Christian college kids and apologizing Anglicans

First off, Jenell Paris has yet another moving post up in her corner of our blogosphere. Here's a lengthy excerpt:

...it was my 10-year college reunion last weekend. I could have attended, seeing as I work at the college and live 5 minutes away, but I didn't. I'm not comfortable seeing relative strangers and talking about my life- I'd just sweat and cry and leave early. Yesterday I received the 'memory book', about 100 pages of people writing about their lives on a form that asks for name/address/are you married/do you have kids/where do you work/what do you remember from college. It was so frustrating that I ranted to my night class (freshmen) about it.

There is a powerful cultural norm at Bethel that is unspoken by professors or administrators, yet it is carried on year by year by the student culture and the broader evangelical culture. The ideal life path, judging by these entries, is to graduate from college, marry a person of the same race before you are 24, man works in ministry or a corporation, woman works in nursing, education or music ministry, have kids before age 27, woman works part-time or stay-at-home, be church members, live in Minnesota or Colorado, and have the woman fill out forms that need to be mailed in. Women seem to feel ambivalent about the stay-at-home part, though. One wrote "I'm a teacher, but I'm on a five year 'leave of absence' while my kids are young." Another wrote "Job: Mommy", Workplace: "The Harris Household."

Notably, only 100 out of about 500 class members sent the form in. Only three single women contributed, and one wrote a long message about how she has become Gods' bride, so really, she is sort of married. One single man wrote in. A few divorced people wrote in, but obscured that fact on their form (I knew it from other lines of gossip). I received the form in June or July, and wrote on it, "My Bethel education and my Christian faith have not made my life work out great. My three babies died this year, and my life is really hard right now. I hope God is present with you, too, in your struggles."

This is what I said to my class last night. "Class, this is my memory book from 1994. The only people I remember from college are my friends, men I dated, and men I hoped to date. I don't remember any of these other people in the slightest. What that means for you is that you need to get a good education while you're here and be assertive about asking questions and learning in class. Don't be pressured into stupidity by your classmates, and don't care what anyone thinks of you. Just live your life and do what you want to do, keeping in mind that all these people who seem so important to you right now won't be in a few years."

I also said that they should feel free to live however they want, even if they don't end up with a minister-pianist power-marriage for Jesus, or with three kids named Dakota, Madison, and Cody. There's not much point in even saying that, tho, because my voice is just a cry in the wilderness compared to the pressure toward getting married and having three conventionally-named children. There's such pressure for women to be passive and silent in class, and apparently there's pressure for men to sit in the back row, wear baseball caps, and tell jokes to each other. It's wrong to pay $25,000 a year to experience anti-educational peer pressure. It's wrong to pay a Christian college $100,000 just to reinforce Christian cultural norms that you could have learned for free at church. Demand more!

The cage isn't real, and as we become ourselves, we're sometimes surprised to find that the freedom was there all along.

The Churches disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by refusing to think and following along like a lemming. Let the churches tremble at a student revolution. The students have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Students of all Christian colleges, unite!

I would have loved it even without the hat-tip to Karl in the final paragraph. When I was first becoming a believer, I often wondered if there were any "cool Christians." I don't mean cool in the slick, pop culture sense -- I mean Christians who don't think a relationship with Christ precludes rage and discomfort and sensual delight. Jenell is the epitome -- nay, the zenith -- of Christian coolness in my book.

Meanwhile, I've been reading the Windsor Report some more. Father Jake has a nice summary from the progressive point of view here.

I'm disappointed that the Report calls on American Episcopalians to, as Father Jake puts it, declare the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire, the lovely Gene Robinson, an "untouchable":

We accept and respect the position taken up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the current incumbent of the See of New Hampshire In view of the widespread unacceptability of his ministry in other provinces of the Communion, we urge the proposed Council of Advice to keep the matter of his acceptability under close review. We also urge the Archbishop, unless and until the Council of Advice (or, if the Council should not come into being, the Primates' Meeting) indicate to the contrary, to exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the Communion.

Well, we'll have him back at All Saints soon enough. If Lambeth doesn't want him, Pasadena does.

On the other hand, a nice slap at traditionalist bishops who are interfering in places like the Los Angeles Diocese:

We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
* to express regret for the consequences of their actions
* to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
* to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care.
We further call upon those diocesan bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) who have refused to countenance the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter. If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church

Rounding up reaction, it seems that the liberals are a bit miffed, but the right wing is apopletic. I liked this bit from the comments section here, written by a self-styled repentant liberal:

This is the most shameful sell out since Munich.I agree that we appear to have nothing. Express regret my foot! The committee should express regret for wasting everyones time. Take a good look, you just saw a small bunch of immature twits destroy a church over 400 years old. Poof- it is gone up in smoke.

