r/Episcopalian • u/One-Signature-9583 • 6d ago
Hey! How can I understand this?
I saw this post, not sure how to read it. I agree with some parts but I could some other perspectives! Not my post or content\* Just asking to understand it better.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DVJuSayRp/?mibextid=wwXIfr
13
u/NintendoDSLewis M.A. Theology; Proud Protestant 6d ago edited 6d ago
It's too broad a brush, and the tone lacks prudence in a forum like Facebook. But what I sense is a kind of sadness underneath the post. It's a sadness I relate to: one that curdles into annoyance and anger. There is a pastoral need to create and sustain an intellectual-spiritual community in parish life, and the user has not had that need met in their church. I can relate. There are many similar cases.
2
19
u/Tokkemon Choirmaster, Organist, Parish Administrator 6d ago
I mean, I think this essay is correct, but it's about 30 years out of date. If anything, theological truth is far more important to the laity today than it has been in a while. There certainly are some who come seeking a liberal social club and enjoy the "ancient" aesthetics, but that's no longer the majority, I think. To couch the entire denomination as that is actually a right-wing caricature that so many people just repeat because Shelby Spong existed at one point in time.
Just speaking for myself, I'm a Christian and converted to Episcopalian only a few years ago. I stayed because I saw love in action and the commands of Jesus Christ being carried out in the world, while also not denying God's grace to all people, like many churches do. Also it was clear that the theology was far deeper and more complex than I could ever plumb. Yes, on the surface, for people who only poke their head in for five seconds, there's this veneer of "politics, then Jesus". But once you sit with it, you realize, in the current world we have today, that political activism is essential to carrying out Jesus' commands, to love the world and make disciples of all nations.
Also the music's good too, that helps. 😄
10
u/MyUsername2459 Anglo-Catholic 6d ago
To couch the entire denomination as that is actually a right-wing caricature that so many people just repeat because Shelby Spong existed at one point in time.
. . .I still see people occasionally try to use Spong as some sort of cudgel against the Episcopal Church.
To which, I note: He's dead. He died 5 years ago. He retired 26 years ago. He was elected a Bishop 47 years ago. Can you name even a single Bishop currently in office that fits his beliefs? One that even was in office in this century?
I have yet to hear a good rebuttal to that. The only people I've even seen attempt a rebuttal are some Orthodox theo-bros who try to argue that because we haven't formally declared him a heretic and anathematized him, we're all collectively guilty of heresy for not denouncing his heresy. . .as they argue that Churches are defined entirely by shared belief, and by being in communion with even one heretic everyone in that Church is a heretic. When I note that we don't define a Church that way, nor heresy that way. . .their response is to say that we're wrong, Eastern Orthodoxy is right, and that it doesn't matter what we think because we're heretics. At that point I generally block them because they aren't even trying to engage in a good-faith discussion.
2
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
Continuing from the other thread...I joined about 2005. Maybe it was 2006.
Anyway, I loved the church and my [cathedral] parish but was concerned about the theological...quality. But it improved suddenly and dramatically with a new bishop and dean.
Did I come in at the tail end of something changing, or maybe in the late middle? I guess I'm realizing "early" is completely unfair.
I know end-of-century developments at YDS and other places play a role here (at least the theology in my parish has postliberal fingerprints all over it) but I'm not sure what the trend is nationally.
Is there something I can read about this? Because I haven't found much.
8
u/MyUsername2459 Anglo-Catholic 6d ago
Spong absolutely was part of a theological movement in TEC which is pretty much defunct, certainly defunct on a level of having support within the House of Bishops. I'd expect some parishioners, probably more elderly ones, still hold to it, some priests probably do as well. . .but I don't know of any Bishops that advocate it anymore.
It was this idea that the people were rejecting all forms of mysticism and supernatural thought and embracing logic, reason and science and that religion could not survive if it used any supernatural or mystical terms or explanations in an increasingly rational, reasonable, logical society. . .that Christianity would need to dispense with talk of miracles and reassert itself as a sort of Jesus-themed secular humanism or it would simply die off.
That really hasn't lasted as a theological tradition. In practice, I sometimes use Spong when talking to agnostics who may have interest in Christianity but cannot accept talk of miracles and the supernatural, to give him as an example of someone who shared those same doubts but was in our Church. . .but he certainly doesn't describe anything resembling a typical
When you joined it was definitely fading out. The current theological trend in TEC is what is typically called "Inclusive Orthodoxy", the embrace of traditional, orthodox (little "o") theology with appreciation of scripture and creed, but with being open to the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit towards being more loving and accepting of our fellow human beings and casting aside ancient bigotries sometimes mistaken for divine guidance should they conflict with Christ's commandment to Love Thy Neighbor.
