Here is a response I posted to the article below:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/07/24/army-planning-for-last-war/
=====================================================================================
I have a good friend and colleague who is being redeployed. Like myself, this guy is a history buff. As we talked the other day, I spotted on his bookshelf this very interesting book on the post-Korean War Army, a book written by Bacevich in the mid-80s:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201980%20to%201989/Pentomic%20Era%20-%20July%2086/PENTER.pdf
“The Pentomic Era: The US Army Between Korea and Vietnam”
This book is a classic. It is filled with quotes from heavy hitters like William DePuy and Jack Cushman, from a time when those men were field grade officers. Change the names and the circumstances, it could be front line news as to what is happening to the U.S. Army today.
We do need to understand why it is that the U.S. Army is particularly subjected to each stroke of the electoral cycle, and why it is forced to engage in radical transformative ventures, why it is compelled to continuously redefine its business model. No other army in the world does this. The Marine Corps and the Air Force do not have to wage a continuous battle to justify their existence – or their acquisition programs. They do not junk their doctrine and rewrite it from scratch every 8-10 years.
Part of it, I believe, is that the U.S. Army is always overextended; part of it, I think, stems from an intrinsic American dislike of standing armies. And then there is our national tendency, only partly muted since WWII, to fall into military disrepair and unreadiness during times of (relative) peace. How would we mobilize if we needed a much larger army ever again ? This is not a new problem. The Army’s end strength in the 1950s fell into the 800K range for only 14 divisions of 11K men apiece. Pathetic force generation…just pathetic. But then, this was an army of draftees. Conventional ops ? No, that was outmoded Cold War thinking – the Army was to break with the past, with the last war. The Korean War. We would never be fighting a war like that again.
What the record shows is that in the 50s, the Army went over the top in designing a force supposedly optimized for high intensity conflict, under Eisenhower’s New Look, with SecDef Charles Wilson foreshadowing Rumsfeld and Gates in browbeating the Army leadership. Replace the Crusader, the AGS, and the FCS MGV with the T113 (the prototype M113) and the story is the same. Megabucks for missiles (the latest fad in the inventory), pennies for ground combat vehicles.
After Kennedy’s election, the pendulum swung towards low intensity conflict. Many of the arguments the Army made to counter the New Look came back to haunt it during the 60s. It was only after the Vietnam debacle, under the leadership of Abrams and Depuy, that the Army rediscovered its center. Nonetheless, the strategic tension remained, as many of us well recall; Bacevich reveals himself in the 1986 book to be as pro-LIC as he is today. He actively opines that the US should have declared itself to be an international police force on the model of the Roman imperium back in ‘55.
I do find it difficult to fault the Army leadership for this situation; Truman and Eisenhower ended the careers of Douglas MacArthur and Matthew Ridgeway. Bush and Obama ended the careers of Shinseki and McKiernan: what, pray tell, has changed ? Conclusion: while Goure’s premise is correct, his evaluation of the problem’s cause is flawed.
In a proliferated world, what makes us think there is no room for pentomic divisions ? If anything, we should reflect that the pentomic era’s operational motto of flexibility, mobility and depth prefigured our Air Land Battle tenets of agility, initiative, depth and synchronization – words that I now understand to have been buried at Fort Leavenworth.
There are warriors in the ranks of the generals. Men of common sense and toughness, the Tex Goodspeeds of my generation. The Army of the Future awaits their lead, when all this has played out.
