Taking yesterday’s child-rearing analogy further…
Over at the Ship of Fools, someone posted a wonderfully succinct summary of the Windsor Report:
"You've all been very naughty children. Now stop it at once."
I replied as follows:
“Very good summary!
“The problem is if the ‘children’ have no reason to believe they will be disciplined if they continue their misbehavior (And I don't think the Windsor Report gives the ECUSA et al any such reason.), then do you think the children will suddenly behave?”
Indeed, the approach the Windsor Report takes toward discipline is markedly weaker than the two approaches I laid out yesterday. I really have a hard time seeing how such a lack of clear discipline can work with either children or wayward bishops.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Initial Reaction to Windsor Report: Disappointed and Disturbed
I haven’t read the whole Windsor Report yet. So I’m trying to withhold judgment on the report.
But the section on “care of dissenting groups” is a big disappointment. While praising the inadequate DEPO plan from the ECUSA House of Bishops, it calls on intervening bishops and primates to apologize and intervene no more!
I’ve read this section completely and carefully more than twice. And it completely fails to make adequate provision for dissenting orthodox parishes. Like the DEPO plan it praises, there are no requirements or sanctions proposed for bishops reluctant to allow adequate oversight, just suggestions. Therefore dissenting parishes would remain at their mercy.
Furthermore, since the section opposes parallel jurisdictions, it denies the pleas of those who wish to remain in the Anglican Communion, but not in the ECUSA.
Maybe I’m missing something. I’m admittedly rather new at reading Anglicanesse. But for these reasons, I can’t see how the Windsor Report can be anything but a failure.
I haven’t read the whole Windsor Report yet. So I’m trying to withhold judgment on the report.
But the section on “care of dissenting groups” is a big disappointment. While praising the inadequate DEPO plan from the ECUSA House of Bishops, it calls on intervening bishops and primates to apologize and intervene no more!
I’ve read this section completely and carefully more than twice. And it completely fails to make adequate provision for dissenting orthodox parishes. Like the DEPO plan it praises, there are no requirements or sanctions proposed for bishops reluctant to allow adequate oversight, just suggestions. Therefore dissenting parishes would remain at their mercy.
Furthermore, since the section opposes parallel jurisdictions, it denies the pleas of those who wish to remain in the Anglican Communion, but not in the ECUSA.
Maybe I’m missing something. I’m admittedly rather new at reading Anglicanesse. But for these reasons, I can’t see how the Windsor Report can be anything but a failure.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
A quick thought on Windsor Report leaks
If you make the mistake of letting a child get away with everything, and you see that’s got to stop, what do you do?
1. Immediately, without warning, change policy and crack down on the kid? That probably teaches him more about your unfairness than about his behavior.
2. Sit him down and clearly give him a warning, explaining to him that his behavior is unacceptable and will be punished if repeated. Then if (when) he then chooses to repeat his behavior, you keep your word and punish him.
I think #2 is just common sense. Similarly, as many problems as I have with the Episcopal Church, after reflection I now do not think it should be immediately expelled or suspended. I know some of my orthodox friends think it should be and are upset that now it looks like that won’t happen.
But for years, the ECUSA has gotten away with everything. And conservative Anglicans worldwide share the blame for that. The right way to deal with this is not method #1, but method #2. A part of the genius of #2 (and the Windsor Report if leaks are accurate) is that then the ECUSA chooses to abide by the rules and avoid punishment or not.
Of course, saying that begs the question of just what are the rules. And it would be jumping the gun for me to speak to that.
If you make the mistake of letting a child get away with everything, and you see that’s got to stop, what do you do?
1. Immediately, without warning, change policy and crack down on the kid? That probably teaches him more about your unfairness than about his behavior.
2. Sit him down and clearly give him a warning, explaining to him that his behavior is unacceptable and will be punished if repeated. Then if (when) he then chooses to repeat his behavior, you keep your word and punish him.
I think #2 is just common sense. Similarly, as many problems as I have with the Episcopal Church, after reflection I now do not think it should be immediately expelled or suspended. I know some of my orthodox friends think it should be and are upset that now it looks like that won’t happen.
But for years, the ECUSA has gotten away with everything. And conservative Anglicans worldwide share the blame for that. The right way to deal with this is not method #1, but method #2. A part of the genius of #2 (and the Windsor Report if leaks are accurate) is that then the ECUSA chooses to abide by the rules and avoid punishment or not.
Of course, saying that begs the question of just what are the rules. And it would be jumping the gun for me to speak to that.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
The truth about liberals comes out.
Canon David Roseberry and Episcoliberal Katie Sherrod have an enlightening debate on gay bishops in this morning’s Dallas Morning News, in the Religion section. (The site is Dallasnews.com if you want to deal with registration.)
In her piece, Sherrod makes a revealing comment: “We have learned that scripture sometimes is simply wrong.”