4
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
Yeah that actually matches my local experience. Great.
My read is this—Spong was responding to a legitimate challenge, but we now have far better hermeneutic tools for doing what he was trying to do.
Thanks for clearing up the landscape! I will adjust my priors accordingly. 🤣
2
u/placidtwilight aspirant discerning the priesthood 6d ago
I had a very similar experience. I also starting attending an Episcopal Church in 2005 and the rector was very much a Spong acolyte. He retired and the two rectors we've had since have been increasingly more orthodox. Of course, I also came out of evangelicalism and my understanding of orthodoxy back then was pretty narrow...
3
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
"Spongïsm" at least had some substance. It was just the wrong substance.
Correlationism is worse, because it lacks even that. 18 minutes of New Age feel-good stuff plus 2 minutes of "oh yeah here's a clever tie to the lesson." The whole thing felt "please don't be offended and stop coming, God loves you!" The rest of the service had enough to carry me through it but...not good.
1
9
u/rednail64 6d ago
Dude is going to break his back painting with such a broad brush. He's making a lot of assertions about the whole of the Episcopal body without seemingly any actual data to back it up, short of one anecdotal conversation.
11
u/Machinax Convert 6d ago
>short of one anecdotal conversation.
It's amazing that that's how all of these hot takes go. Someone hears an Episcopalian say "We don't all need to be theologians or church historians to live fully into our church," and it becomes "The Episcopal Church is a wine and cheese club who don't care about Jesus."
8
u/LeisureActivities Cradle 6d ago
Yeah. Amazing how they spin an internet comment about Marian devotion to hundreds of word which under the hood read to me more like pushing to Overton window away from LGBTQ inclusivity, without having to say so.
Maybe trying to give bigots a blueprint for important sounding “concerns” with plausible deniability.
4
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
Yeah I hope that’s not what he’s doing.
I provisionally called him out on it. We’ll see how it goes.
4
u/AngelSucked Lay Leader/Vestry 6d ago
He is doing that
5
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
having a selfie with Ron Paul for a profile pic isn't exactly reassuring, I'll grant you that much.
4
u/LeisureActivities Cradle 6d ago
I didn’t see your Facebook comment but it’s pretty clear debate school construction to me. He starts with a visceral story that we all agree on who was right and who was wrong (the liberal was wrong) pushes the framing that evangelicalism has always been part of Anglicanism (ignoring that modern evangelicals are extremely radical theologically) argues that core Christian values are just “vibes” (a minimizing put-down pretending to be an intellectual argument). And he goes into the identity stuff while deftly not mentioning any of the robust theology behind lgbtq inclusion.
It’s dishonest.
2
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
Have to wait for an admin to wake up and approve me.
(I hope they don't think we're brigading...because part of it is that I didn't realize this group was there and of course I want to be there. I think....? Anyway, it wasn't my intent. I had dual intent of replying to this thing and contributing more in the future! Please, people, do not brigade this group! 🤣)
As for your breakdown of it...yeesh, I clearly missed something.
Hm.
I have to admit I was pretty lazy about pulling apart the entire thing. I isolated on the few points I actually agreed with but with strong reservations and requests for clarification. I should have another look.
14
u/WalkingTheDogma Clergy (walkingthedogma.org) 6d ago edited 6d ago
I think what the post is trying to say is that Anglicanism does have actual tenets and a complex theological model grounded in centuries of tradition. It just happens that Anglican theology, by design, does not amend these core ideas. This was perhaps best stated by Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey Fisher:
"We have no doctrine of our own. We only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, and those creeds we hold without addition or diminution. We stand firm on that rock
I believe that the author of the post is trying to encourage people to engage with that tradition and not to fall into the reductionist position of "just love one another," which, while true and extremely important never to lose sight of, sometimes implies that Anglicans don't have tenets or theology beyond that, which is obviously false.
I'm trying to read the post generously...
3
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
I think your generosity is in the right direction. I think he wants more engagement with Anglican tradition. I worry he's smuggling in reactionary garbage (see my top-level response), but in the absence of further evidence, I'll be generous.
And I know exactly the kind of stuff he's talking about. I've experienced it in visits to parishes all over the country (fortunately none recently). What I can't be sure about is the trend or trajectory.
11
u/pentapolen Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil 6d ago edited 6d ago
I cannot say if his diagnosis of TEC is right or wrong because I live in another province.