Klotzen, nicht kleckern.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Posted to the Yahoo Episcopal Group Mailing List" Tweeting Like Crazy
See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/episcopalchurch/message/42396
GC 2009 is at this very moment debatting Resolution D025, which if adopted, will
for all intents and purposes repeal B033, and remove all prohibitions, if not
outright encourage openly practicing homosexuals to be ordained into all three
clerical orders. My diocese, the Diocese of Virginia, once again is publishing a
newsletter, the Center Aisle, which is dedicated to the fiction of a compromise
solution on all matters, including and most importantly pertaining to human
sexuality. You can find the special edition of Center Aisle which includes the
text of D025 here:
http://www.centeraisle.net/Issues/Sunday_July12_issue.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Resolution in Question: D025, Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the
76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation
of The Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion;
give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth
Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of
The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that
constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into
the highest degree of communion possible; and be it
further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage
dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal
Church to participate to the fullest extent possible
in the many instruments, networks and relationships of
the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm
its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and
pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget;
and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm
the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual
persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of
1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through
our own listening the General Convention has come to
recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal
Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed
relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy,
mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication,
and the holy love which enables those in such relationships
to see in each other the image of God" (2000-
D039); and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize
that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such
relationships have responded to God's call and have
exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently
doing so in our midst; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm
that God has called and may call such individuals, to any
ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, which call is
tested through our discernment processes acting in
accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The
Episcopal Church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge
that members of The Episcopal Church as of
the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the
Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are
not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience
disagree about some of these matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments are confined to these. I have actively followed five General
Conventions now, since 1997, and seen the unending appeasement
of sin and error by the same old people, and the continued building of one
resolution upon the other, if and only if it supported the end objective of
legitimizing conduct which is pretty clearly condemned in both the Old Testament
and the New Testament. My own position has been, well, (1) consistent in
opposition to this trend and (2) generally condemnatory against those who seek
to sweep the issue under the rug, mitigate the temporal and eternal consequences
of sin, and engage in a form of causistry that makes exceptions to be the rules.
A few minutes ago, I tweeted out a retort to the "Episcopal Cafe" - an typically
liberal twitter site demanding the following answer as to the standard to be put
in place by D025. Is the incoming standard to be the "Jeffrey John" standard:
openly homosexual and professing celibacy in a committed relationship, or the
"Vicky Gene Robinson" standard: openly homosexual, and not professing celibacy
in a committed relationship ?
I believe that the language of D025 is not at all unclear on this point...what
is being asked of the Episcopal Church is to accept and embrace the "VGR
standard", and to caste all semblance of Christian sexual morality to the wind,
once and for all. And it will be argued in response to the wounded consciences
of those who are acknowledged to disagree that "General Convention has spoken".
Causa finita est.
I usually get to this point at least once per General Convention. That is, when
things are looking very bad, I usually give out a little pep talk about how God
is in control and things work for good for those who love the Lord and are
called according to His purpose. I need not overly reiterate those sentiments,
and in fact my blog talks to this theme in my response and rebuttal to the PB's
opening remarks.
But I cannot help but note that I believe that the Episcopal Church is, in this
particular resolution, passing the point of no return. Yes, there have been many
such points suggested - at least for the past nine years, if not the last 15-33
years. But I do think this is it. It is difficult to imagine any scenario
whereby the Episcopal Church, and very possibly the Anglican Communion, can
recover from the passage of this resolution in the form it now stands. The
contradictions, which many have gone great lengths to deny (I recommend reading
the Center Aisle for that kind of thinking), will simply become too obvious to
ignore or deny.
As always, and as companies warning during their quarterly earnings
presentations, I hesitate to predict the timing and scope of the consequences
that will inevitably result. In the past, I have managed to retain 100% accuracy
in predicting that the consequences, simply put, will be negative, without going
into hyperbole as to their severity. Selling the Episcopal Church short has been
a kind of superogatory ritual done in three year cycles, but what doth it profit
the soul thereby. Nonetheless, this year, I am taking an unusually bearish
approach: I am predicting a kind of spiritual market crash, with correlated
financial results, if GC 2009 "breaks out" of B033 as the D025 strongly
suggests.
As they say on the Street.com - this is the "news you need".
