Can you listen when you're angry?

I don't know why I do it, but I often mosey over to Midwest Conservative Journal to read how a clever, sarcastic, angry former [?!] Episcopalian explains the church.   He writes provocatively, full of indignance and contempt for his foes.  And sometimes that's fun.  His most entertaining tactic is to take a letter and reinterpret it for conservative consumption.  Sometimes, to his credit, he's fairly accurate.  I, myself, find His Most Gracful PB to be a little imprecise.  Still, I value reverence and station [being the truly conservative sort that I am] so I can't bring myself to hold him in the sort of contempt Mr. Johnson does.

But let's take a look at what MCJ does to one recent letter from Executive Council.  They say:

At each meeting, as we approve companion relationships between dioceses of the Episcopal Church and dioceses of other Anglican provinces, we rejoice in the opportunities such relationships give our dioceses and congregations to develop real understandings of and appreciation for their fellow Christians living out Christ’s mandate in other cultures and contexts. We know the best way truly to know one another is to work side by side, listening to one another’s hearts. The bishops have that opportunity at Lambeth Conferences, but Christ calls all of us who have been baptized into the same deep love and mutual support.

Now, if I read this I would say, Executive council emphasizes relationships, friendships and bridgebuilding as a way of promoting mission.  The diocese of NY, for example, regularly has bishops from througout the world, and even has an African bishop among its resident clergy.   In a concrete, incarnational, way, diocese build relationships with, for example, Madras, South Africa and Korea.   

MCJ, on the other hand, translates this statement as:

Meaning: nothing.

Well, I suppose the fact that some liberal dioceses have good relationships with African churches might be inconvenient for the angry antiquarians.

Then, executive council notes:

We believe, with our House of Bishops, that another important communion building step would be to undertake the Communion-wide study of human sexuality recommended by Lambeth Conferences since 1978. Such a study "would be a sign of respect for gay and lesbian persons in our common life and of our ongoing pastoral care for them." It would permit more sharing of their ministries and contributions which have enriched our church for many years. (House of Bishops letter, January, 2005)

This seems to mean: let's do what Lambeth 1978 suggested and see how the American Church got to this place.  My guess is that the church was changed by the contributions of openly gay people in church.  This process might actually be illuminating.  But illumination might also be dangerous, also.

MCJ's translation:  if conservative Anglicans would just admit that they're all stupid Nazi bigots, Your Executive Council will be magnanimous and forget all about the pain it suffered when people started being so mean to ECUSA for no reason at all.

Well, this is an ... interesting take.  The bishop in question, Gene Robinson, has said that he wants conservatives in the church.  Although I know that Chris isn't a "nazi" or a "bigot" but I wouldn't call his blog "nice."  Being "nice" doesn't create blog hits, after all.    

He continues with a brilliantly snide remark:  "As for moratoriums on unrepentant sinners getting pointy hats and same-sex marriages, that wasn't in the copy of the Windsor Report that Your Executive Council received so Your Executive Council doesn't know what you mean.  Sorry."

Man, he uses the word "pointy hats" like a Roundhead.  Perhaps that's the problem - finally the ECUSA is getting rid of all those puritans who snuck back into the church [perhaps they really hated the UCC] and they're resisting being sent to the SBC.

In the Council, despite our differing views, we strive to incarnate the gift of communion, by focusing on mission together, by listening to each other, and by daily worship and Bible study. We have seen the same bonds holding the diverse center of our church together over the last two years despite the anguish felt by many on all sides of the issues. We trust that through the power of the Holy Spirit working in us and in our sisters and brothers throughout the Anglican Communion we will build new relationships of mutual responsibility and interdependence. (Windsor Report, Appendix Three/5, pp. 74-77)

I would translate this as well, we're both hurting, and the spirit works in all our churches.

MCJ then says:  Meaning: nothing.

Now, I think I see his perspective.

If a conservative thought: 

building relationships among different churches was trivial [or spiritually dangerous]
that gay people's contributions to the church was irrelevant [or spiritually dangerous]
or that mutual respect was worthless [or spiritually dangerous]
or that the hurt in the Episcopal Church was nonexistent or meaningless [and who cares?  They're apostate anyways]

then I'd understand why the executive council statement said nothing.

But what it does reveal is how a smart, clever fellow can wilfully misread a letter for the sake of justifying his hostility.   He simply chooses not to hear the invitation of us modernists to stick together, and is comfortable in his anger.  It's funny, sometimes, and its occasionally interesting.   

My own prayer is for those who want true reconciliation shall overcome those who merely seek victory.

