Midwest Conservative Journal

PRAYING IN THE TEMPLE

The Rt. Rev. Gladstone "Skip" Adams, Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Central New York, thanks God that he is not as other men are:

The Diocese of Central New York will defer until next year a response to the Windsor Report. Meeting Nov. 19-20, clergy and lay delegates overwhelmingly referred to a task force a resolution that called on the diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams, to lead the diocese in “expressing regret” for supporting the consecration of the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire.

The resolution was among 21 — five of which addressed various responses to the Windsor Report — dispatched during about an hour of debate in the business portion of the meeting. The overwhelming majority, according to The Post-Standard of Syracuse, approved a modified resolution which commended the Windsor Report to parishes for “prayerful study.” Also referred to committee was a resolution expressing gratitude to Bishop Adams for supporting the New Hampshire consecration and leaving it for God to judge “personal preferences.” Resolutions to lower the eligible voting age of delegates from 21 to 18 and another encouraging a long-range plan for diocesan archives equally prompted lively debate before both were approved.

In his address, Bishop Adams encouraged a eucharistic congregation of diocesan leadership to continue its work as fishers of people. Last year, he reorganized diocesan priorities and encouraged more mission work at the congregational level. He renewed the call for parishes to develop approaches appropriate for their communities while avoiding what he characterized as a “temple Christian” mindset.

“Temple Christianity does not heal lepers or eat with sinners, nor does it heal the paralyzed man,” he said. “It rarely gets beyond its walls and its institutional structure; it likes purple shirts more than touching the outcast; it likes looking holy more than being holy; it likes saving itself more than giving itself away.”

To his credit, Gladstone "Skip" has managed to come up with one of the most beautifully concise descriptions of the modern Episcopal Church that I've ever read.

Posted on 1/3/2005 6:15:19 PM , 10 comments

Submitted by Bill at 1/3/2005 6:56:31 PM

I fear that like most bishops in the ECUSA he's probably referring to lobbying the government to do what Christians should be doing themselves.

Submitted by Allen Lewis at 1/3/2005 7:19:26 PM

I am amused by how he oh-so-subtly tries to equate orthodox/conservative believers with his definition of "temple Christians."

I have not noticed that the LGBT lobby is very much interested in healing cripples or ministrering to lepers. Nor are they much interested in eating with sinners, since they insist that their behavior is no sinful at all and it seems that they will have nothing to do with orthodox/conservatives who confess their sinfulness rather readily. But perhaps I have missed some things.

Submitted by Ken at 1/3/2005 7:59:34 PM

Mr. Lewis - The LGBT lobby (the "homosexualists", I would say) are interested in posing as the cripples (but there's NOTHING wrong with us... NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING) and outcasts of society. Let me tell you a story (I may have put this in a blog comment before, and may again, so skip if it sounds familiar): 20 years ago, I heard that folks with AIDS were "outcasts"; I had a client with AIDS and got interested so I got involved with a "buddy" program run by a gay counseling center. I soon learned that the "victims" generally had better support systems than me - ex-wives, lovers, grown children, parents and siblings moving across country to tend to them, and money. One fellow was still drawing his salary and health insurance. Not having experience in the "gay" world, I learned quickly that it was the gay person who had rejected his/her family as often as the family had rejected him/her. In their sickness they were often reconciled to God and their families, which, honestly, the "providers" sometimes found disconcerting. The only ones really alone were the druggies and street people who had burned all their bridges; later, I worked with homeless folks and know now that, AIDS aside, those people tend to be alone because they use their families and friends up. The moral of this story is that the victimhood which forms a foundation stone of the homosexualist argument is largely a lie. Most gays I have known are financially secure and endure no more safety issues than anyone else who lives in rather older, inner-city neighborhoods, except of course, for the domestic violence which seems pervasive in many of the same-sex relatiomships I have seen. Now, as to the topic at hand: I only ask that when this bishop makes comments (with which I largely agree) about "Temple Christianity", we all remember that he is a homosexualist. He is trying to tell you that the same-sex agenda represents the outcasts and lepers of our society. And that's a lie.

Submitted by Mikey at 1/4/2005 9:21:56 AM

"Temple Christians" is certainly a better term than "navel gazers" and it fits the progressives very well. Too bad he didn't realize he was projecting when he said it.

Submitted by SouthCoast at 1/4/2005 10:51:46 AM

"navel gazers"? Based on their behavior and commentaries, I'd say that the focus of their rapt gaze is a chakra or two *lower* than the navel...

Submitted by carolynP at 1/4/2005 10:57:38 AM

Ken, Thank you. Well put.