Bill Riggs
Fredericksburg, VA
GC 2009 is at this very moment debatting Resolution D025, which if adopted, will
for all intents and purposes repeal B033, and remove all prohibitions, if not
outright encourage openly practicing homosexuals to be ordained into all three
clerical orders. My diocese, the Diocese of Virginia, once again is publishing a
newsletter, the Center Aisle, which is dedicated to the fiction of a compromise
solution on all matters, including and most importantly pertaining to human
sexuality. You can find the special edition of Center Aisle which includes the
text of D025 here:
http://www.centeraisle.net/Issues/Sunday_July12_issue.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Resolution in Question: D025, Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the
76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation
of The Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion;
give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth
Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of
The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that
constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into
the highest degree of communion possible; and be it
further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage
dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal
Church to participate to the fullest extent possible
in the many instruments, networks and relationships of
the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm
its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and
pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget;
and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm
the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual
persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of
1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through
our own listening the General Convention has come to
recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal
Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed
relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy,
mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication,
and the holy love which enables those in such relationships
to see in each other the image of God" (2000-
D039); and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize
that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such
relationships have responded to God's call and have
exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently
doing so in our midst; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm
that God has called and may call such individuals, to any
ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, which call is
tested through our discernment processes acting in
accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The
Episcopal Church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge
that members of The Episcopal Church as of
the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the
Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are
not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience
disagree about some of these matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments are confined to these. I have actively followed five General
Conventions now, since 1997, and seen the unending appeasement
of sin and error by the same old people, and the continued building of one
resolution upon the other, if and only if it supported the end objective of
legitimizing conduct which is pretty clearly condemned in both the Old Testament
and the New Testament. My own position has been, well, (1) consistent in
opposition to this trend and (2) generally condemnatory against those who seek
to sweep the issue under the rug, mitigate the temporal and eternal consequences
of sin, and engage in a form of causistry that makes exceptions to be the rules.
A few minutes ago, I tweeted out a retort to the "Episcopal Cafe" - an typically
liberal twitter site demanding the following answer as to the standard to be put
in place by D025. Is the incoming standard to be the "Jeffrey John" standard:
openly homosexual and professing celibacy in a committed relationship, or the
"Vicky Gene Robinson" standard: openly homosexual, and not professing celibacy
in a committed relationship ?
I believe that the language of D025 is not at all unclear on this point...what
is being asked of the Episcopal Church is to accept and embrace the "VGR
standard", and to caste all semblance of Christian sexual morality to the wind,
once and for all. And it will be argued in response to the wounded consciences
of those who are acknowledged to disagree that "General Convention has spoken".
Causa finita est.
I usually get to this point at least once per General Convention. That is, when
things are looking very bad, I usually give out a little pep talk about how God
is in control and things work for good for those who love the Lord and are
called according to His purpose. I need not overly reiterate those sentiments,
and in fact my blog talks to this theme in my response and rebuttal to the PB's
opening remarks.
But I cannot help but note that I believe that the Episcopal Church is, in this
particular resolution, passing the point of no return. Yes, there have been many
such points suggested - at least for the past nine years, if not the last 15-33
years. But I do think this is it. It is difficult to imagine any scenario
whereby the Episcopal Church, and very possibly the Anglican Communion, can
recover from the passage of this resolution in the form it now stands. The
contradictions, which many have gone great lengths to deny (I recommend reading
the Center Aisle for that kind of thinking), will simply become too obvious to
ignore or deny.
As always, and as companies warning during their quarterly earnings
presentations, I hesitate to predict the timing and scope of the consequences
that will inevitably result. In the past, I have managed to retain 100% accuracy
in predicting that the consequences, simply put, will be negative, without going
into hyperbole as to their severity. Selling the Episcopal Church short has been
a kind of superogatory ritual done in three year cycles, but what doth it profit
the soul thereby. Nonetheless, this year, I am taking an unusually bearish
approach: I am predicting a kind of spiritual market crash, with correlated
financial results, if GC 2009 "breaks out" of B033 as the D025 strongly
suggests.
As they say on the Street.com - this is the "news you need".
