So that's why I'm evil! I had no idea!

When I was in high school, I learned of a great way to get my endorphins running. No, not what you’re thinking. I watched the McLachlan Group. Watching two slightly rational people arguing with two idiots and a blowhard was surprisingly amusing for me. I enjoyed getting angry enough that I would yell at the TV. “Tony! You’re an idiot!” I would say. “Just stop talking for once!”

I have chosen more useful outlets for my pseudo-news, but I had not found a place to reveal such ire until recently. The American Anglican Council, the schismatic support group that remains within the Episcopal Church, but loves fanning the flames, puts out a monthly newsletter called Encompass, which is quite amusing. Aside from the regular jargon and the liberal use of the term “orthodox” and “orthodox anglicanism”, it is very telling about where the conservative mind has wandered to. But my favorite part has to be the regular column “A Message from the President”, written by the Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, whose titles are “AAC President & CEO”. Classy stuff.

Like listening to talk radio or Bill O’Reilly, you get the sense that Anderson is less interested in the issues up for discussion as he is in taking advantage of the opportunity to be crass. We aren’t merely talking about a little mudslinging, but overt misrepresentation of facts with the intention of defamation. Then he throws in some pretty saucy language.

Let’s take a look at the most recent issue (which is not yet on their website): May/June 2008.

Anderson begins his column by claiming “the spin regarding the crisis in Anglicanism is dizzying”, with pejorative references to the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Lambath Conference as proof of this ‘spin’.

But then he makes a truly remarkable point. He argues that

“The situation is complex and can’t be explained in a soundbite. So when outsiders look at the crisis in the Anglican Communion they often default to the easiest understanding—sex.”

But isn’t that what you’ve been saying?

“I have explained to journalists at length that the sexuality issues in North America are derivative of the theological errors of the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC).”

Oh, so it isn’t about sex, but how we think about sex. It isn’t the sex, per se, but what we say, think, respond to, and appreciate about sex. But it has nothing to do with the sex.

“Orthodox Anglicans fervently believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and none come unto the Father except through him. Jesus gave us this doctrine himself, and it becomes a litmus test for the theological deviation that has occurred and is progressing at an alarming rate.”

So what did the ordination of Bishop V. Gene Robinson have to do with this? And gay marriage in Canada has what to do with a theology that is more concerned with the means of salvation than the road to salvation?

“We believe that Holy Scripture has the authority to speak into both our spiritual and our “secular” lives, and to provide not only the words of eternal life, but also the proper ordering of our behavior and discipline.”

Oh, so God doesn’t influence us today, as/through/by the Holy Spirit, but by the Holy Scripture! I get it! God is dead!

You don’t think that’s what he means? Why else would we think that the only use for the Bible is as a how-to guide and behavior manual.

But now we get to the meat of it:

“The great divide we face is that the liberal revisionists who lead TEC and ACoC no longer believe this, and it is a very significant departure from classical Christianity.”

I’m not sure to what “this” he is referring. I’m assuming he is using the “easiest understanding” of the “soundbite” Biblical literalism or the Bible’s sole authority or some other shortcut to suggest that they are the keepers of the faith and that we have Bible burning ceremonies out in the woods. But then again, his earlier statement suggests how far he is removed from tradition…

“In their view, Jesus is the way to the Father, but you can pick the path that works best for you.”

I’m not sure why this is part of his argument, but sure, we think ecumenism is a positive thing…

“Likewise, scripture is written by the church and can be rewritten and reinterpreted by the church to mean different things than it has for the past two millennia.”

There we go. The signal. Yes, the Bible was written by the church between 1000 BCE and 200 CE. It is nearly universally held that humanity was inspired to write this love story about faith, but if you want to take the position that the Bible dropped out of the sky, go for it. Fundamentalism at its finest! The second half of the statement suggests that the Bible has only been interpreted one way from the beginning. This doesn’t just mean that our “reinterpretations” about slavery were wrong—but there has always been only one (orthodox?) interpretation about every pressing issue of all time. Has he read anything from the first 600 years of Christianity? Or perhaps that pesky Reformation?

“Sexuality issues are the presenting symptom that indicates a visit to the doctor’s office is needed, but they are not the disease. Departure from the historic Christain faith is the disease, and sexual perversions, dealings in witchcraft and the occult, and other manifestations are the consequent result. It is hard, if you are not here to witness it, to see how wacko the Episcopal Church is getting.”

Wait. Hold on. WTF? Did he really just say that a living, vibrant view of faith is not only a “departure from the historic Christian fiath”, but that it leads to witchcraft and the occult? Is he serious? This is like the guy driving a minivan that stopped by a Habitat for Humanity building site in Saginaw to pass out pamphlets telling us that Harry Potter is the work of the devil. This is the same stuff he’s shoving at us. And by throwing this in front of the reference to TEC, he is suggesting that the church is endorsing occultism and wicca. That’s it. He’s lost it.

He concludes that statement by suggesting:

“We couldn’t make this stuff up—“

Though he did.

“so we will just report it to you to underline our point: as bad as the homosexuality issues are in the church, the bizarre theology is even worse.”

His point seems to be that not only will gay people ruin your marriage if they engage in domestic partnerships and important leadership roles in the church, but our theology will do real damage.

Then Anderson gets really personal, attacking our neighbors to the north in the Diocese of Northern Michigan. It must be pointed out that this is one of the most rural and sparsely populated places in the country. It gets incredibly cold and its tourist season is almost entirely June-August. Through the leadership of a truly great bishop, Jim Kelsey, (who died last year in a car accident, driving between his distant churches) and diocesan leadership, they became a pioneering diocese in the use of mutual ministry, a tool to empower the laity and solve a financial issue. With that forward, let us continue.

