Posted by camwade
Who is Tom Woodward?
According to his blog profile, he is a male Capricorn in the religion industry currently residing in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Mr. Woodward adds juggler, fire eater, magician and mime in Uncle Billy’s Pocket Circus to his resume’. Mr. Woodward is a retired Episcopal priest formerly with St. Paul’s, Salinas, California. Most interestingly, Mr. Woodward’s blog profile lists his occupation as author and not that of priest.
He is also a founding and steering committee member of an organization that claims to represent the majority of Episcopalians. They seem a little confused about their identity right now so let’s just call them TEM.
Although The Rev. Woodward claims to be a moderate, his words tell a different story. He authored an article entitled Falsely Accused challenging conservative claims that the Episcopal Church has abandoned its traditional and biblical foundation. Mr. Woodward states:
For example, a couple of years ago a clergy couple was discovered to be interested in Wicca (pagan religion). Anglican Communion Network (ACN) spokesmen immediately rushed to charge the entire progressive leadership of our Church as embracing paganism!
Interested in Wicca. That’s like saying someone is a little bit dead. Here are the facts. After you read them, decide how you would feel if you found out the priest who was teaching your child’s confirmation class was sidelining as a Druid priest. Mr. Woodward also failed to comment on the virtual silence from the leadership of ECUSA. Charles Bennison, the Druid couple’s bishop, brushed it off as conservative groups seeking to destabilize the church. This seems to be the typical response of those who claim to be TEM members. Regardless how outrageous, how apostate, how heretical the actions, embrace it and condemn any who opposes the new innovation.
Mr. Woodward seems quick to offer criticism but slow to withdraw it even when it is unfounded. Take for instance this unwarranted rebuke of The Rev. Matthew Kennedy concerning one of his articles responding to Falsely Accused. (Rev. Kennedy wrote a series in response to the Falsely Accused article.) Mr. Woodward writes:
You do not reflect well on Stand Firm with remarks such as your: “Fr. Woodward seeks to disabuse his readers of the notion that he and his fellow travellers in the Episcopal Church have led the Episcopal Church into heresy/apostasy.” “Fellow travellers” is, of course, one of the catch phrases used by Joe McCarthy for smearing those he wanted to destroy. I assume you will retract that phrase. I assume your readers respond more positively to content rather than random smears. Let’s engage one another with our best, not our worst.
One would think that such an avid supporter of the Episcopal Church leadership would be familiar with the former Presiding Bishop Griswold’s use of this terminology. In fact he used it in his sermon given to Resurrection Church in Hiroshima.
Brothers and sisters in Christ: On behalf of my wife Phoebe and my fellow travelers from the Episcopal Church in the United States, I greet you.
It makes one wonder if Mr. Woodward’s offense was real. Possibly we should just assume he is confused as his writings offer us a smorgasbord of contradictions.
In his article, Falsely Accused, Mr. Woodward dismisses the charge that many of the Episcopal Church leadership believe that Jesus is only one of many paths to God instead of the only way. Strange considering his comment made on Drell’s Descants:
Brad, the notion that Jesus is the only access to the Father is the kind of triumphalism that has led to the persecution of the Jews, Buddhists and many other religions.
Or this comment on Stand Firm:
Yes, the “nobody comes to the Father but by me” in the hands of fundamentalists and newly “orthodox” represents a triumphalist theology. It is wrong, theologically.
I believe if conservatives were to listen to KJS, really listen to her—most of your concerns would wither away—especially if they were to give any weight to the Biblical witness to other ways to God.
Mr. Woodward claims to believe in the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth and asserts he is solidly orthodox.
I hope you can begin to understand the frustration of a solidly orthodox Episcopalian upon reading such accusations. – Tom Woodward, Falsely Accused
I certainly believe in the resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ and as promised to the faithful. As Paul would note, we already participate in that resurrection (we are ambassadors from heaven, our home/permanent address is in heaven). I would never have said the resurrection is “merely metaphorical.”
Do I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Absolutely - I stake my life on it.
I have not denied belief in the Virgin Birth and I have clearly affirmed my belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
About the time the reader becomes heartened by these statements, The Rev. Woodward does a complete about face.
From which Gospel do you get a “literal physical resurrection?”
