This morning, at church, a few people asked me to e-mail my account of what happened at the “listening” meeting held Thurs. night at Trinity Memorial. The purpose of the meeting was for the General Convention Deputies from this diocese to listen to those of us sitting in the pews, and that is what they did. Fr. Matt Kennedy’s report on the meeting follows mine. His report is posted on the web site “Stand Firm” (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/index). I have also included comments that were posted in response to Matt’s report.
More than half of the people present were from the Church of the Good Shepherd. Aside from a few neutral comments (thanking the deputies for committing their time & etc. and one expressing the desire to talk about something else) all the comments addressed the current troubles in ECUSA. About half the comments were on each side of the issues.
Among the comments on the orthodox side was one that pointed out specific things in the BCP that directly contradict what ECUSA approved at the last General Convention. Also, there was a prepared statement made by one of the parishioners of Good Shepherd. I spoke about the effect of our actions on our relation to the Anglican Communion and asked the deputies to consider this carefully in deciding any vote they cast at the GC this June.
Revisionist comments included Lauren Gough’s claim that the constitution and canons of ECUSA were changed 25 years ago to prohibit discrimination in ordinations on the basis of sexual orientation and other factors. She wondered why many are getting so upset about it now. Louise Donohue expressed the opinion that we should separate ourselves from the Anglican Communion.
Other comments on both sides were along the lines of inclusiveness vs following the Bible and 2000 years of church teaching and practice. I don't think any of the deputies will vote differently as a result of the meeting, but some people who were there may have heard some of the orthodox reasoning for the first time.
Warren
Matt Kennedy
The Good Sort of Dialogue
I am, as I mentioned yesterday, persuaded that the time for talking is over. Our differences over essential matters of faith are so deep that short of repentance and recantation by one side or the other, there is no hope of institutional or spiritual unity.
I stand by that.
But last night my parish engaged in a very good sort of dialogue. As I mentioned yesterday my parish attended a “listening” session held in our district designed to let the diocesan deputies hear from the people they will represent.
I had my doubts about this meeting and argued against attending in vestry meetings. What finally persuaded me that it might be a good idea was the realization that my vestry was not seeing this meeting as a vehicle to “overcome our divisions” or in any way to pretend that “what unites us is greater than what divides”.
Rather they saw this meeting as an opportunity to proclaim the gospel of salvation people who may never have heard it and to clearly explain the reasons for our stand.
Both of those purposes were accomplished. It was an amazing evening. All of the usual tired revisionist arguments were trotted out only to be met with loving calm and sometimes movingly simple and eloquent biblical faith. Not a single Good Shepherd parishioner or leader lost his temper or raised his voice and we made up a little over half of the gathering of 54 Episcopalians. The truth was spoken clearly.
I spoke afterwards to a lesbian woman who teaches at the state University here. She had never heard or seriously grappled with the orthodox position…the real one, not the straw man erected by Integrity et al…before this evening. She wanted to talk more and gave me her card to talk later. I do not know if God used the words of my parishioners to plant seeds or change hearts, I do know that I am wholly in favor of this type of dialogue.
If an orthodox parish can go into a situation like this without the intention of reconciling the irreconcilable, but rather with the purpose of changing hearts and spreading the gospel, then it can be both good for the parish and good for the kingdom of God. This was a corporate evangelism effort for which the hard core revisionists were not at all prepared. The only anger and bitterness expressed came from a revisionist minded couple serving on the vestry of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed to bristle every time a speaker from Good Shepherd rose. The woman spent much of the meeting shooting me seething glances. I later found out that they had been members of Good Shepherd for many years before transferring to this other parish and were not at all happy with the new leadership of their old parish.
One of the most interesting aspects of the evening, and encouraging, was that there was a sad, but honest realization on the part of most there that we had, in reality, become two separate houses. Even the revisionists seemed to understand our differences are not going to be resolved by talking. And this realization actually made for a far more amicable meeting and a far more honest assessment of our future.
The delusion of a united future seemed to die last night, but peacefully. And this was good.
I do not think that every parish should go into a “dialogue” like this, especially if there are people in leadership seeking reconciliation with heresy. And, of course, time is short and such meetings will soon be “interfaith” rather than ecclesial in nature.
But, if a parish is united, firm, and committed to spreading the saving gospel of Jesus Christ; what a great opportunity such meetings represent to reach those sitting under false teaching who may simply be unaware of what’s going on and, in fact, may not know Jesus.
15 Comments • 0 Trackbacks • Permalink
Posted March 17, 2006
Thanks be to God!
What I have found is that so many people are still unaware of the schism that ECUSA is leading the Anglican Communion into!
I guess that this schism is not the flower that they happen to be sniffing at this time...if they are even sniffing at all.
Posted by Milton Finch on 03-17-2006 at 09:23 AM
I am thankful for the witness of members of Good Shepherd at the meeting last night. I did not attend, but I am glad that CGS members did and for their witness there.
Matt, finish this thought:
The only anger and bitterness expressed came from two revisionist members of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed.
Posted by Tony on 03-17-2006 at 09:35 AM
upset that we are still using the bible as a reference for things in ECUSA?
Posted by Milton Finch on 03-17-2006 at 09:51 AM
That’s good, Milton, and it would fit both the syntax of the sentence and the liberals around here. I do hope that Matt will finish his thought so we have it definitively.
Posted by Tony on 03-17-2006 at 12:53 PM
Encouraging Matt+ Thanks for the leadership & exa,ple of your parish. I will pray for your further conversations that follow last night’s meeting.
