serious claim, any references?

Click to expand...

This is actually something that has been going on for decades in TEC. I've read various articles over the years in which moderate/conservative candidates have been rejected by their bishop because their politics were not in line with the bishop or the bishop had a problem with the parish rector and his politics. Believe it or not, this has happened to many moderate/conservative female candidates as well.

To be fair, could some of these candidates have been rejected for other reasons? Of course, but the pattern remains the same. The 2010 survey I posted earlier shows that the vast majority of laity in TEC is theologically moderate and there are even more theological conservatives in the pews than theological liberals. The clergy, bishops, and other leaders tend to be far more theologically liberal than the average lay person. In my estimation, this is due to decades of rejecting candidates that don't match up politically with the leaders, otherwise, how else can you explain the drift of this church and some of the downright strange GC resolutions?

I did not bookmark these stories, but I will search for them and post them when I find them.

Sean611 said:

This is actually something that has been going on for decades in TEC. I've read various articles over the years in which moderate/conservative candidates have been rejected by their bishop because their politics were not in line with the bishop or the bishop had a problem with the parish rector and his politics. Believe it or not, this has happened to many moderate/conservative female candidates as well.

To be fair, could some of these candidates have been rejected for other reasons? Of course, but the pattern remains the same. The 2010 survey I posted earlier shows that the vast majority of laity in TEC is theologically moderate and there are even more theological conservatives in the pews than theological liberals. The clergy, bishops, and other leaders tend to be far more theologically liberal than the average lay person. In my estimation, this is due to decades of rejecting candidates that don't match up politically with the leaders, otherwise, how else can you explain the drift of this church and some of the downright strange GC resolutions?

I did not bookmark these stories, but I will search for them and post them when I find them.

Click to expand...

This has been the case for years in my diocese. Although female candidates who are moderate have far more luck than male ones. Most of the more conservative males are ordained outside the province, and if they are lucky they might be able to find a conservative parish to take them later - the bishop will not put a conservative priest in a liberal parish, even if they want him.

A lot of the more conservative also can't get through the local theological college - they become too upset with being taught that the Resurrection is metaphorical, Jesus was just a nice guy, and playing with play-doh to get in touch with their emotions. So that weeds out quite a few as well.

The vast majority of those ordained here are middle-aged women. I know of a number of young men who were called who were sent away by the screening boards because they were young men. They have all turned out to be great assets in diocese in other parts of the world.

MKJ said:

This has been the case for years in my diocese. Although female candidates who are moderate have far more luck than male ones. Most of the more conservative males are ordained outside the province, and if they are lucky they might be able to find a conservative parish to take them later - the bishop will not put a conservative priest in a liberal parish, even if they want him.

A lot of the more conservative also can't get through the local theological college - they become too upset with being taught that the Resurrection is metaphorical, Jesus was just a nice guy, and playing with play-doh to get in touch with their emotions. So that weeds out quite a few as well.

The vast majority of those ordained here are middle-aged women. I know of a number of young men who were called who were sent away by the screening boards because they were young men. They have all turned out to be great assets in diocese in other parts of the world.

Click to expand...

The state of some of these "theological" seminaries is scary! Here in TEC, we are lucky to have the Nashotah House and Trinity School for Ministry, the former being traditional Anglo-Catholic and the latter being low-church evangelical. There are many dioceses that will not accept a priest who went to Trinity and are on record of saying that.

MKJ said:

A lot of the more conservative also can't get through the local theological college - they become too upset with being taught that the Resurrection is metaphorical, Jesus was just a nice guy, and playing with play-doh to get in touch with their emotions. So that weeds out quite a few as well.

Click to expand...

Dude...weak.

LewsTherin said:

Dude...weak.

Click to expand...

They are weak, the schools are weak, my argument is weak?

I can tell you it is true - those are the things that happen at our local theological college. It's actually a school that accepts students from several denominations, and it is so bad that even some of the denominations that fund it and set it up will no longer send their ordinands there. They have no patristics professor, which is nuts. All of these examples I've given are things that friends of mine experienced as students there, I'm not repeating rumors from third parties or anything like that.

As for people who don't get through because they are so disgusted - well, maybe they should try harder. I think that is hard to insist on, it can be very different when all of your profs and fellow students think you are a nut-bar. And they kind of run out of heart, I think. They start to wonder what the point is. I know some who have stuck with it, but some end up just stopping going, or they leave Anglicanism, or they transfer to a different college and end up being ordained elsewhere.