I'll be the first to admit it: in the world of Anglican blogging, I often only know whether something is "good news" or not based upon the responses of the cyber-savvy traditionalists. If they are unhappy, then there must be reason to rejoice. I don't mean that nastily, mind you! I simply have found that in most cases, the American Anglican Council is a lot like Focus on the Family: knowing what they oppose allows me to be clear on what I support. In this age of information overload, it's really rather helpful.

Seriously, though, I like any report that calls folks back from the brink of schism. More than anything else, what I read here is a rebuke to self-righteous certainty, whether that hubris appears from the right or from the left. I like that.

Comments

[graham]

Hugo, perhaps you'll allow me to comment as a non-anglican?

Is there not a major double-standard taking place on both sides here? Both sides, the idiots who refer to Rowan Williams as a prostitute *and* the progressives who claim that deep-down he is one of them, only seem to accept the report to the degree that it agrees with them.

If the Anglican communion means anything, won't there need to be a little bit of compromise on both sides? Isn't that how these things work?

[Hugo]

Indeed, Graham, indeed -- but what will the compromise look like? Folks seem quite entrenched.

I confess I am guilty of being one of those who suspects Williams of being with us (the left) in his heart...

[John]

This report is proof of the maxim that "Americans pay, Africans pray and the British write the resolutions". This is a very British report; my Anglican prop CWI President grandmother could have written it. It's disappointing that the liberals were not rebuked, but what is worse, there is no AEO. Archbishop Akinola, bless him forever, is right in that he calls this report "Patronising" and inadequate, falsely making equivalent heresy and the emergency response thereto. Anglicans, especially ones in my part of the Anglosphere, don't like fights. They interfere with the tea and port and cause a deplorable amount of unAnglican emotion. The fact that the Anglicans, of all people, are flying the coop to outposts of Empire like Nigeria is unprecendented. The AAC and the Global South are still jumping up and down screaming at the brick wall of Good Manners "WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE!!". He-who-styles-himself Presiding Bishop and his cohorts of wet blankets are attempting to pat us on the head and say "There, there, we'll get through it, I really can't see what all the fuss is about. Another sandwich?". This time, we aren't going to take another slice of cake and shut up. This time, elastic Anglicanism has snapped, and the Windsor report was the last chance for it to get rid of some of the strain. Have you seen some of the conservative responses from ordinary people? This will cause an exodus. The consecration itself did not, since + Duncan and ++ Akinola urged patience, but the patience of many is exhausted. The CAPA meeting hopefully will come up with a last-gasp solution, otherwise, I think conservative Anglicanism is done. I have never been so happy to be a Wesleyan Pentecostal. Thank God, we don't have to fight vice all the time.

[John]

By the way, Graham, Dean Philip Jensen did not call Abp. Williams a prostitute. He was misquoted. He said advocating one thing while an ordinary bishop and another when + Cantuar was intellectual prostitution. Read the text of his remarks at www.sydneyanglicans.net. Neither is he stupid, rather, he is one of the best and brightest in the Australian Church, and held in high respect, as is ++ Peter.

[graham]

"Neither is he stupid, rather, he is one of the best and brightest in the Australian Church, and held in high respect."

I didn't call him stupid, John, I called him an idiot. I don't doubt his intellectualy capabilities.

(Btw, why was Philip Jensen rebuked by his brother for his statement?) His statement was inaccurate as to what Williams actually advocates (and seemed to guess at what he *really* believes) and it was inaccurate in terms of a logical premise.

Here's a quote: "That's total prostitution of the Christian ministry. He should resign. That's theological and intellectual prostitution. He is taking his salary under false pretences."

One cannot engage in prostitution without being a prostitute, so I think the misquote is a fairly accurate one.

I have higher hopes for the Australian Church than that!

(Oh, incidentally, I've got some great friends in Anglican church here in England who are engaging in some of the most exciting and innovative mission ventures I have seen. Let's not engage in denominational stereo-types.

[Jake]

I often only know whether something is "good news" or not based upon the responses of the cyber-savvy traditionalists. If they are unhappy, then there must be reason to rejoice.

I almost choked on my coffee when I read this, Hugo! I agree, but to share this little secret so bluntly just seems so contrary to your style. Of course, you do clarify the statement, and offer a good, solid closing statement, but I still appreciate your willingness to clearly state where you stand.

I've often thought of sending Kendall Harmon a thank you. Not only does he offer a lot of information on his site, he also makes it so much easier for some of us to quickly know where we stand on some issues.

BTW, did you see Jack Spong's response? He is about as upset as Akinola. When the extremes are upset, it's a good sign we might be on to something solid, it seems to me.

The bit about making Gene an untouchable; that one sticks in my craw. If he is uninvited to Lambeth, so am I, and many others. Being treated as a naughty child can be endured, I suppose. But it makes the healing process more difficult, and does not satisfy the conservatves, who will settle for nothing less than his resignation.

[Hugo]

Hah, Jake, I knew you'd be in on the "secret"!