Bill Riggs
Fredericksburg, VA
Response Posted to Center Aisle Blog
This was a comment on John Ohmer's blog entry at:
http://centeraisle.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/a-parish-priests-perspective-a-lovers-quarrel/#comment-12
I agree with yofiki. The Diocese of Virginia has for much too long been committed only to noncommitment. That is really why we lost all those parishes in the ADV schism. Nobody wants to admit it. It is rude to suggest it. Our bishops especially cannot concede that it is true. You have people like Mary Ailes and Phil Ashey who used to belong to our diocese blogging away as outsiders. And their voices will only be heard from the outside. We need to look for the problems in increasingly wider circles from our own selves.
Now - as far as the issue in question...you might have pointed out that even bishops in states where same sex marriage has been legalized have taken different approaches to the question. Even the Bishop of El Camino Real put out a letter that expressly forbid what is being proposed after the first California Supreme Court decision. This was at least a consistent approach to addressing the canonical question, given the state of secular law. This is no small issue for us in Virginia, since our state is not likely to ever legalize same sex marriage on its own, but there will be demands for canonical recognition of civil marriages if the Supreme Court ever overturns DOMA and the state statutes on 14th Admendment grounds. You can read the letter I wrote to Ted Olson on my blog at http://billrsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-sent-to-ted-olson.html
http://centeraisle.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/a-parish-priests-perspective-a-lovers-quarrel/#comment-12
I agree with yofiki. The Diocese of Virginia has for much too long been committed only to noncommitment. That is really why we lost all those parishes in the ADV schism. Nobody wants to admit it. It is rude to suggest it. Our bishops especially cannot concede that it is true. You have people like Mary Ailes and Phil Ashey who used to belong to our diocese blogging away as outsiders. And their voices will only be heard from the outside. We need to look for the problems in increasingly wider circles from our own selves.
Now - as far as the issue in question...you might have pointed out that even bishops in states where same sex marriage has been legalized have taken different approaches to the question. Even the Bishop of El Camino Real put out a letter that expressly forbid what is being proposed after the first California Supreme Court decision. This was at least a consistent approach to addressing the canonical question, given the state of secular law. This is no small issue for us in Virginia, since our state is not likely to ever legalize same sex marriage on its own, but there will be demands for canonical recognition of civil marriages if the Supreme Court ever overturns DOMA and the state statutes on 14th Admendment grounds. You can read the letter I wrote to Ted Olson on my blog at http://billrsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-sent-to-ted-olson.html
Saturday, July 11, 2009
A Response to the Presiding Bishop
In her address to the Episcopal Church's General Convention 2009,
http://ecusa.anglican.org/78703_112035_ENG_HTM.htm
Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefforts Schori made the following remarks
'"When I was growing up, my mother often reminded us of what my grandfather used to say to her and her siblings when they were in trouble, 'We’re going to have words, and you’re not going to get to use any of yours.' Well, we’re going to have words."
and more notoriously:
"The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly the ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention."
"Ubuntu doesn’t have any 'I's in it. The I only emerges as we connect – and that is really what the word means: I am because we are, and I can only become a whole person in relationship with others. There is no 'I' without 'you,' and in our context, you and I are known only as we reflect the image of the one who created us. Some of you will hear a resonance with Martin Buber’s I and Thou and recognize a harmony. You will not be wrong."
Now, in reading what the Presiding Bishop stated as carefully as possible - for in all cases like this one when she has said something controversial, her opponents and her supporters immediately go to their spin lines, with the opponents citing this as yet one more instance where she has transgressed against Christian orthodoxy, her supporters complaining that she has once again been misunderstood, her opinions distorted, her meaning misinterpreted.