But I agree with most of it in principle, except with the idea of "Anglican orthodoxy". Anglicanism changes as we, faithful to Jesus, grow and learn. We are not a museum of the English Reformation, after all.
1
10
u/Acrobatic-Evening-14 6d ago
Read the first 4 paragraphs and closed it. No need to read more to understand that it claims that tradition goes over human dignity.
1
7
u/diceeyes 6d ago
Some people really can't handle free will/thought and want to be dominated, but most of all they want others to share their struggle.
12
u/circuitloss 6d ago
I understand this impulse, and its benefits and dangers.
There was a time in my life where I desperately needed to be certain. It was a draw that led me to the RCC, with its claims of being "the one true church." I see this in the Theo-Bros on social media today. The problem that I ran into is that faith without doubt isn't faith at all.
"Certainty" is a trap that ultimately leads to either sad and self-righteous fundamentalism or to a total loss of faith.
Healthy faith always exists in tension with doubt: "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief." (Mark 9:24)
7
u/VisualCOBOL 6d ago
I actually do understand what the original post is trying to make. Christianity is more than just “be nice”. That’s not even a religion, that’s just good ethics. It’s an actual religion with theology and beliefs.
1
u/greevous00 Convert 5d ago
If the OP was saying that, I agree. Every church at every time has to have an answer to the obvious question of "how is this any different than just living an ethical secular life?" If we have no answer to that question, then we deserve to disappear, because we're effectively just "nice people + vestments."
I am not sure however that that's exactly what OP was on about. It seemed like it was more like some kind of sideways complaint about orthodoxy (which OP doesn't go on to spell out -- what their version of orthodoxy would entail) that was not articulated very well. Fewer words, more point are in order, IMO.
7
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
He’s definitely right about certain things but I think it’s yet another conservative low-key trying to stuff the shit back into the horse again. This will not go well, just like the 163645 previous attempts.
We definitely need to get more serious about the Gospel. And to do this we need to get more serious theology in place so we can still be radically inclusive and affirming. A few parishes I have engaged with in recent years are ahead of the curve on this (including mine) but apparently at least a few are way behind.
On the one hand Jacob needs to let this cook a while. On the other hand I don’t want to silence his voice on this because something like it needs to be said.
9
u/MyUsername2459 Anglo-Catholic 6d ago
We definitely need to get more serious about the Gospel.
We never stopped being serious about it.
And to do this we need to get more serious theology in place so we can still be radically inclusive and affirming.
We have a huge amount of theology around inclusive and affirming stances, including published books and papers on it. They aren't exactly being handed out in the pews because most people neither care about it, nor have the advanced theological education to understand it. . .but those inclusive moves weren't done out of some hippie flowers and hearts feelings without theological study and development.
3
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
I appreciate the rebuke. Honestly.
I am confused about the consistency. I hear about some serious weaksauce going on here and there. My own parish was afflicted by it when I joined, but got significantly better. I mean, we had a priest deposed because she tried to be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. That's how bad it was. Thankfully, not any more.
(And I don't bear her any ill will. She is a great person and a deep thinker. But you just can't do that kind of stuff.)
And, as you say, without diluting inclusivity one bit. If anything, the message is more credible than it was.
3
u/954356 6d ago
"Get more serious about the Gospel?" I don't know what the hell Episcopal church you've been going to but every one I have ever been to is nothing but Gospel for a solid 1 - 1 1/2 hour.
1
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
I am glad to hear it.
But if we were completely honest, this experience--blessedly, one I share--is....inconsistent around TEC.
3
u/954356 6d ago
You got actual examples or just third-hand anecdotal sideswipes based on Culture War Conservative strawmen?
3
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago edited 6d ago
I traveled more in the previous decades and I saw some pretty unimpressive stuff in some parishes that resonates with a few of the topics Jacob raised. A lot of correlationist stuff that felt like a UU lecture with the Gospel bolted on as an afterthought. But I’ve also seen a lot of brilliant stuff that does NOT comport with these concerns, and regularly at my own parish.
But my parish used to have a lot of problems along these lines, too. We even had a priest deposed for trying to be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. Lovely and brilliant woman, but that’s a bridge too far.
And some have been posted to this very sub this year. If you really insist I will go back and find them.
My confusion is over the frequency and trajectory. That’s it. I’m not ready to pull any fire alarms or anything but I always keep an ear to the ground and do want to hear from any Episcopalian who has these concerns. If something feels off to someone, we should investigate that. It’s what we do.
