18 December 2006
To the Primates of the Anglican Communion:
During the last few weeks, I have been privileged to spend time first in China and then in Rome – two environments as different as could be, yet both giving abundant signs of the faithfulness of God to his people. The survival and growth of the Church in China is one of the great miracles of our time, and I know that several of you have witnessed something of this at first hand and are eager to find ways of supporting and assisting our brothers and sisters there. In Rome, I was able for the first time to visit the catacombs and to see there the evidence of the same faithfulness, as I looked at the ancient representations of costly witness painted on the walls – the images of the young men in the fiery furnace, Noah in the ark and the haunting and simple picture of the praying woman with hands raised, who is the symbol of the Church itself in its patient endurance. God is with us as he has promised, and in ways we cannot always see clearly. Also in Rome, I had the immense privilege of sharing in a celebration of the martyrdom in 2003 of our own Melanesian Brothers who gave their lives for reconciliation in a time of civil war. In persecution, conflict or obscurity, God is still present and powerfully active. In this Advent season, the great fact we are reminded of is that he is to be trusted in all things.
As Christmas approaches, preparations continue to be made for the Primates’ Meeting in February in Tanzania. A provisional outline of the programme is almost ready – but I am particularly glad that we shall have opportunity to celebrate in the cathedral in Zanzibar the anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in 1806, another great sign of God’s faithfulness and of what can be achieved by Christ’s disciples when they resist the powers of this world.
This meeting will be, of course, an important and difficult and important encounter, with several moments of discernment and decision to be faced, and a good deal of work to be done on our hopes for the Lambeth Conference, and on the nature and shape of the Covenant that we hope will assist us in strengthening our unity as a Communion.
There are two points I wish to touch on briefly. The first is a reminder of what our current position actually is in relation to the Episcopal Church. This Province has agreed to withdraw its representation from certain bodies in the Communion until Lambeth 08; and the Joint Standing Committee has appointed a sub-group which has been working on a report to develop our thinking as to how we should as a meeting interpret the Episcopal Church’s response so far to the Windsor recommendations. In other words, questions remain to be considered about the Episcopal Church’s relations with other Provinces (though some Provinces have already made their position clear). I do not think it wise or just to take any action that will appear to bring that consideration and the whole process of our shared discernment to a premature end.
This is why I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the elected Primate of the Episcopal Church to attend the forthcoming meeting. I believe it is important that she be given a chance both to hear and to speak and to discuss face to face the problems we are confronting together. We are far too prone to talk about these matters from a distance, without ever having to face the human reality of those from whom we differ. However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion, I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.
The Episcopal Church is not in any way a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it. I am sure that other Primates, like myself, will welcome the clear declarations by several bishops and diocesan conventions (including those dioceses represented at the Camp Allen meeting earlier this year) of their unequivocal support for the process and recommendations of the Windsor Report. There is much to build upon here. There are many in TEC who are deeply concerned as to how they should secure their relationships with the rest of the Communion; I hope we can listen patiently to these anxieties.
My second point is to underline the importance of planning constructively for Lambeth 08. If we become entirely paralysed by our continuing struggles to resolve the challenges posed by decisions in North America, we shall lose a major opportunity for strengthening our common life. The recent St Augustine’s seminar which considered the Lambeth agenda was agreed by all to have been an outstandingly positive week, which has laid out a programme I believe to be worthy of our hopes for the Conference, and which was wholeheartedly owned and approved by people from very different regions and points of view within the seminar group. I do not want to lose that energy. I want to see it channelled properly into projects for better equipping ourselves as bishops and all our pastors and teachers, and into the work we all agree we must do in response to the crying needs created by poverty and violence in our world.
The question of invitations to Lambeth has been raised several times, in relation to the status of TEC, and indeed other Provinces. I shall seek the advice of the meeting on this. I am aware that decisions must be made soon, and I mention it primarily to alert you to the issues that lie ahead and to commend all this to your prayers over the coming season. But it illustrates the point I have made recently to the St Augustine’s Seminar and other groups: at the moment, we urgently need to create a climate of greater trust within the Communion, and to reinforce institutions and conventions that will serve that general climate in a global way. During my visit to the Pope in November, it was very clear that our ecumenical partners are looking to us not only to strengthen our bonds of ecclesial community and the coherence of our Christian witness, but also to show a hopeful and Christian spirit in resolving our current problems. Our partners are praying very intensely for us in this task, and their prayer deepens my own sense of resolve, as I am sure it will yours.