Submitted by Mikey at 1/4/2005 11:23:03 AM

Now, SouthCoast, I'm trying to be generous in my scathing criticism. And trying not to drop into a fit of swearing whenever I think of the Episcopal Church's leadership.

Submitted by Allen Lewis at 1/4/2005 4:08:08 PM

Ken,
I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in my comment. To put it bluntly I found the bishop's remarks smarmy, smug and highly offensive since he has attempted to twist truth out of all recognition and then cast orthodox believers as hypocrits.

I find such behavior breathtakingly arrogant, not to mention pompous and self-serving.

Submitted by Ken at 1/4/2005 4:41:10 PM

Allen - In case it wasn't clear, I was generally agreeing with you, although I have to say I was responding also to something I read on Titusonenine, where I also unloaded on the homosexualists. After 30 years of being called a homophobe and bigot, I no longer feel a need to be "nice".

Submitted by Michael Meckler at 1/5/2005 5:25:06 AM

I don't know enough about the ECUSA to know if "Bishop Skip" indeed goes by that name, but I have found such informality by clergy to be a bit jarring.

An acquaintance who is a professor had a similar encounter several years ago when a friend of hers was ordained an ECUSA priest. At the ceremony, she was introduced to the bishop (in appropriately full regalia) who immediately said, "Call me Bruce." My acquaintance, who was not interested in gaining such sudden familiarity, replied, "You may address me as "Professor."

	Fr. J.
	From Bonnie: "Right now the how of coming to the truth is as important as getting to the truth. Right now, the way in which the Anglican Communion goes about the search for the elusive truth is as important as the truth itself." I went to seminary in Berkeley, CA, so I get this. Back in the 60's the cultural revolution, which started in Berkeley, phrased everything in terms of power. In part, this is because a young generation wanted to change everything though it did not have the status, titles, jobs to make those changes. To sidestep people who had such status, titles, etc. there was a shift in emphasis for them from WHO makes a decision to HOW a decision was made. This was expressed in a variety of ways. Remember the old catch phrase, "the medium is the message?" It became all about process. The process bug was all about manipulating those with authority through various processes until you get what you want. Feminists became the experts at process. Every thought and feeling of every person even tangentially involved must be expressed, recorded, reported, validated, affirmed and become part of the "data" upon which a decision is made. "OK now, let's break down in small groups and report back to the big group later. OK, every small group needs to have a facilitator of your process and a recorder/ reporter." etc. Catholic women religious were famous for this processing the process. These nuns became self appointed process cops in every organization they worked in. This spelt misery for every pastor who hired them. The process thing is pretty much over in the CC. The liberal sisters communities are retirement societies now and are irrelevant. The Catechism has abbreviated all conversations on Church teaching. Pelosi just learned that. Liturgy also is no longer endlessly processed except in L.A. But, TEC is the embodiment of the process illness. Masters of process know one single fact that every police investigator knows. If you force someone to talk long enough, you can get them to say what you want You can wear them down, break their resolve, and thereby achieve "concensus." By the 80's most CC parishes had parish TEAMS with weekly TEAM mettings. A Team mtg. is process lingo meaning everyone gets to comment and opine about everyone else's area. This mostly meant that those least competent in their own job would waste the most time opining about everyone else's area. I know a liberal pastor who was a famous master of process. In the first year his Team meetings went from 90 mins/wk to an entire day per week. This was because he never wanted to make a decision without concensus for he wasn't a "clerical priest." By his second year his meetings were back to 90 mins because the Team suddenly realized that he was willing to talk as long as it took to get everyone to see things his way. That is, the Team realized that they were really a staff. Where things were really bad was in parishes/ organizations when the boss wanted to work by concensus but wasn't the local master of concensus. Soon he found himself working 80 hours a week doing everything some part-time temporary receptionist who was a process master thought should be done. For some reason the local process master always seemed to be the one with the least responsibility, the least pay and who was only tangentially involved. There was a YouTube vid by Greg from SF about 2 years ago where Bonnie says angrily into the camera--"The only thing we ever threatened to do was stay!" As a process queen, just by staying, Bonnie wins and it would not even matter what he agenda was, LGBTQ or Mass Murder. So, this is what Ms. Bonnie Know-It-All means by "the HOW" of Truth being as important as "the WHAT" of Truth.
	8/28/2008 6:11:55 AM

	Katherine
	Fr. J., just a small quibble. Covenants before God which were binding were common in medieval times; they underlaid the feudal system. But of course the use of this language in the church, as if people make a deal with God when they are baptized, is new. And the '79 baptismal service, which I don't care for, is misused as you point out. Poor seminary training is undoubtedly a big part of the problem.
	8/28/2008 6:02:38 AM