Oh, have “we”? Well, it’s so nice to know we’ve become so enlightened.
She then proceeds to lampoon scripture: “The world is not flat, epilepsy is not caused by possession and being left-handed doesn’t mean you are demonic.” Like the Bible teaches any of those things. But we’ll pretend it does so we can feel superior.
But, wait a second. I’ve heard upteen liberals insist that they respect the authority of scripture, that the issue is differing “interpretation.” Does Ms. Sherrod admit that the issue really is the authority of scripture and one’s attitude towards it? Do liberals indeed insist on having the final authority to trash scripture they don’t like?
The truth about liberal attitudes toward scripture comes out (no pun intended).
Canon David Roseberry and Episcoliberal Katie Sherrod have an enlightening debate on gay bishops in this morning’s Dallas Morning News, in the Religion section. (The site is Dallasnews.com if you want to deal with registration.)
In her piece, Sherrod makes a revealing comment: “We have learned that scripture sometimes is simply wrong.”
Oh, have “we”? Well, it’s so nice to know we’ve become so enlightened.
She then proceeds to lampoon scripture: “The world is not flat, epilepsy is not caused by possession and being left-handed doesn’t mean you are demonic.” Like the Bible teaches any of those things. But we’ll pretend it does so we can feel superior.
But, wait a second. I’ve heard upteen liberals insist that they respect the authority of scripture, that the issue is differing “interpretation.” Does Ms. Sherrod admit that the issue really is the authority of scripture and one’s attitude towards it? Do liberals indeed insist on having the final authority to trash scripture they don’t like?
The truth about liberal attitudes toward scripture comes out (no pun intended).
Windsor Report Leaks
Well, there’s leaks all over the place on the Windsor Report to be released Monday. I honestly don’t know what to think about it yet. But there’s vigorous discussion here and here and elsewhere I’m sure.
Monday will probably be a busy day for me, but I’ll try to comment Monday night or once I have my thoughts and time together.
One thing I’ve noticed in the discussions -- some Anglican conservatives are “glass half-empty” kind of people. After all they’ve gone through the past 30 years, I can’t say that I blame them.
Well, there’s leaks all over the place on the Windsor Report to be released Monday. I honestly don’t know what to think about it yet. But there’s vigorous discussion here and here and elsewhere I’m sure.
Monday will probably be a busy day for me, but I’ll try to comment Monday night or once I have my thoughts and time together.
One thing I’ve noticed in the discussions -- some Anglican conservatives are “glass half-empty” kind of people. After all they’ve gone through the past 30 years, I can’t say that I blame them.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Typical Liberal Hypocrisy from Kerry
I’ve long noticed that liberals have no problem with imposing their views on others. And religious liberals are the worst of all about that, shoving their views down the throats of even their fellow religionists. Yes, being the shovee for years helped drive me out of the mainline Presbyterian Church.
But if a conservative dares to be guided by his faith in his public policy views, why that’s AWFUL!! That’s, that’s a violation of (Bow down!) SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! (Wailing and knashing of teeth.)
Well, we saw such hypocrisy from Kerry in the last debate. He said that imposing his supposedly pro-life views would be wrongly imposing “an article of faith.”
I have to stop for a second because I’m hyperventilating a bit here. This comes from a man who supports partial-birth abortion and votes 100% pro-abortion or close to it. Kerry, as always, is trying to have it both ways. He votes again and again to declare open season on even late-term babies to the point of brutal infanticide, but at the same time campaigns as St. Kerry who reveres the life of the unborn. This man makes me want to vomit.
There, I feel better.
BUT does he have any problem imposing his oh-so-enlightened religious views in a liberal direction? Of course not! And he said as much in the same debate!
(Thanks to Ecumenical Insanity.)
I’ve long noticed that liberals have no problem with imposing their views on others. And religious liberals are the worst of all about that, shoving their views down the throats of even their fellow religionists. Yes, being the shovee for years helped drive me out of the mainline Presbyterian Church.
But if a conservative dares to be guided by his faith in his public policy views, why that’s AWFUL!! That’s, that’s a violation of (Bow down!) SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!! (Wailing and knashing of teeth.)
Well, we saw such hypocrisy from Kerry in the last debate. He said that imposing his supposedly pro-life views would be wrongly imposing “an article of faith.”
I have to stop for a second because I’m hyperventilating a bit here. This comes from a man who supports partial-birth abortion and votes 100% pro-abortion or close to it. Kerry, as always, is trying to have it both ways. He votes again and again to declare open season on even late-term babies to the point of brutal infanticide, but at the same time campaigns as St. Kerry who reveres the life of the unborn. This man makes me want to vomit.
There, I feel better.
BUT does he have any problem imposing his oh-so-enlightened religious views in a liberal direction? Of course not! And he said as much in the same debate!
(Thanks to Ecumenical Insanity.)
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)