Sean611 said:

The state of some of these "theological" seminaries is scary! Here in TEC, we are lucky to have the Nashotah House and Trinity School for Ministry, the former being traditional Anglo-Catholic and the latter being low-church evangelical. There are many dioceses that will not accept a priest who went to Trinity and are on record of saying that.

Click to expand...

Yup.

I find it interesting to speculate how it happened.

I think it actually has a lot to do with the problem of clergy that are so out of touch with the laity and try to enforce their view on the Church as a whole. It seems to have started, or at least been propagated, through the theological colleges.

I meant teaching the resurrection as myth and play-doh at a "theological college" is weak. Lame and weak. Your argument is solid.

mark1 said:

Bishop Lawrence is now out of The Episcopal Church. The Diocese of south Carolina is now not a part of the Episcopal Church by a previous vote of its Standing Committee triggered by the notification sent to Bishop Lawrence.

There will be an annual clergy conference in early November, as previously scheduled. There will be a convention in mid-November.

http://www.diosc.com/sys/images/documents/tec/tec_restriction_of_ministry.pdf

Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina

Click to expand...

This breaks my heart. Praying for the Church at this time. Let there be healing and reconciliation.

LewsTherin said:

I meant teaching the resurrection as myth and play-doh at a "theological college" is weak. Lame and weak. Your argument is solid.

Click to expand...

Oh good!

Yeah, it is lame.

LewsTherin said:

I meant teaching the resurrection as myth and play-doh at a "theological college" is weak. Lame and weak. Your argument is solid.

Click to expand...

Why is this weak?

How is it not weak?

Episcoboi said:

Why is this weak?

Click to expand...

Because it isn't Anglican. The Anglican Church has never taught that, there has been no discussion of changing our doctrine or belief to allow for that approach.

People don't just get to make up whatever understanding they like and then call it Anglican. That is not how we make decisions about doctrine in Anglicanism.

MKJ said:

Because it isn't Anglican. The Anglican Church has never taught that, there has been no discussion of changing our doctrine or belief to allow for that approach.

People don't just get to make up whatever understanding they like and then call it Anglican. That is not how we make decisions about doctrine in Anglicanism.

Click to expand...

Okay, but it is being taught to seminarians...It isn't doctrine in the church. Last I checked, the Nicene Creed still stands. As long as that stands, no matter what seminarians are being taught, the resurrection will stand as a doctrine of the church. But....I think that "Resurrection being taught as myth" is just oversimplification and sensationalizing of what is actually going on. Other and different understandings of resurrection are taught, but "myth" in the sense of a nonsensical and untrue story, no seminary worth it's reputation would teach this. Many seminaries DO teach the resurrection stories as myths in the sense of stories that point to deeper truths and spiritual realities.

Unfortunately for some (fortunately for others), the mainline seminary has embraced a scientific and modern worldview and calls into question and brings into dialogue beliefs traditionally held. They are examined, re-examined, discussed, debated, re-thought, re-formulated, etc. This all part of the scholarly/academic process. This is what happens in education. And, Western Christianity has cerebral-ized its faith, it has turned theology into an intellectual rather than spiritual pursuit. It has turned it into talk about God by those who study religious philosophy, rather than God-talk by those who have experienced God. So, what do you expect?

MKJ said:

... decisions ... Anglicanism.

Click to expand...

Those two go together?

Indeed.

This is "the Resurrection as myth" is meant in the sense of "as opposed to objective, literal historical fact," not in the sense of "myth as in bedtime stores we all know are false."

This is why the Resurrection is a matter of faith. The Bible is simply not literal history, and the position that it is has never been a tenet of the Anglican faith. Seminarians are taught Episcopal theology and Church history alongside things like the Synoptic Problem, and Textual Criticism -- subjects and frameworks of contemporary scholarship (which have been around for many, many years). These are simply tools we may use to inform our faith and are an embodiment of the Via Media, not a renunciation of the Creed.

Some people, however, find them threatening.