Comments

[Karen]

You clearly have a stronger stomach than I. I gave up MCJ and Virtue long ago because I wanted to retain the hope that EC traditionalists weren't uniformly snide, sarcastic, mean-spirited homophobes. Thankfully it worked, and it's not because I refuse to read conservative sites since I still read T19 and Pontificator regularly.

[obadiahslope]

John,
perhpas it makes a difference if you read the executive council document alongside the Windsor Report. the executive council is making its response following the reports release. It's then clear that the EC is avoiding making any commitment to the suggestions of the WR but saying "we really do care about the rest of you, look at the companion diocese relationships we talk about at EC".
In other words, we don't want to hear what the communion's Windsor report says, but we want to portray ourselves as building relationships. It is against that background that MCJ's comments need to be read. Without the context, they don't make very much sense
And yes Karen, they are an acquired taste. I am glad you read some conservative sites and I will continue to read Liberal ones.

[Nick]

That's nothing, you should read standfirminfaith.com I gave them up for Lent, as their (the webmaster's usually) snide remarks and interpretations, as well as his attempts at public humiliation of priests of our diocese, have really gotten to a comical level. There's no longer any credibility there because he's not answering to anyone, even though there's a list of ten founding priests. The lingering southern baptist known as 'Marty' is a fun read. (be comforted that he doesn't wish the SBC to be 'in communion' with the ECUSA)

[David Huff]

Nick, perhaps these folks should contact the AAC bunch here in my diocese. Our more extreme "reasserters" are all of the Anglo-Baptist sort. A lady in one of our mainline congregations waggishly refers to them as "tarted-up Southern Baptists." ;)

Of course, none of that should surprise anyone who's familiar with Texas...

[Nick]

Not much surprises me these days David. I still believe it's possible to see the God in everyone, however.

[John Wilkins]

obadiah, thank you for the insight. The belief that liberals don't want to hear what the communion's Windsor report says, but butwant to be portrayed as building relationships is inaccurate: the liberals are hearing what the Windsor report is saying, and rejecting parts of it, and are in fact still building relationships. The "portrayal" is accurate.

[obadiahslope]

John,
Let me try again.
The liberals are hearing what the Windsor report is saying. They reject part of it including most of its recommendations.
They don't wish to say this in the EC statement. They are building relationships. So that is highlighted in the EC statement (although I can't find any relationship building action it in the report of this meeting's resolutions.)
But at the same time they don't want to do as the communion's report sugggests.
So the total message is we want to have a relationship. But not on your terms, or the communions terms, but ours.

[Todd Granger]

Good to know that spring of Episcopalian antibaptist sentiment is still flowing.

Though in the main, I agree with John's assessment of anger, snideness, and the seeking of victory. But the progressives and liberals of the Church shouldn't for a moment delude themselves that only "angry" conservatives and traditionalists are among the victory-seekers and anger- and snidenessmongers. The progressive ranks have their share as well. Just take a look (for example) at some of Father Jake's recent entries, or Bishop Carranza's recent letter to the clergy of the Diocese of Los Angeles. Their bludgeoning words bespeak a desire for victory at a blistering cost, with little or no concern for those who differ from them profoundly over the "presenting issues".

[John Wilkins]

Obediah, I think you're generally correct, although the next step is to consider what it means to say whose terms the discussion is now made. Then we're talking about politics, in part, and leave the realm of theology.

Todd, I think you are right - obviously there is anger on the liberal side, and I confess a few times I feel like I've been pushed to the limits of civility. The next step is discerning if my anger is because I'm being lied to, or if I'm being told the truth. Sometimes both are equally irritating. My hope is that when I have heard the Truth, I will listen.

Here in Sydney a book on the politics of the diocese is about to be published. (I have written a book review from aadvanced copy.) Even when the choice is between two types of evangelical, there is enough material to fill a book. When we make a democratic decision in a large Synod politics of some sort is inevitable.
So I agree with you that much of the communion-wide discussion now is about the 'idea of what is possible', that is politics.
I read a titusonenine extract today of a British General Synod speech which accused both ECUSA and Sydney diocese of beliving in too much autonomy for the speakers taste .
He has a point. The Windsor reports centralising tendency is unpopular here on much the same grounds that the left in ECUSA rejects it. Loosening rather than tightening the ties of Anglicanism is seen as the way ahead. Where we may part company is on the question of parallel jurisdictions.
That, or DEPO/flying bishops becoming very common would seem to be our future in my view. In some ways the spirit in which we institute these institutional changes is more important than the changes themselves.