I think Kendall Harmon is terrific, and he does help me consolidate opinion very rapidly.

I have a feeling that Akinola and Spong are irate enough that they will be the ones who won't be at Lambeth in 2008... but time will tell.

[obadiahslope]

Since it has been raised on your blog Hugo, it is worth pointing out that the only two people who could know if Dean Phillip Jensen was rebuked by his brother Archbishop Peter Jensen both deny it.
To read Dean Phillips account go to. http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/diocese/mediareleases/dean_jensen_challenges_inacuracies/
It is only an antipodean storm in a tea cup after aal.

[obadiahslope]

Since it has been raised on your blog Hugo, it is worth pointing out that the only two people who could know if Dean Phillip Jensen was rebuked by his brother Archbishop Peter Jensen both deny it.
To read Dean Phillips account go to. http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/diocese/mediareleases/dean_jensen_challenges_inacuracies/
It is only an antipodean storm in a tea cup after aal.

[obadiahslope]

Since it has been raised on your blog Hugo, it is worth pointing out that the only two people who could know if Dean Phillip Jensen was rebuked by his brother Archbishop Peter Jensen both deny it.
To read Dean Phillips account go to. http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/diocese/mediareleases/dean_jensen_challenges_inacuracies/
It is only an antipodean storm in a tea cup after aal.

[obadiahslope]

Since it has been raised on your blog Hugo, it is worth pointing out that the only two people who could know if Dean Phillip Jensen was rebuked by his brother Archbishop Peter Jensen both deny it.
To read Dean Phillips account go to. http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/diocese/mediareleases/dean_jensen_challenges_inacuracies/
It is only an antipodean storm in a tea cup after aal.

[John]

Hey, there ain't a thing wrong with the Antipodes, or our tea neither! ;-)

I'm not engaging in denominational stereotypes. I'm simply saying I'm relieved that in our Church, these are non-issues.

John (Kiwi!)

[Chip]

And it probably won't surprise you, Hugo, that sometimes those of us who are orthodox form our opinions partially based on progressive reactions to things. (For me personally, they're usually nowhere near the deciding factor, but they definitely influence my thinking.) Yep, we react just like you do.

As for me, despite any disappointments I have with the report, I see a lot of good things emphasized:

*The primacy of Scripture (implicitly over tradition, reason, and, if you want to add in the Wesleyan quad, experience)-- "Within Anglicanism, Scripture has always been recognized as the supreme authority" (contrary to many progressive claims)

*The statement that the bishops' first duty is to teach Scripture, and that their authority "cannot reside solely or primarily in legal structures"

*The suggestion that you can't pit the Holy Spirit against Scripture: "As with the Spirit who inspired scripture, we should expect that the Bible would be a means of unity, not division"

*The fairly harsh way it comes down on ECUSA ("harsh" taking into account the natural politeness of Britspeak) -- Despite what some conservatives are saying, I think it comes down far harder on ECUSA and New Westminster than on the orthodox

*The strong emphasis on the catholicity of the church, which ECUSA ignored in all of its actions (and the section on how women's ordination was handled provides a marked lesson in contrast)

Doctrinally, the statement seems to come down far closer to the orthodox end than the progressive end of the spectrum. Otherwise, the report seems to do everything it can to keep current ECUSA structures intact and to keep everyone talking.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[Kendall Harmon]

Thank you for the kind comments, Hugo.

However, I must caution you about whether you have lived into your own desire to think against "the responses of the cyber-savvy traditionalists." The person you quote certainly does not fit into that category.

Check out, for example, Oliver O'Donovan's response here:

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=3167#comments

He does.

By any fair reading the report places an enormous challenge before the North American leadership. Even most of the press got that right.

[Cornelis Droog]

Are Your Children or Grandchildren, Kids/Goats?

We really should try to speak like we love GOD and all HIS Creation, especially HIS Children.

In Strong's Hebrew and Greek Concordances: His Children <01121>

On your website on Internet we see the words Kid/Kids , if we looked at the language of the Bible we see Goats.

In Strong's Concordance the Old Testament Hebrew word Kid is Strong's number <08163> ryes sa’iyr of res sa’ir, bn, zn from <08175> TWOT-2274c, 2274e KJV - Kid 28, Goat 24, Devil 2, Satyr 2, Hairy 2, Rough 1.

In the New Testament Greek we see Kid used once. In Luke 15:29 it is also defined in Strong's Concordance number <2056> as Goat.

We read in Matthew 25:31-32: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep [His Children] from the goats <2056>: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues [the language of Gods word, the Bible].

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues*, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
* not the language of the world.

Let God be Magnified!
In Christian love,
Sincerely,

[Tom Kuckla]

Thank you for this information. We really should try to speak like we love GOD and all HIS Creation, especially HIS Children.

Proverbs 8:6-9 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

Praise GOD for HIS WORD!!!