Episcoboi said:

Okay, but it is being taught to seminarians...It isn't doctrine in the church. Last I checked, the Nicene Creed still stands. As long as that stands, no matter what seminarians are being taught, the resurrection will stand as a doctrine of the church. But....I think that "Resurrection being taught as myth" is just oversimplification and sensationalizing of what is actually going on. Other and different understandings of resurrection are taught, but "myth" in the sense of a nonsensical and untrue story, no seminary worth it's reputation would teach this. Many seminaries DO teach the resurrection stories as myths in the sense of stories that point to deeper truths and spiritual realities.

Unfortunately for some (fortunately for others), the mainline seminary has embraced a scientific and modern worldview and calls into question and brings into dialogue beliefs traditionally held. They are examined, re-examined, discussed, debated, re-thought, re-formulated, etc. This all part of the scholarly/academic process. This is what happens in education. And, Western Christianity has cerebral-ized its faith, it has turned theology into an intellectual rather than spiritual pursuit. It has turned it into talk about God by those who study religious philosophy, rather than God-talk by those who have experienced God. So, what do you expect?

Click to expand...

I was, in fact, thinking of myth in the second sense, not as something that is "not true". THough both definitions are saying something is not true as historical narrative, and perhaps in other ways as well, so I don't think you can argue the richer sense of the word myth is no different, really, than the orthodox teaching.

Your two definitions of myth here do have a connection in this case, because Anglicanism doesn't teach that either of them are correct with regard to the Resurrection or Incarnation. We teach that those were historical events that happened in a particular time and place.

These are the most fundamental teachings of our faith, and they aren't without consequence. They speak directly to the way we that understand reality is structured - that is why the belief that they are historical facts is so important.

There has never been any authority given to change that in Anglicanism, and such authority would have to come from the Anglican Communnion as a whole.

Yes, it is being taught in seminaries, and that should be very worrying to you. Academics talking about different ways of thinking about our religion is quite different than seminarians being taught things those ideas are what we believe. There has always been all kinds of ideas that go on in academia, but academia helps inform our decisions, it does not make them.

I do not see how anyone can think it is acceptable for academics (who quite frankly have been a poor lot overall in the Anglican world in the last few years) get to define how we understand our most fundamental beliefs. What kind of individual or school decides it would suddenly like to teach its seminarians some new, unauthorized idea, as Anglican belief?

And speaking of heresy - if there are any changes in teaching that could be described as heretical, it is incorrect teaching about the nature of Christ, the Incarnation, and the Trinity. These are the subjects that all the major heresies are related to. And the teaching of the Resurrection and the Incarnation as a myth is far outside even the traditional Christological heresies. It would be closer to orthodox belief to be an Arian.

I agree that Western Christianity has tended to cerebralize its faith to a degree (though actually I am not sure that is the dominant trend in Anglicanism), but I'd only call it modern in the strict sense, as in, 19th century. Theology and even philosophy and science have actually moved on from there, but that is where a lot of Anglican "radical" thinkers are stuck. It is that approach which sees myth and what you might call historical truth as very seperate, and which takes a very linear approach to theology.

But I don't really think I can be blase that this has became acceptable to teach as representing Anglican belief.

ebia said:

Those two go together?

Click to expand...

Are you home from your trip?

I think perhaps we have an issue with some not making the decisions they need to, and people all over making decisions that are not theirs to make.

This is why the church (Not just the Episcopal Church, but the Christian Church as a whole) is dying. Those of us who have grown up in and lived our lives in the 20th and 21st centuries...centuries of war, fighting, death, destruction, division, hatred, and chaos...are exhausted. We want peace, reconciliation, understanding, justice, and just an end to all of the fighting. The world is weary of it. The church preaches all of these things, but, when people enter the church, they don't find communities of hope, peace, love, acceptance, and good-will. They find the same garbage, fighting, division, attacks, and petty hatreds that they have in the rest of the world outside. People are unconvinced by the church's message, when the people that are the church don't live it.

It is not the "gays, liberals, and feminists" who are killing the church. It is all of us. Maybe, if we learned to live with each other and our differences with a little grace, understanding, and willingness to dialogue without resorting to division and infighting, we might actually see the commonwealth of God on earth. Until then, as one of my atheist friends has said, "the church will continue to be a relic of a dark and evil time. It will continue to be pulled into obscurity and irrelevance by its own hands."

It's time to wake up, stop letting "issues" divide us, and to truly live by faith (trust) in God.