What is it about the lockstep on the left? Why can they be comfortable only with those who agree with them?
We are witnessing this currently in the campaign to prevent the confirmation of the election of the Reverend Dan Martins to the episcopate. Witness the misguided remarks of Jim Naughton, openly challenging anyone to prove his suspicions wrong (hint: he's not interested in your response unless you agree with him at the outset that dioceses are not now, and never have been, autonomous):
I could imagine voting in favor of his election if I were on a Standing Committee except for one thing. The Rev. Martins has said he has no firm opinion on whether bishops have the authority to lead their dioceses out of the Church. The idea that he thinks that this issue is somehow open to debate—that the authority of the General Convention is open to question—alarms me. It seems to me a notion invented out of whole cloth by poorly qualified tailors to suit the political needs of a dissatisfied minority. Simply put, I am not sure how the church can consent to the election of a bishop who won’t say what powers he believes he is entitled to wield.
I sense that voting in the Rev. Martins’ favor would in some significant ways be good for the Church. So I would happily surrender this objection if someone could explain to me why a person who is never going to embrace the notion of diocesan autonomy (i. e., me) should support a bishop who has not made up his mind about this issue.
"[A] notion invented . . . to suit the political needs of a dissatisfied minority." Rather says it all, doesn't it? The original fundamental principles on which the Church was founded in 1789, and then re-established in 1901, have now -- in the eyes of Mr. Naughton and his ilk -- become the concoctions of a minority -- and not just any minority, but a dissatisfied minority. (Could that possibly be a case of self-reference?)
Diocesan autonomy is not, and could never be, an "invented notion"; it is inherent in the very concept expressed by the word "diocese." The roots of that word go back to the Greek dio, "thoroughly", and oikos, "house", the combination of which yielded the verb diaoikein, "to control, govern, manage a house," and the noun diaoikesis, meaning "government, province, administration." When borrowed for the administrative units of the early Church, the word kept its connotation of governmental autonomy, under a single bishop.
To read the entire article, click here.
I am not sure how I should typify this post / screed. Bigotry comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteFr. Jim asked an honest question. He is it appears honestly conflicted about the vote upcoming for or against Fr. Dan's consent. In fact, from his comments on the cafe and elsewhere your unsubstantiated claim that he only cares about negative arguments is simply not true.
I think you over-reached on this one.
FWIW
jimB
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI often post articles because I think my readers may be interested in reading them, not because I agree or do not agree with the content. Please keep that it mind when criticizing me for posting an article that someone else wrote.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteLooking back over the article what it stated about diocesan autonomy is what caught my attention. It fits with other articles that I have been posting upon the trend toward centralization of authority in TEC, ACNA, and the Cof E and related topics. Such centralization is incompatible with true liberalism.