Dear Bishop Alexander,
Though you may have suggested it in the paper on Saturday, you are not in the same company as Martin Luther. Please understand, a reformer and a revisionist are not one in the same. A reformer – like Father Luther – is one who seeks to return the church to its Gospel core. A revisionist is one who seeks to reshape the message of the church to fit whatever fleeting standard that happens to be in vogue. As a graduate of a Lutheran seminary, I would think you would know this and not impose your agenda on someone like Father Luther (or Jesus or St. Paul, which is also part of that gem of a quote you made).
In the future, I hope you abstain from dragging Martin Luther into your tangled web of illogical reasoning. You may have forgotten, but Father Luther kept some church property after his exit. If you would really like to emulate him, perhaps you would cease from suing the church that left your diocese seeking to be faithful to the way they feel that they have been called to live out the Gospel, even though you may disagree with them.
Lots of Love,
The LutherPunk
PS, I like your pointy hat.
February 19, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Any link to Bishop Alexander’s comments?
February 19, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Apparently quoted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Saturday:
“Those who have studied the New Testament at any depth will know that Jesus was a revisionist of sorts, as was the Apostle Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther,” he said. “I find that comforting company to be in.”
You do realize that if it weren’t for some people you know better than I do, I wouldn’t know what you meant by Alexander’s revisionism?
February 19, 2007 at 7:16 pm
oops…it was in the local paper…I’ll try to find a online copy. If not, I will type it out.
February 19, 2007 at 7:22 pm
You know, I am a bit harsh here. For some reason, I just read the quote this morning, and it rubbed me the wrong way. I had a flashback to seeing Spong’s biography in the dumpbin at Borders, which is entitled, “Here I Stand.” Man that irritated the bejeezus out of me.
February 19, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I’m confused. What is this referring to? From here without having read the actual interviews, it reads as though you are conflating preaching the same Good News to gay folk we preach to straight folk with matters of who gets property? One of them is a matter of reform to my eyes, the other is a matter of the Church acting like the world. I’ve said it before, we should let folks go with the property if that is where they must stand and not make keeping property our central concern. But I suspect, as the Church is always a mixtum, that we will continue to see each and all acting like the world at times.
February 19, 2007 at 8:25 pm
*Christopher – if that is what it reads, then I have been unclear. The post started off with no liking his quote, calling Luther, Paul et el revisionists. That just irked the hell out of me.
There was no intention to conflate the issue you mention. I can see how that would come across though.
As far as the property issue, I have really tried not to comment on the issue, but I think the TEC suing the local parishes who decide to leave is absurd. Let folks leave and keep the property they paid for. However, it was probably not wise for me to include that issue here.
The point of this post is merely this: Luther was not a revisionist, and probably wouldn’t want to the be a poster child for revisionism in the modern church. The rest of the post was just my early morning snarkiness.
February 20, 2007 at 3:15 am
uh, no…the property belongs to TEC, not the diocese or the local church, I believe. So it’s the diocese job to fight for it. polity is as polity does. Pastor Brad ought to be fairly familiar w/that phenom.
February 20, 2007 at 2:44 pm
yeah, polity sucks! It is at moments like this when I become a pretty fierce congregationalist. The thing that strikes me is that the point about the property belonging to TEC properly is an unclear or muddled point of law, and not all courts are going to rule in favor of this, as property is governed under state regulations.
There have been some churches that have left TEC (though a bit more quietly) – and have not been pursued in court. I am thinking specifically of a couple I read about that became Orthodox (I would have to look up the names to verify).
In the ELCA, the property stays with the local community. So in some cases, there have been churches that have left for a variety of reasons that enjoy uninterrupted ministry in the buildings that they built, maintained, paid for, etc.
February 20, 2007 at 7:13 pm
yes…I think in a number of cases where the property is being contested to stay in TEC, it is largely (and hopefully!) to support the faithful remnant of the parish that wishes to remain w/in TEC.
February 20, 2007 at 7:14 pm
oh, yeah, and have you noticed that the gathered Primates, at least some of them, are trying to make the Anglican Communion into a Confessing church?? Nothing wrong at all with confessing churches, but it’s very UN-Anglican. Elizabeth R. must be rolling in her tomb!
February 20, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Well, if there is really something to be contested, then you would hope that the departing party would just take off and move on. For instance, if it were a pretty even split, with a small margin voting for leaving. But in some of the cases, where, say, 90% vote to take off, it just seems like better practice to let ‘em go, building and all. Use those legal fees to do some mission work.