	The Pilgrim
	Ken "Is it, however, accurate to say that Orthodox do share with Catholics (and Anglo-catholics) a sacramental view of baptism, which is to say that it actually has a saving effect?" Yes. It's in the Nicene Creed: "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin". Also, as Mark said, for infants and unbaptised catechumens, chrismation is subsumed into the baptism ceremony, and is not done at a later date. Also, ommunion is administered to the newly baptised at the next liturgy; infants as well as adults. Jurisdictions differ, but in the Antiochean church the baby is not baptized until after being "churched," which happens forty days after birth, unless death is imminent.
	8/28/2008 5:42:40 AM

	Fr. J.
	Wow, lots of questions here tonight. Yes, Catholic converts used to be baptized conditionally. Today there are a few "Christian" churches whose baptisms the CC does not recognize: Mormons, JW's, and some others. These are not conditionally baptized but simply baptized. Conditional baptism is done today only in cases where it is unknown whether one has been baptized before, as with folks whose parents have died and whose church did not keep records--which is a lot of churches! About Baptismal Covenant, it is pretty hokey. For Catholics and Orthodox there is one and only one new covenant in the blood of Christ and it is everlasting as is stated in the Eucharistic prayer's words of institution over the cup. "Cup of my blood, blood of the new and everlasting covenant." It is Calvin who gets us all messed up here. He wrote in his Institutes that a group of baptized Christians can gather and declare a covenant before God that is binding upon them. This is absolutely unknown in Catholic/Orthodox theology. It is how a Calvinistic church is founded. The group that declares covenant becomes the elders or vestry and they select a preacher. The preacher has no sacramental role and even the two ordinances, baptism and communion, are extensions of his role as preacher of the word. There is no sacramental ordination in Calvin. Of course denominations evolved with ordination and there is almost no pure Calvinist church. Anyway, it is Calvin who gives us this very non-Catholic concept of declaring a covenant. You will notice that it is only the evangelicals generally who speak of creating covenants. Even the use of the term covenant for the new Anglican Communion constitution is really improper from a Catholic point of view. I would prefer they use the term constitution or rule or just about anything else but covenant. So, where do baptism and Eucharist fit in? Baptism is the doorway into the covenant for a Christian. One enters into the one covenant of Christ by the dying and rising of baptism. The eternal sign of this covenant is him crucified (hence crucifixes in CC churches). In baptism we die with Christ to rise with him. The Eucharist is the renewal of Christ's covenant for all the baptized present who, being properly disposed through absolution as necessary, receive Him in the Body and the Blood. Note we only see Christ's body and blood in three places: The Cross, the Eucharist and the Circumcision. All three are covenantal. Circucision is the sign of the covenant of Abraham, the Cross is the sign of the new Covenant and the Eucharist is the only way to renew the new covenant--passover sacrifice being the way to renew the old covenant. So, to speak of a Baptismal covenant as something extra that TEC members commit themselves to that other Christians do not just simply makes no sense in Sacramental Theology. I have said again and again that TEC's theological problems begin with poor seminary training. There is not nearly enough systematic theology taught, so little pet ideas get blown up into whole new teachings without anybody to say "wait a minute, that's not right." Or TEC is perhaps just not a Catholic church. The ancient concept of Baptism cannot be added to or subtracted from without making it not baptism. So, either this baptismal covenant is a redundancy or it is alien. If it is a redundancy, then it is meaningless and harmless, though confusing. If it is alien to the Gospel, then it is an initiation into a new religion. I am opting for the first interpretation. While I do think that the Baptismal Covenant is rather ridiculous I do not think it alien. Though, if TEC is another religion, which there are some good arguments for, I would wonder if getting the theology of Baptism screwed up isn't at least in part to blame. Signs of this "new religion" aspect of the Baptismal Covenant are the way people make arguments based on it. Nothing in the Baptismal Covenant text says that all the baptized are absolutely equal and the same before God. Still, the Baptismal Covenant is used as the reason for WO, Gay Ordination, SSB, the House of Deputies and the coveted TEC polity. But, I dont see any of this in the text of the "BC." Look for yourself: Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers? Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord? Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ? Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being? I dont really see any justification for using the BC as a basis for any of these new errors. However, if the intention of the minister of baptism is to do something different from what the Church has always intended by baptism, that is, if the intention is to do something really new, then this clearly a false teaching from the point of view of the CC, if I may say so.
	8/28/2008 5:19:57 AM

THE MCJ

PRAYING IN THE TEMPLE