In the diocesan response to the draft Anglican Covenant, Northern Michigan made a faith statement with which Anderson and David Kalvelage (The Living Church editor) took issue. It is this:

“Our faith is that we, like all creation are continually being born again from above (John 3:1-17). We are continually being re-born as created co-creators, created co-receivers, created co-reconcilers. We are continually being reborn as incarnations of the living Trinity.”

A powerful and incredible statement that is truly inspiring, I think! What else is our relationship with God, but for the opportunity to collaborate on bringing the Kingdom of God? Are we not called to this continued ministry?

“This is one of many non-scriptural New Age pronouncements in the statement that Kalvelage takes to task.”

Huh? Didn’t you catch the scriptural reference? You clearly missed it because you said it was non-scriptural. Perhaps we have a literacy problem… Anderson then quotes Kalvelage when he wrote in the May 11, 2008 issue of The Living Church:

“As I’ve written in the space before, trying to explain the Trinity is a task well beyond my limited insight. But I think even I could make more sense of it than this does.”

I don’t think that this was a response to a seminary Systematics exam that asked students to “Explain the classical definition of the Trinity”. Is he really that stupid, or is he using that strategy perfected by the Bush administration as pretending like they don’t get the point. “You claim to be making a genuine faith statement, but it just sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook to me!” But if that were really the end…

“It reads as though one of the authors of some of the fuzzy theology that came out of the ‘70s suddenly had been re-energized and was determined to escape from retirement.”

I bet that killed at the comedy club! Go for big laugh line!

“Or perhaps the severe winter experienced in the upper Midwest prevented diocesan leaders from thinking clearly.”

Hoozah! There it is! He brought it home. He nailed the bastards!

Or he is being incredibly insulting. Have they been to the Upper Peninsula? Has it ever occurred to them what church must look like in such an environment? Ah, but they’re biblical literalists. Anderson is too busy worshiping God in His holy land of Georgia in his blended fabric robes.

But the quote from Kalvelage continues:

“The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a declaration of the Christian faith.”

Well…technically this may be seen as true, but he is making the doctrine of it more important than the theology used to create doctrine. Not to mention, our doctrine on the Trinity is pretty vague. Lost in this discussion is Northern Michigan's description of purpose; they weren't crafting an academic theology, but a living theology which affirms them.

“We may not understand how God can be one in three persons, but we can find in holy scripture passages that can strengthen our belief.”

Is he supporting proof-texting here?

“For the Diocese of Northern Michigan to put its own spin on 2,000 years of Christian teaching and tradition—“

Is great!

“—only adds to the confusion being experienced by many Episcopalians and other Anglicans.”

I actually don’t get his point on this one. Is he suggesting that:

a) the theology has an affect on people that causes confusion,
b) their developing a genuine theology that relates to their environment means they
are ‘putting another theology out there’, which conflicts with other theologies in
that same environment,
c) that too many choices cause confusion, or
d) that differing from the only teaching that has ever existed in the history of time
and space that has remained unchanged for 2,000 years [that means pre-Jesus] is
a truly confusing concept?

Or maybe he is suggesting that

a) he is confused by multiple choice questions,
b) his friends are confused by multiple choice questions,
c) Sally in Boston is confused by a theology with which she has never engaged [and
probably never will],
d) Jesus taught the doctrine to his disciples in actually not teaching it to them,
e) the Bible clearly has only one thing to say about the Trinity,
f) as has the Church,
g) that Kalvelage is actually confused that he is in such a minority of opinion in the
United States—and that he’s uncomfortable with his friends [in a whispered
tone]…from Africa,
h) or all of the above.

Anderson actually isn’t done yet, though!

“People’s eternal life is being put at risk because teaching such as this is disseminated by diocesan sources, and those who believe and act on it are at peril.”

So Anderson is really a hero! Encouraging massive breaks from canon, supporting the most ridiculous position on both the Bible and on his role as a priest in the one, holy catholic church are not nearly as dangerous as free thought. Does Anderson need to rent Footloose or is that occultish?

He ends with some pretty shameless backpatting and support for the work of the schismatics for attempting to break off from the church. I particularly like this statement:

“I see an unwavering commitment to follow Jesus who is The Way and to do so using Holy Scripture to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness. I see a willingness to look the hard issues in the face and begin trying to work on them. Is the task formidable? Absolutely!”

That hard work of schism really takes a lot out of him, but he’s willing to do it for you, True Believer! He’s just that kind of guy! It’s the hard stuff that he’s good at, but the easy stuff—like loving one’s neighbor, showing mercy, and learning from the example of the apostles—he just can’t keep it all straight! It’s like spelling and grammar. Who needs it?

In describing GAFCON, he says that

“We will gather in Jerusalem to fellowship and proclaim the transforming love of Christ, to develop renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians, and to prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission is a top priority.”

He is such a good foot soldier for Jesus! And it is so precious! He is entirely focused on the plan to undo the workings of the Spirit of the last several decades (as perpetrated by witches and occultists) that creating something new in order to eliminate that new thing from before is just the risk he is willing to take. And clearly, Jesus would do this, right? He would certainly have a separate meeting, refuse to go to Lambeth, and refuse to commune with his neighbors—that’s total J-Dog. And because they are the elect, the super-orthodox, the chosen ones, with their precious gnosis, they can only talk to each other. Now that’s Jesus’s favorite teaching.

And the church certainly has nothing to teach us about that...