Friday Morning Video – KJS @ SAMP

You may remember that St. Andrew’s hosted the PB two years ago now at an event called “Charity & Clarity.” We recorded those talks and posted them on YouTube. If you wish to view them again you can search under the title of “charity and clarity.”
In light of the events in the Diocese of SC this week I was reminded of the good observation and question posed by me dear brother in Christ, The Rev’d Dow Sanderson at the opening of the clip – and then, as well, The Rev’d Michael Ridgill’s at the very end:

Here’s the transcript of this interchange (thanks to my PA, Nancy):

The Rev’d Dow Sanderson: I mean we all want the relationships to stay together and I think that the patience and the diligence that we expressed…you know, there were a lot of people who said “My goodness, now that this first consent process has failed, the storm troops will be in and we’ll have a robe consecration in six weeks, and South Carolina will be out of here.” But we didn’t do that and it’s because relationships are important to us. But at the same time, as we look at people that we love and people who’ve been, often in my parish, like Bishop Iker and Bishop Ackerman, people that I just give my heart to in terms of theology, but they have the same faith that I do, but they’ve reached different conclusions. My question is: What acceptance does the leadership of the Episcopal Church take for pressing the envelope of diversity to such an extent that that reality has been created? These are faithful men who’ve, and women in their dioceses who’ve tried to live the faith as they’ve know it their entire lives. So I’m just curious as to how your office, how the leadership of the Episcopal Church, how the role of General Convention sees it’s own culpability in this Anglican Communion mess; and how we can together find a way forward. Just…it would help if I perhaps could hear what you think about our role as Americans and our creation, whatever the problems are. Thank you.

The Presiding Bishop: Well, I can speak as an American. I can speak on behalf of my office. I cannot speak for the whole General Convention. And I think the place you ended is significant. We’re understood around the Communion to act as our government does and we’re identified with our government; even though the Episcopal Church represents churches, congregations in 16 different countries. It’s the folks in Washington who are identified with this church…despite the fact that we go to Washington and say “change, change, change”. For some reason, 2006 suddenly, General Convention, the acts of General Convention or the non-actions of General Convention became a point of no return for some people in the Episcopal Church. That’s surprising when you look at the whole picture. Some things began to change in the way we function together in 2000, in 2001, when bishops were first ordained for ministry in this church by others outside of this church. Long before New Hampshire was ever thought of. We like to look for easy trigger points or easy scapegoats, but the reality is that the General Convention has made decisions over decades that have offended some people; and those decisions have been promulgated in different dioceses, in some places more pastorally than others. I think a good deal of the ferment in the Episcopal Church right now has not only to do with New Hampshire, but has to do with the ordination of women, and the adoption of a new prayer book and even in some places, God forbid, a new hymnal. In some places, those changes were imposed. In other places, more generously pastoral response was promulgated. Often in the places where there was a more gracious and open response, the shift has been easier and there’s been less reactivity. That’s a sin of the whole body. How do we care for each other? – By caring for each other.

Facilitator: I am going to seek by God’s grace to continue to function as the time keeper and a conversation facilitator and perhaps those of you who would like to take this opportunity to get into the conversation, might come to the microphone one by one and I’ll try to be patient with you if you are patient with me.

The Rev’d Michael Ridgill: Hi. I am Michael. One of the things that you said (and I appreciate as we seek clarity in our conversation) is when you talked about how we are Anglicans and how we view scripture. And it reminds me of a real life scenario where a relative of mine got married, and in the course of his marriage, he decided that his marriage was an open marriage. His wife didn’t see it that way. And so, what looked like a good marriage broke apart. And it’s because things changed in the middle. They thought they had a common ground. They though they had a common agreement; but it changed, and they went separate ways. It was very disruptive for them both, but really for her. When you talk about how Anglicans interpret Scripture, I’m not sure I subscribe to the way you described it. Is there a place for us who are more conservative in that interpretation? What I mean for that is: when we look at the interpretation of Scripture and we use the terms “reason” and “tradition” and Holy Scripture as our foundational tools. I see Scripture as authoritative, almost to the point of solus victor; but I’d put an asterisk and say that “tradition”, as interpreting the Scriptures, is the church tradition of the centuries. And the “reason” is God-informed reason following the tradition of interpretation. So, it’s not like I would approach scripture to say “I’m looking at the Bible for the first time, and I feel we need to move beyond.” I can’t speak for God. What greatly concerns me is I feel like the Episcopal Church has determined that the Holy Spirit has spoken to her and her alone. And the Episcopal Church has moved forward, not waiting for the rest of the universal church to speak, to discern. In other words, it seems like we’re blazing forward in a new tradition, with a new revelation and reason. And I’m not comfortable with that. And I wonder where we fit in as individual priests and parishes and dioceses. The next go around, will be able to get an orthodox bishop like we were able to get with Mark? Or will it be viewed as so narrow-minded, God forbid, so homophobic? See, I don’t think sexuality is the issue. I think its biblical interpretation. Will there continue to be room for us, or do we need to just conform? Where do we fit into the picture of the future for the Episcopal Church?