A couple of nights ago, I had dinner with a Roman Catholic friend of rather impeccable conservative credentials, bewails the PB's latest offense to Christian belief and practice. Interestingly, he didn't quite get the point. And that is exactly the point about Katherine Jefferts Schori...neither does she. Her Catholic roots betray her. She does not in fact understand Protestantism. She really doesn't know, and certainly does not acknowledge that there is any difference between individualism and selfishness. Whether deliberately or unwittingly, her words exacerbate the very crisis that is the focus of her speech. Later in this same speech, the Presiding Bishop speaks of "subsidiarity", which might be described in secular terms as "home rule". One might be tempted to ask, "If subsidiarity is a good thing, why not autonomy" ? For this Presiding Bishop has done more than any other preceding her to crush out autonomy as a governing principle with the Episcopal Church, at least where the rights and prerogatives and parishes and dioceses are concerned.
What the Presiding Bishop entirely fails to recognize is those very local realities that have brought schism to the Episcopal Church. This is the reality of bishops and priests who for years have misinformed and failed to inform their flock on those actions taken by General Convention and in some cases, the diocesan conventions as well. This is the reality of deferred protest, of ineffective dissent,of talk without action. It is the reality of property laws, court decisions, and litigation funds. It is the reality of bishops refusing to ordain ministers from conservative seminaries and refusing to accept ministers whose opinions challenge theirs. It is the reality of individuals, parishes and dioceses gradually and discretely terminating financial support for institutions and programs that are morally unsupportable and in some cases poorly managed.
Although Bishop Schori managed to get through her entire address - it can hardly be termed a "sermon" - with not a single biblical passage, Holy Scripture itself provides a stronger and clearer response than any other words. In Leviticus 5:17 we find the following passage:
"If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity."
This is not group sin, and it is not group atonement for sin. There are passages in the Mosaic Law, in Leviticus 4 and 5 that do deal with group atonement for the sins of a group as a whole, where the priest and the ruler performs a sacrificial rite on behalf of the "assembly", but this verse and others like it deal In Job 13, tempted by Satan and hounded by his hypocritic friends, Job exclaims:
Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.
Even so, I will defend my own ways before Him.
He also shall be my salvation,
For a hypocrite could not come before Him.
Listen carefully to my speech,
And to my declaration with your ears.
See now, I have prepared my case,
I know that I shall be vindicated.
Who is he who will contend with me?
If now I hold my tongue, I perish.
These are not the words of Ubuntu, or Martin Buber's I-Thou relationship, or Jack Spong's "depth psychology". These are the words of a human being, who knows good and evil, and who understands the difference. This is the voice of the suffering virtuous; the person who believes in spite of all. To such a person, the Presiding Bishop has no message of hope, indeed, no message at all.
In Psalm 19, King David declaims:
Who can understand his errors?
Cleanse me from secret faults.
Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins;
Let them not have dominion over me.
Then I shall be blameless,
And I shall be innocent of great transgression.
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my hear
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O LORD, my strength and my Redeemer
This is the humility the Episcopal Church lacks. This is the salvation it needs, both individually and as a whole. Psalm 38 records how David responded - and how we should respond - in times of crisis:
For I am ready to fall,
And my sorrow is continually before me.
For I will declare my iniquity;
I will be in anguish over my sin.
But my enemies are vigorous, and they are strong;
And those who hate me wrongfully have multiplied.
Those also who render evil for good,
They are my adversaries, because I follow what is good.
Do not forsake me, O LORD;
O my God, be not far from me!
Make haste to help me,
O Lord, my salvation!
When we can say, in one breath hat "my sins are every before me", but "I follow
what is good", that is the place to be. God goes with us on our journey, where ever we are and if indeed we, the sum of all the "I"s do indeed follow what is good, we need not worry about where God takes us and we will not get lost.
In Ecclesiastes 9, we find written:
13 This wisdom I have also seen under the sun, and it seemed great to me: 14 There was a little city with few men in it; and a great king came against it, besieged it, and built great snares[b] around it. 15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city. Yet no one remembered that same poor man.
16 Then I said:
“ Wisdom is better than strength.
Nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised,
And his words are not heard.
17 Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard
Rather than the shout of a ruler of fools.
18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war;
But one sinner destroys much good.
Clearly, this heresy, this ideology of the individual, it has the deepest of roots. And we have just barely scratched the Old Testament, not even referring to the prophets, all of who proclaimed God's truth - as individuals. And one need not mine deeply into Paul's letters, to find such heretical ideas. In Acts 10, Peter preaches the gospel to Cornelius's househlold, as follows:
"And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
And this incident of mass conversion is consistent with the Great Commission found in Mark's gospel, for which source traditionally was Peter himself.
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Individual faith, grounded an individual decision empowered by God's grace - the gift of the Holy Spirit - resulting in the salvation of all the individuals who, collectively, form the Holy Catholic Church.
We are near to Calvin's birthday. There are many, and unfortunately an apparently increasing number - and the Presiding Bishop appears to be one of them, who deny humans the gift of free will, of the exercise of any role at all in the order of salvation. The PB is herself accused of Pelagianism on account of her high view of human nature and the dignity of man. But the path of free will in obedience to God is that narrow Via Media which she has missed, which many who seek to justify themselves by good works - or no works at all. And this spiritual plight lies at the heart of what plagues the Episcopal Church: for its evangelical wing was always arguably as Arminian as Calvinist or even Lutheran. All three of these Protestant evangelical traditions are in peril today across Anglicanism and within the Episcopal Church, but it is the Wesleyan tradition that stands under the harshest assault today.
I had originally intended to haul out my favorite quote from St. Augustine on compassion for the dying - and this comprehends all who are threatened by spiritual death, but in this context, I woul prefer to let John Wesley say the benediction:
From Sermon 14 (The Repentence of Believers:
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/014.htm
"By the same faith we feel the power of Christ every moment resting upon us, whereby alone we are what we are; whereby we are enabled to continue in spiritual life, and without which, notwithstanding all our present holiness, we should be devils the next moment. But as long as we retain our faith in him, we 'draw water out of the wells of salvation.' Leaning on our Beloved, even Christ in us the hope of glory, who dwelleth in our hearts by faith, who likewise is ever interceding for us at the right hand of God, we receive help from him, to think, and speak, and act, what is acceptable in his sight. Thus does he 'prevent' them that believe in all their 'doings, and further them with his continual help;' so that all their designs, conversations, and actions are 'begun, continued, and ended in him.' Thus doth he 'cleanse the thoughts of their hearts, by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit, that they may perfectly love him, and worthily magnify his holy name."
http://ecusa.anglican.org/78703_112035_ENG_HTM.htm
Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefforts Schori made the following remarks
'"When I was growing up, my mother often reminded us of what my grandfather used to say to her and her siblings when they were in trouble, 'We’re going to have words, and you’re not going to get to use any of yours.' Well, we’re going to have words."
and more notoriously:
"The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly the ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention."
"Ubuntu doesn’t have any 'I's in it. The I only emerges as we connect – and that is really what the word means: I am because we are, and I can only become a whole person in relationship with others. There is no 'I' without 'you,' and in our context, you and I are known only as we reflect the image of the one who created us. Some of you will hear a resonance with Martin Buber’s I and Thou and recognize a harmony. You will not be wrong."
Now, in reading what the Presiding Bishop stated as carefully as possible - for in all cases like this one when she has said something controversial, her opponents and her supporters immediately go to their spin lines, with the opponents citing this as yet one more instance where she has transgressed against Christian orthodoxy, her supporters complaining that she has once again been misunderstood, her opinions distorted, her meaning misinterpreted.