Posted by Karen B. on 03-17-2006 at 01:43 PM
Matt+: Color me amazed. It is really difficult to find anyone of the revisionista persuasion that will even make a pretense of listening to the other side. Maybe they were cowed by your numbers.
I recently started an email mailing list of members of my former parish to send out various articles on ECUSA and the Anglican Communion that I thought may be of interest. I had one person email be back that I made her want to throw up and she wasn’t even on the list-she heard about the mailing from someone else. Several have emailed me back indignantly demanding to be removed from the list, presumably to avoid being confused by the facts. Let’s face it, revisionista “inclusiveness” only extends to those that agree with them.
the snarkster
PS: I do wish you would finish that incomplete thought that Tony mentioned above.
Posted by the snarkster on 03-17-2006 at 01:56 PM
It’s fixed Tony, sorry about that.
Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2006 at 01:56 PM
Not a problem. This is interesting:
“The only anger and bitterness expressed came from a revisionist minded couple serving on the vestry of one of the “moderate” parishes in town who seemed to bristle every time a speaker from Good Shepherd rose. The woman spent much of the meeting shooting me seething glances. I later found out that they had been members of Good Shepherd for many years before transfering to this other parish and were not at all happy with the new leadership of their old parish.”
I am inferring that this woman left before you came, so I suppose she wasn’t a fan of the interim or your predecessor or both. And now, apparently she’s not a fan of yours either. Sheesh, you just can’t please some people!
Posted by Tony on 03-17-2006 at 02:07 PM
Yes, Tony, she left during the interim I believe.
One person from the other orthodox parish in town was there as well. He spoke very well and very forcefully about ECUSAn unilateralism.
Snarkster. I think the reason this went so well is because we went in with a battle plan. We had designated spokesmen, three training sessions detailing revisionist arguments and the orthodox response, and a prayer meeting at Good Shepherd 30 minutes before the event.
Now, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy and this one didn’t either. We had two designated speakers and about six spoke, but they spoke appropriately and well.
The hard-core revisionist weren’t prepared and (suprisingly) were not even expecting us to be there. I guess they don’t read Stand Firm. So their arguments had no impact on my people and, because they had been heard and dealt with before the fact at Good Shepherd, they provoked no anger. They were expected.
By the end one of the more radical people in attendance was reduced to pulling the old “ There are so many other things to talk about besides sex. Let’s discuss the millenium goals and feeding the poor...why are some people so hung up on one issue....”
Of course, the great thing about this is that everyone in the room knows that Good Shepherd is one of the poorest churches in the poorest neighborhoods. Many if not most of my parishioners are “the poor” and yet they still do a soup kitchen once a week and put alot of energy, time and money into social outreach. So her subtle jab “the orthodox care about sex and don’t care about the poor” fell pretty flat.
Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2006 at 03:15 PM
Yes Matt it does credit to your message. What was it that made the difference do you think--the preparation, the prayer time--between that night and what generally goes on here? The anonymity (for which I am grateful, believe me) of Stand Firm brings out all kinds of wicked attitudes and shamless manipulation on the part of what must be pretty well behaved folks otherwise.
Posted by terebinth on 03-17-2006 at 04:35 PM
Matt+: I commend you. You are doing it right. You are also spot on with the “just about sex” argument. That is just a smoke screen the revisionistas use when the rest of their arguments are going nowhere. I am on the board of our county’s only soup kitchen. We get money from almost every church in town but my ex-parish which is the most liberal revisionist parish in Mississippi. They don’t give us a dime. Maybe we should advertise it as a gay/lesbian soup kitchen.
the snarkster
Posted by the snarkster on 03-17-2006 at 04:47 PM
So much for the listening process. Committed revisionists haven’t listened to the orthodox for over 40 years and have no intention of starting now. The kindest thing that can be said about the revisionist attitude toward orthodoxy over the years is that it has been one of studied ennui. Increasingly, however, their side has ratcheted up the vitriol and outright hostility to the point that some are flirting with unbridled hysteria. My judgment is that this is a function of frustration born of their miscalculation regarding the reaction to GenCon 2003 throughout the AC; i.e., this time they haven’t been able to blow one of their fastballs by the orthodox as they did with women’s ordination and dumbing down the Prayer Book. It is therefore not surprising that both sides at your “listening session” sensed that the purported reconciliation process is over. Fortunately, I believe that the good guys have finally gotten the message that our views will always be received with an attitude of compelling indifference by the other side. It’s time to cut them loose and move on without them.
Posted by William R. Hurt on 03-17-2006 at 04:48 PM
Terebinth, I don’t know that there was any difference really. Like I mentioned, all seemed to come the realization that our differences were deep and profound and unable to be bridged. So the usual “why can’t you stop being bigots and come to the Table"..."why can’t we all just get along” was not to be heard. That made all the difference in my opinion because it was honest. It made respect and love possible.
Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-17-2006 at 04:52 PM
"The anonymity (for which I am grateful, believe me) of Stand Firm brings out all kinds of wicked attitudes and shamless manipulation on the part of what must be pretty well behaved folks otherwise.”
Oh the “labelling”. Oh the “certainty”. Oh the “judgement”.
But . . . I’m sure it’s the *right sort* of labelling, certainty, and judgement.
. . . Oh the bitterness. ; > )
Posted by Sarah on 03-17-2006 at 07:17 PM
Yeah, Sarah: Oh.
No comments:
Post a Comment