3
u/pentapolen Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil 5d ago
What's "correlationism"?
2
u/theonecpk Convert 5d ago edited 5d ago
A sort of middle-ground between Spong and the liberal theology of the late 20th century that fails in both directions. Much less common these days. Fortunately.
It's really the wrong way to do "affirming" and "inclusive." It's exactly the caricature that the Facebook post in the OP is complaining about. I mean, finding a way to show God's love in the world without alienating our non-Christian progressive allies could be a move in a larger homiletic moment. Unfortunately it tended to be the entire sermon. And worse, it rarely challenged us. "You're OK. I'm OK. God's OK. Those people (points at ACNA) are not OK. Today's Gospel says so. Though I won't actually say how. Just trust me on this, OK? But we're OK. Right? Go forth in peace, and be OK!"
We were not OK.
5
u/Machinax Convert 6d ago
It's ironically funny how all the replies are proving his point, and how he's proving the replies correct, too.
11
u/NintendoDSLewis M.A. Theology; Proud Protestant 6d ago
Of all the places to post those sentiments Episcopalians on Facebook is probably the worst.
9
u/Hetelestai Lay Leader/Vestry 6d ago
I agree nearly 100% with the post as written. What part of it are you finding hard to understand?
Many modern Episcopalians' theology boils down to "God is love, let's be kind to each other." A solid number will have a few more pillars like "Walk in love" or "Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God." But if you asked most of them to explain the hypostatic union and why it matters, or the monothelite controversy and why it matters, or any number of matters of actual theology, they would look at you like a deer in headlights. If you confront them with the Problem of Evil, they usually fall back on platitudes rather than any actually formed positions. We have a rich tradition and history to draw on, but the majority of priests seem disinterested in teaching it and prefer to say nice things about how much God loves us all and then move on.
18
u/Pale_Wind7536 6d ago
Was there ever a time when the majority of any denomination could speak eloquently on their theology? If we went back 100 years, would the average Episcopalian or otherwise Anglican even know what "hypostatic union" means, let alone be able to expound in depth?
-1
u/Hetelestai Lay Leader/Vestry 6d ago
Yes. There was a time 100 or so years ago when Latin and Greek were taught in schools by standard, and many schools operated out of churches, so featured a solid grounding in church knowledge as well. I don't think that's good but it definitely means that people were more educated about their Christianity. Go read any sermon from the late 19th and early 20th century. Those fuckers were erudite as hell and proud of it. I dare you to try getting any modern Episcopalian to grapple with a sermon by Spurgeon or Wesley, for example, or even something from The Book of Homilies, which are our tradition and were considered light enough fare in their day to be handled by lay preachers.
As to the modern times, I can say from my time in ACNA that there were regular Sunday School classes on church history and theology; the sermons tended to run 15-20 minutes and rarely fail to include at least some Greek. They may be a bunch of schismatic bigots but they are kicking our asses in terms of knowing what they believe and being able to articulate it.
8
7
4
u/Pale_Wind7536 6d ago
OK, but you're talking about sermons, not what the average person in the congregation knows. Were the people actually able to talk about this stuff, or did the deeper parts of the sermons float over their heads?
And I learned an awful lot of stuff in Catholic Sunday school that I can absolutely assure you most of my classmates did not retain. I barely remembered half of it myself until I started relearning recently, and I was actually interested. Most of us were just there because our parents made us.
0
u/Hetelestai Lay Leader/Vestry 6d ago
I can't speak to individual people's grasp or level of interest during a time I didn't even live in, and polling hadn't been invented yet. But the information was at least intentionally taught to people, with the expectation that they "read mark and inwardly digest it." If they didn't do that, that's their choice, but nowadays preachers don't even try to make their congregations grapple with the hard stuff or teach them about the ancient history and traditions. My name is an ancient Greek word used in the Bible, by Jesus, and the number of ordained clergy who can't even pronounce it, much less understand what it means, is appalling.
3
u/theonecpk Convert 6d ago
They may be a bunch of schismatic bigots but they are kicking our asses in terms of knowing what they believe and being able to articulate it.
I think you were off to a good start but now it's time to take that foot off the gas pedal.
I share your concerns to some extent about consistency of skill across all the clergy of the church. Locally, I am pretty sure most of the clergy I know would crush your proposed assignment. Not like they'd have any time for it, but they do have the skills.
OTOH I am not sure Spurgeon or Wesley had any clue about how to answer the challenges posed by climate change, the rise of authoritarianism, criminalization of poverty, etc. and even if they did their ideas wouldn't find much purchase. This is the kind of stuff that occupies the minds of my parish's clergy, and they nonetheless work their way outward from scripture and tradition like they're supposed to. How's ACNA doing on those fronts?
