Christianity QA » Christian Faith » Attempted Coup
Question:
The problem with the Chapman letter isn’t what it says, but what it is. Right now it is an anonymous fax to the Washington Post whose ultimate authorship is undisputed. But everything in the middle is uncertain. It seems pretty clear that it was taken from from some church office in the Diocese of Washington, leading to the supposition that the sender was probably an anti-AAC staffer in that same office. But the purposes of each act along the way are not known, but merely guessed at; and there is a pretty long chain of events. And frankly, I’m not that upset by the possibility of a "coup". After the "irregular" ordinations in Philadelphia and Robert Williams, I am not impressed by liberals claims to higher moral ground in the tactics department. C. Wingate
Response:
The problem with the Chapman letter isn’t what it says, but what it is. Right now it is an anonymous fax to the Washington Post whose ultimate authorship is undisputed. But everything in the middle is uncertain. It seems pretty clear that it was taken from from some church office in the Diocese of Washington, leading to the supposition that the sender was probably an anti-AAC staffer in that same office. But the purposes of each act along the way are not known, but merely guessed at; and there is a pretty long chain of events. And frankly, I’m not that upset by the possibility of a "coup". After the "irregular" ordinations in Philadelphia and Robert Williams, I am not impressed by liberals claims to higher moral ground in the tactics department. C. Wingate
No claim of higher moral ground. Williams was disciplined by Spong, btw. No one supported his statements. What I find interesting is the comment about the "irregular" Philadelphia ordinations. That suggests that the current issue is not the motivation for the attempted coup, but various things over the last 30 years or so. There is a difference, however, imo, between the progressives and the conservatives. The majority of ECUSA have no desire to make anyone leave because of a disagreement. The minority want to take over the entire Church; my way or the highway. Which is why I think it’s time to simply say, "Go, with God." Let them take their buildings, and do their own thing. How can we ever trust them now? Even if they fail to destroy ECUSA this time, what about next time? There’s always going to be something the extreme right doesn’t like; that’s their nature. They rally around what they oppose. Terry
Response:
No claim of higher moral ground. Williams was disciplined by Spong, btw. No one supported his statements.
You have telescoped the events of Williams’ abbreviated career. I watched the farce of Spong having to defrock him from within a considerably more conservative parish than I am in now (Al Kimel was our rector at the time) and their reaction to the defrocking was to remark on Spong’s carelessness in his selection of candidates and Williams’ stupidity in thinking that he enjoyed some sort of immunity. But that wasn’t the really offensive act; we had all read loopy radical liberal stuff before, and what he said wasn’t novel. The offensive act was "ordain first and dare the opposition to undo it." What I find interesting is the comment about the "irregular" Philadelphia ordinations. That suggests that the current issue is not the motivation for the attempted coup, but various things over the last 30 years or so.
Well, it hasn’t been "suggested"– it has been stated out in the open since well before the convention. And it’s not "various things": it’s the overall strategy and tactics of stepping past the line and then demanding approval after the fact. There is a difference, however, imo, between the progressives and the conservatives. The majority of ECUSA have no desire to make anyone leave because of a disagreement. The minority want to take over the entire Church; my way or the highway.
Your choices of terminology are revealing, Terry. But I don’t think the radical "progressives" are anything like a majority. They are just as "my way" as the conservatives supposedly are; it just that until now they’ve been in control of the process, so they really haven’t had to confront the issue. The real problem, it seems to me, is that the great unformed middle of Lewisians, do-gooders, latitudinarians and the inert are finally slipping out of the direction of the radical progressives. It’s showing up in hard numbers: the diocesan convention in Virginia had to deal with a budget containing a 20% drop in income. What the middle is finding is that Lee’s statement is almost irrelevant. We’ve had thirty years of heresy *and* schism, because the radical progressives’ *actual* position seems to be that heresy need not be tempered in the interest of avoiding schism. Instead, they practically state that they must act regardless of how much schism it causes. Now the conservatives have taken up this same principle. If the past is any indicator, in a convention or two the radical progressives will try to push through a canonical change disciplining bishops who refuse to ordain homosexuals. Some homosexual clergy will stand up to oppose it, but eventually it would pass. And instead of three dioceses going through contortions to get around such a schismatic canon, there will be dozens doing so. Sorry Terry. I’m not convinced. C. Wingate
Response:
For those who might suggest that accusing the AAC of attempting a coup is nothing but hyperbole, consider the wording of this paragraph from the Chapman letter; "Our ultimate goal is a realignment of Anglicanism on North American soil committed to biblical faith and values, and driven by Gospel mission. We believe in the end this should be a replacement jurisdiction with confessional standards, maintaining the historic faith of our Communion, closely aligned with the majority of world Anglicanism, emerging from the disastrous actions of General Convention (2003). We believe this goal is now pressed upon us by the Holy Spirit as a result of the rejection of the historic Christian faith and the rejection of biblical and Communion authority by the leadership of ECUSA. We will lead our congregations and partners in making the adjustment to adopt this strategy. We seek to retain ownership of our property as we move into this realignment." The rest of the letter explains the plot in detail, including how they will at first appear to work within the canons, but will eventually move beyond them, demand recognition from Canterbury, then engage in "negotiated settlements" with the Episcopal Church for the property and other assetts. It’s a power play, funded by wealthy right wing extremists, and driven primarily by white male clergy. Terry
no comment untill now