A couple of nights ago, I had dinner with a Roman Catholic friend of rather impeccable conservative credentials, bewails the PB's latest offense to Christian belief and practice. Interestingly, he didn't quite get the point. And that is exactly the point about Katherine Jefferts Schori...neither does she. Her Catholic roots betray her. She does not in fact understand Protestantism. She really doesn't know, and certainly does not acknowledge that there is any difference between individualism and selfishness. Whether deliberately or unwittingly, her words exacerbate the very crisis that is the focus of her speech. Later in this same speech, the Presiding Bishop speaks of "subsidiarity", which might be described in secular terms as "home rule". One might be tempted to ask, "If subsidiarity is a good thing, why not autonomy" ? For this Presiding Bishop has done more than any other preceding her to crush out autonomy as a governing principle with the Episcopal Church, at least where the rights and prerogatives and parishes and dioceses are concerned.
What the Presiding Bishop entirely fails to recognize is those very local realities that have brought schism to the Episcopal Church. This is the reality of bishops and priests who for years have misinformed and failed to inform their flock on those actions taken by General Convention and in some cases, the diocesan conventions as well. This is the reality of deferred protest, of ineffective dissent,of talk without action. It is the reality of property laws, court decisions, and litigation funds. It is the reality of bishops refusing to ordain ministers from conservative seminaries and refusing to accept ministers whose opinions challenge theirs. It is the reality of individuals, parishes and dioceses gradually and discretely terminating financial support for institutions and programs that are morally unsupportable and in some cases poorly managed.
Although Bishop Schori managed to get through her entire address - it can hardly be termed a "sermon" - with not a single biblical passage, Holy Scripture itself provides a stronger and clearer response than any other words. In Leviticus 5:17 we find the following passage:
"If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity."
This is not group sin, and it is not group atonement for sin. There are passages in the Mosaic Law, in Leviticus 4 and 5 that do deal with group atonement for the sins of a group as a whole, where the priest and the ruler performs a sacrificial rite on behalf of the "assembly", but this verse and others like it deal In Job 13, tempted by Satan and hounded by his hypocritic friends, Job exclaims:
Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.
Even so, I will defend my own ways before Him.
He also shall be my salvation,
For a hypocrite could not come before Him.
Listen carefully to my speech,
And to my declaration with your ears.
See now, I have prepared my case,
I know that I shall be vindicated.
Who is he who will contend with me?
If now I hold my tongue, I perish.
These are not the words of Ubuntu, or Martin Buber's I-Thou relationship, or Jack Spong's "depth psychology". These are the words of a human being, who knows good and evil, and who understands the difference. This is the voice of the suffering virtuous; the person who believes in spite of all. To such a person, the Presiding Bishop has no message of hope, indeed, no message at all.
In Psalm 19, King David declaims:
Who can understand his errors?
Cleanse me from secret faults.
Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins;
Let them not have dominion over me.
Then I shall be blameless,
And I shall be innocent of great transgression.
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my hear
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O LORD, my strength and my Redeemer
This is the humility the Episcopal Church lacks. This is the salvation it needs, both individually and as a whole. Psalm 38 records how David responded - and how we should respond - in times of crisis:
For I am ready to fall,
And my sorrow is continually before me.
For I will declare my iniquity;
I will be in anguish over my sin.
But my enemies are vigorous, and they are strong;
And those who hate me wrongfully have multiplied.
Those also who render evil for good,
They are my adversaries, because I follow what is good.
Do not forsake me, O LORD;
O my God, be not far from me!
Make haste to help me,
O Lord, my salvation!
When we can say, in one breath hat "my sins are every before me", but "I follow
what is good", that is the place to be. God goes with us on our journey, where ever we are and if indeed we, the sum of all the "I"s do indeed follow what is good, we need not worry about where God takes us and we will not get lost.
In Ecclesiastes 9, we find written:
13 This wisdom I have also seen under the sun, and it seemed great to me: 14 There was a little city with few men in it; and a great king came against it, besieged it, and built great snares[b] around it. 15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city. Yet no one remembered that same poor man.
16 Then I said:
“ Wisdom is better than strength.
Nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised,
And his words are not heard.
17 Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard
Rather than the shout of a ruler of fools.
18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war;
But one sinner destroys much good.