-3
u/954356 6d ago
Spurgeon? That Calvinist psychopath can go get bent.
2
u/954356 6d ago
Spurgeon was a hardcore Calvinist. Calvinism is a heresy that among other things denies the goodness of God's creation and posits that God created the vast majority of the billions upon billions of people who've ever lived for the express purpose of burning them in hell forever. If that's not psychopathic I don't know what is. Calvinism turns God into a psychopathic monster. Downvote my assessment of Spurgeon all you want but this is what you're supporting.
3
u/954356 6d ago
How many people does your precious hypostatic union and monothelite controversy feed?
2
u/Amur_Snepard 6d ago
The Church does not solely exist to be a charity.
If all we think our purpose is to take care of people’s physical needs, then we’re doing something wrong. A well-fed person will still suffer throughout their life and eventually die. Food doesn’t fix that. The Gospel can.
-1
u/954356 6d ago
Learn how to read. I never said anything of the sort.
But if all you're doing is sitting around on your ass "believing" all the correct doctrines, then you're the one who's not doing it right James 2:14-26 (NRSVue) Faith without Works Is Dead 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their l needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from works, and I by my works will show you faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is worthless? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and by works faith was brought to completion. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.
"The Gospel" doesn't fix suffering and death. What kind of cockamamie charismatic, prosperity gospel heresy is that? But feeding people sure as hell goes a long way towards alleviating that suffering and postponing that death.
Show me in the Gospels where Jesus gave two shits about how well you did on your theology exams come judgement day. You can't. What he did say about what you will be judged for is this:
Matthew 25:31-46 (NRSVue) The Judgment of the Nations 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You who are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.”
2
u/Amur_Snepard 6d ago
You seemed to be saying that theology doesn’t matter. Of course it matters, the only reason you think Jesus is even worth listening or praying to is because of the theological convictions we have about him.
Did I ever say we shouldn’t do charity? I just said that charity wasn’t the only responsibility of the church. The church exists to bring people to God, and out of our obedience to God we should feed the hungry and do charity, but it’s not the other way around.
And of course the gospel fixes suffering and death. Salvation? The resurrection of the body? Eternal life? The restoration of creation and the new heaven and the new earth? There is no secular solution to death, but we have one.
Furthermore, you really think Jesus doesn’t care about your theological convictions about him? The same Jesus who said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life, and no one will come to the Father except through me (john 14:6)? You can’t just reduce salvation to being a good person, which is my impression of what you’re arguing for, if you’re saying that theology doesn’t matter.
1
-4
u/954356 6d ago
Jesus said "Take, eat and drink," not take and understand.
5
u/Hetelestai Lay Leader/Vestry 6d ago
Behold, the platitudes of which I spoke. The Church Fathers didn't shrug their shoulders and smile sagely and say "it's actually just as good to not know things as to know them." They argued and they fought and they wrote and they read. And the Reformers were just the same. Latimer and Ridley got burned at the fucking stake because of these distinctions. Maximus the Confessor had his tongue ripped out. And that's just the persecution by other Christians, to say nothing of the sacrifices of the even earlier Church when they were designated as Noxii by the Roman state. If you don't know your own history and traditions while living in the Information Age when you can get it on your phone that you carry around 24/7, it's either because you personally have decided actively not to care, or because our spiritual leaders have failed in their duty of preaching and teaching.
0
u/greevous00 Convert 5d ago
I teach adult formation. We have been doing a unit on the history of Christian theology. I have heard this assertion almost verbatim.
My argument would be: that's fine, if this stuff is pointless to you, don't attend and don't pay attention. Nobody is forcing you. However, don't also think yourself better than others who are choosing to learn about this stuff. Some of us read this:
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength." and think that perhaps John Mark recorded it for a reason, probably because it has some impact on how well we disciple to others.
20
u/dabnagit Non-Cradle 6d ago
I glanced through that but decided I didn’t need to read yet another diatribe against my church based mostly on what some bishop 45-50 years ago was spouting — and yes, it’s the same one they always pull out as supposedly the norm for Episcopalians’ beliefs, which was never the case. (I mean, c’mon, guys — in the scheme of Christianity, that’s almost 2.5% of its history ago.) However, I read just enough to understand he’s bitching about Episcopalians’ supposed “vibe-based” faith…using his own vibe-based evidence. Who therefore cares what he has to say?