Julian Long, whose blog I’ve just discovered, has a post that examines the rhetoric that is becoming an increasing part of the statements being made by folks leaving the Episcopal Church.
He sees two common themes emerging and doesn’t think either is valid:
“The warden’s [of the Colorado Spring’s Grace Episcopal church] statement contains two rhetorical commomplaces that have now become so familiar to Episcopalians that they may seem to merit no comment, but as one who is new to making these particular arguments, I observe that these commonplaces are entirely gratuitous. The Episcopal church is as orthodox as it has ever been and as heterodox as it has ever been. Mr. Wroblewski and his colleagues at Grace Church are embracing not orthodoxy but a retrograde variety of Christianity whose theology belongs in the seventeenth century, if it belongs anywhere. Some further discussion can be found at Fr. Jones’s Anglican Centrist blog.
The second commonplace, that the Episcopal church’s inclusivity does ‘not apply to orthodox believers,’ is equally gratuitous. Nobody is forcing Mr. Wroblewski to leave the Episcopal Church against his will. Mr. Wroblewski wills to leave the church because he finds certain of the church’s present practices unacceptable. Mr. Wroblewski and the Anglican Communion Institute appeal to some notion of an excluded middle–’If my church formally includes persons of whom I do not approve (Bishop Robinson and other gay and lesbian clergy, gay and lesbian couples legitimated by a liturgy of blessing) then my church automatically excludes me.’ But there is no excluded middle, only a company of those of whom the Lord said, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.’ (I’ve quoted the KJV by design).”
Read the rest here: commonplaces, leaving the church . . .
(Via out the backroom window.)
“Mr. Wroblewski and his colleagues at Grace Church are embracing not orthodoxy but a retrograde variety of Christianity whose theology belongs in the seventeenth century, if it belongs anywhere.”
Yes, and the above is some of the rhetoric (albeit nicer than what you find on a lot of blogs) from those who embrace a theology other than Mr. Wroblewski’s orthodoxy. Has this chick seen the 1928 BCP? Those who authorized it didn’t think their theology was from the 17th century, but I’m sure there are some who would say their theology comes from what was taught at all times and in all places – the 17th century wasn’t a radical departure from the previous 16. As a cradle Episcopalian from the 1950s who’s lived in many places & gone to many Episcopal churches (military brat), the only difference I see on either side is the ramped-up hostility on both sides. The arrogance on both sides has increased too. But nobody’s theology has changed very much.