Clearly, this heresy, this ideology of the individual, it has the deepest of roots. And we have just barely scratched the Old Testament, not even referring to the prophets, all of who proclaimed God's truth - as individuals. And one need not mine deeply into Paul's letters, to find such heretical ideas. In Acts 10, Peter preaches the gospel to Cornelius's househlold, as follows:
"And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
And this incident of mass conversion is consistent with the Great Commission found in Mark's gospel, for which source traditionally was Peter himself.
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Individual faith, grounded an individual decision empowered by God's grace - the gift of the Holy Spirit - resulting in the salvation of all the individuals who, collectively, form the Holy Catholic Church.
We are near to Calvin's birthday. There are many, and unfortunately an apparently increasing number - and the Presiding Bishop appears to be one of them, who deny humans the gift of free will, of the exercise of any role at all in the order of salvation. The PB is herself accused of Pelagianism on account of her high view of human nature and the dignity of man. But the path of free will in obedience to God is that narrow Via Media which she has missed, which many who seek to justify themselves by good works - or no works at all. And this spiritual plight lies at the heart of what plagues the Episcopal Church: for its evangelical wing was always arguably as Arminian as Calvinist or even Lutheran. All three of these Protestant evangelical traditions are in peril today across Anglicanism and within the Episcopal Church, but it is the Wesleyan tradition that stands under the harshest assault today.
I had originally intended to haul out my favorite quote from St. Augustine on compassion for the dying - and this comprehends all who are threatened by spiritual death, but in this context, I woul prefer to let John Wesley say the benediction:
From Sermon 14 (The Repentence of Believers:
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/014.htm
"By the same faith we feel the power of Christ every moment resting upon us, whereby alone we are what we are; whereby we are enabled to continue in spiritual life, and without which, notwithstanding all our present holiness, we should be devils the next moment. But as long as we retain our faith in him, we 'draw water out of the wells of salvation.' Leaning on our Beloved, even Christ in us the hope of glory, who dwelleth in our hearts by faith, who likewise is ever interceding for us at the right hand of God, we receive help from him, to think, and speak, and act, what is acceptable in his sight. Thus does he 'prevent' them that believe in all their 'doings, and further them with his continual help;' so that all their designs, conversations, and actions are 'begun, continued, and ended in him.' Thus doth he 'cleanse the thoughts of their hearts, by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit, that they may perfectly love him, and worthily magnify his holy name."
Posted Comments on GC2009 to Ruth Gledhill's Blog
Ruth Gledhill of the London Times is covering GC 2009 in absentia, since the Church of England General Synod is also going on concurrently at York. Her surrogate put up the following report here:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/07/ecgc-spiritual-earwax-at-anaheim.html
This is the followup comment I posted to that site:
The Presiding Bishop was nothing but massively insensitive, and perhaps deliberately antagonistic to evangelicals and to protestants from other denominations with that crack about "western heresy". Shje seems not at all to care about the soteriological mission of the church; for her, the social gospel is the only gospel there is. While the reports coming out of Anaheim are dismaying to many of us, I do find that these meetings are occasions to reiterate our faith in God's mighty purpose, and to remember that the triumph of the Church over sin and despair is not conditioned by individual or even mass group apostasy - even that of a Presiding Bishop and her flock.
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/07/ecgc-spiritual-earwax-at-anaheim.html
This is the followup comment I posted to that site:
The Presiding Bishop was nothing but massively insensitive, and perhaps deliberately antagonistic to evangelicals and to protestants from other denominations with that crack about "western heresy". Shje seems not at all to care about the soteriological mission of the church; for her, the social gospel is the only gospel there is. While the reports coming out of Anaheim are dismaying to many of us, I do find that these meetings are occasions to reiterate our faith in God's mighty purpose, and to remember that the triumph of the Church over sin and despair is not conditioned by individual or even mass group apostasy - even that of a Presiding Bishop and her flock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