And I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without having to literalize the resurrection, robbing it of much of its power.
Confused? It gets worse.
I also understand the confusion of many people in dealing with religious language, which is often metaphorical rather than propositional.
I do not believe it is a matter of core doctrine that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus—that His birth was at the divine initiative is important, but the history of the phrase, coming from a questionable interpretation of Isaiah, particularly its function at the time it was inserted into the creed indicate that it is the divine initiative that is important, not the nuts and bolts of it.
And what do you suppose Mr. Woodward believes to be the supreme authority? If your answer was the Bible, you are in for a big disappointment.
We get to differ about the nuts and bolts—unless that is defined for us at General Convention, in a new Book of Common Prayer or in a common agreement in a new (and pretty scary) Anglican Covenant.
The Rev. Woodward is open about his rebuke of the Network and claims made on the video Choose This Day and states:
I expect to be held accountable for my language and my public acts. I have yet to hear anyone accept responsibility for the slurs and the smears of “Choose This Day.” It is McCarthyism at its very worst and below the dignity of the leaders of the Network. (McCarthyism? Isn’t this what he called the fellow travelers reference?)
One might expect Mr. Woodward would be more prudent when writing his opinion of others. Not so. Read these words by Mr. Woodward about David Hicks in response to an article Mr. Hicks wrote concerning a speech Gene Robinson gave when Mr. Hicks was president at St. Paul’s School.
Those who have known Gene Robinson and who have worked with him over the decades can attest that the bizarre tale passed on by David Hicks is a sleazy bit of baseless attack on Bishop Robinson. The same is true with the alleged incident at St. Paul’s. That has been debunked for a long time—I’m surprized it is still around. It has all the credibility that the staged landing on the moon has.
or these comments left at the TEM site:
Those who have known Gene Robinson and who have worked with him over the decades can attest that the bizarre tale passed on by David Hicks is a sleazy bit of baseless attack on Bishop Robinson.
Such strong words. Let’s consider the credentials of Mr. Hicks. David Hicks graduated from Princeton University and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University where he earned a master’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics. He also studied at the University of Moscow, was an officer in the U.S. Navy, taught strategy and policy at the Naval War College, and was a candidate for Congress in New York’s Westchester County. Mr. Hicks has been the head of several schools over the past twenty years and is a respected author.
It seems Mr. Woodward’s proof that allowed him to make such derogatory and libelous statements against Mr. Hicks is that the Rev. Woodward’s brother works in the same town and was not aware of the incident. The comments of a blogger over at TEM sums up the matter quite nicely.
Now, let’s be impartial here. If this were before a court of law, who would win? Eye witness testimony of someone whose character has not been called into question counts for something, wouldn’t you agree?
Having been called on this rash accusation, one would think Mr. Woodward would be hesitant to again make such bold statements without the ability to back them up. But, nay. Here’s a comment he made concerning the vote for Katherine Jefferts Schori.
Bishop Iker’s problem is, perhaps, with Schofield and others who put her over the top.
Followed by this one:
Yes, the vote by Bishop Schofield is, indeed, well documented. He voted for Katharine Jefferts Schori. It was either his better judgment or it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him. (emphasis added)
As you might imagine the blogging world immediately called Mr. Woodward on his assertion. His proof - well read for yourself.
As to Bishop Schofield’s vote for KJS, there are those in whom he has confided his vote. I cannot expose them. I can only attest that I believe their witness. They are friends of John David’s, not some wild liberals wanting to do him in.
The last time we checked common gossip was not documented proof. Remember, Mr. Woodward’s earlier words, “I expect to be held accountable for my language and my public acts.” Guess he didn’t expect us to be listening – or reading.
Mr. Woodward’s contradictory words make his claims of being “solidly orthodox” appear to be a cruel joke and his writings do nothing to resurrect Mr. Woodward’s claim on orthodoxy. His blog challenges even the most basic of beliefs such as the sovereignty of God or the sinless nature of God. (The following excerpts are from a series of articles entitled God Diaries. They are to be read with God as the writer.)
At breakfast this morning, Jesus called me grumpy. Actually he said I had been grumpy all day. I told him I was entitled to my own feelings. He said I was a romantic. He said my feelings had compromised what I knew had always been true.
Matthew said I was just upset that I was not the first person the newly arrived wanted to see. I disagreed with him, of course, but that is what it is all about, isn’t it? I put on a good face for the old timers, but I feel a major depression coming on. Jesus all but ensured that the depression would be deep and long lasting with his cheap shot: “I can’t imagine how anyone so infinite can be so small.” The great night finally came. The place was full. And Brother Martin, bless his heart, had recruited several friends to join him at the Christian table – Peter, representing first century Christianity, himself representing Reformation theology, and St. Augustine as the “closer.” Martin and Augustine started the debate off to much applause and enthusiasm from the crowd. Augustine outlined the case for Christianity and detailed some of the more important Scriptural references. Then Martin took over. Martin had obviously been working with some of the more effective Black American preachers in preparation for the debates, because he was constantly interrupted with “Preach it, Brother Martin,” and “You lay it down and we’ll pick it up” as well as more “Amens” than most Lutherans have heard in a lifetime.
When Martin finally sat down, Gautama slowly approached the front of the stage, sat down, closed his eyes for several minutes and then, simply, stared at those sitting in front of him with such love and compassion and caring. That was it: no words, no gestures, no explanations. Sitting at the back, I could feel the tension for the first half hour. Then it melted away and it was like all the doubt, all the confusion, every bit of the need for explanation or information was sucked right out of the auditorium. We were all just there.
When the timer waved the yellow card, Buddha rose, bowed to the crowd, bowed to the Christian table . . . . and returned to his seat. Not a single person clapped or whistled. There was just respectful silence. It seemed clear to me that, at that point, the debates were over.
Peter did his best. He really did. If anybody can preach the resurrection, Peter can. And he did. It was clear to me, though, that Brother Martin had made a mistake by calling on Peter, not John. John would have shared his reverence for the great Buddha and then, quite humbly, would have spoken about the quiet and powerful presence of the Risen Christ as companion to the great Buddha, not his competitor or superior. Peter did his best, though; it just was not sufficient for the evening.
The final part of the program was the best. One of Buddha’s staff asked the crowd’s indulgence to accept, as the Buddhists’ final offering, a presentation by an adult and a children’s’ Buddhist choir. Then out came a mixed adult choir, followed by a large children’s choir, all dressed in lovely saffron robes. None of us was prepared for what was to follow.
“Rather than more words or silence,” the young choral director said, “we have prepared a short program – not for your edification, but for your entertainment.” The adult choir then sang a haunting, a capella version of Gershwin’s “I’ve Got Plenty of Nothing (and nothing’s plenty for me),” and then a knock-your-socks off Gershwin parody, “Porgy and Less,” with saffron robed baritone and soprano pouring their hearts out to one another. If that was not enough, the children’s’ choir (introduced as “Gautama’s Guys and Girls Junior Choir”) ended the program, and any remote semblance of dignity to the evening, singing, to a familiar tune:
If you are waiting for a rendition of Jesus loves me, hang on to your chair. Are you ready for this – wait for it….
Buddha loves me, this I know;
for the Buddha-book tells me so.
When I hear that great big gong,
I know I’ve been gosh-darn wrong.
Yes, Buddha loves me!
Yes, Buddha loves me.
Yes, Buddha loves me:
The Buddha-Book tells me so.
The Buddhists were right: the only path to humility is through silence or the ministry of the fool. They had given the gift through both. After many hugs and embraces, we all left in a spirit of reconciliation and joy. Peter and Augustine seemed crushed. I will speak with them tomorrow. Brother Martin was the only one that evening who laughed louder than me.
There can be no debates between us, only rejoicing in one another’s truth and laughter at our common folly. Like a fool, I jumped up and shouted, “I’ll drink to that!”
One wonders why Mr. Woodward feels compelled to imbue God with our human failings. We believe that most Episcopalians believe that God is truly sovereign and free from sin. Most take to heart the words of Paul to the Galatians. It is quite obvious Mr. Woodward does not.
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Galations 6:7
After reading Mr. Woodward’s own words, what do you think? Does he represent the majority of Episcopalians? Does he represent you? Is this your idea of orthodoxy?
1 Comment