I should also mention that I have accepted the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee that the Archbishop of York should be invited to the forthcoming meeting, so that there is a distinction between the two roles of speaking for the Church of England and chairing and moderating the meeting overall.
But finally, to end where I began, our reliance must be fundamentally upon God’s faithfulness. Whatever lies ahead, our God is the God who was present in the Roman catacombs with the martyrs and who has led his people in China through half a century of oppression and distress. Immanuel, God-with-us in Jesus Christ, born in Bethlehem, is our sole hope and our life, today, tomorrow and for ever. May God help us to honour his inexpressible gift by our faithfulness, forbearance and mutual love.
With every blessing for the Christmas season and the New Year.
Yours ever in Christ,
Rowan
(The Most Rev. Dr.) Rowan Williams is Archbishop of Canterbury
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Francis and Evangelism
A little gem that is often repeated these days by liberals is an alleged quote from Francis about evangelism. The purported quote goes something like this: "preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." Recently I asked for a citation for this quote and this is the response I received:
"Many sayings are attributed to St. Francis, but were never actually written by him. One of the more famous of these has to do with preaching without words. This one is based on what St. Francis said and taught.
What St. Francis said about giving good example, and how this was more important that preaching with words comes from a variety of sources, one of which is:
The Little Flowers of St. Francis: Chapter 50
At the end of this chapter, in the English translation by T. Okey, which appeared in the Everyman Library edition of 1951, Philosophy and Theology, n. 485A, p. 295, St. Francis is quoted to have said:
But as for me, I desire this privilege from the Lord, that never may I have any privilege from man, except to do reverence to all, and to convert the world by obedience to the Holy Rule rather by example than by word.
"The Holy Rule" is the Rule of St. Francis. Here is the link http://www.franciscan-archive.org/patriarcha/preach.html"
I checked on the quotation in two versions of the Little Flowers and did not find it in the place mentioned. Chapter 50 of the Little Flowers is titled "Brother Conrad converts a young man" in the Blaiklock/Keys translation and something similar in the version in the St. Francis of Assisi Omnibus of Sources.
What is interesting for this thread is chapter 16 where Francis agonizes
over whether he should continue in uninterrrupted prayer or take time
out for preaching. The response that he gets from one of the brothers
is "The Lord thus directs that you should reply to Brother Francis, that
God called him not for himself alone, but for a harvest of souls, and
that he should bless many through him." Later in the same chapter
Francis is told directly by Brother Masseo "that you continue with
preaching, because God called you not for your sake alone but for the
salvation of others."
The oft-quoted "without words" appears to be of liberal lore origin
unless someone can come up with a direct quotation. If someone can supply a direct quotation, I will post it.
------------------------------
"Many sayings are attributed to St. Francis, but were never actually written by him. One of the more famous of these has to do with preaching without words. This one is based on what St. Francis said and taught.
What St. Francis said about giving good example, and how this was more important that preaching with words comes from a variety of sources, one of which is:
The Little Flowers of St. Francis: Chapter 50
At the end of this chapter, in the English translation by T. Okey, which appeared in the Everyman Library edition of 1951, Philosophy and Theology, n. 485A, p. 295, St. Francis is quoted to have said:
But as for me, I desire this privilege from the Lord, that never may I have any privilege from man, except to do reverence to all, and to convert the world by obedience to the Holy Rule rather by example than by word.
"The Holy Rule" is the Rule of St. Francis. Here is the link http://www.franciscan-archive.org/patriarcha/preach.html"
I checked on the quotation in two versions of the Little Flowers and did not find it in the place mentioned. Chapter 50 of the Little Flowers is titled "Brother Conrad converts a young man" in the Blaiklock/Keys translation and something similar in the version in the St. Francis of Assisi Omnibus of Sources.
What is interesting for this thread is chapter 16 where Francis agonizes
over whether he should continue in uninterrrupted prayer or take time
out for preaching. The response that he gets from one of the brothers
is "The Lord thus directs that you should reply to Brother Francis, that
God called him not for himself alone, but for a harvest of souls, and
that he should bless many through him." Later in the same chapter
Francis is told directly by Brother Masseo "that you continue with
preaching, because God called you not for your sake alone but for the
salvation of others."
The oft-quoted "without words" appears to be of liberal lore origin
unless someone can come up with a direct quotation. If someone can supply a direct quotation, I will post it.
------------------------------
WILLIAMS WILL INVITE SCHORI TO TANZANIA MEETING OF PRIMATES
Special Report
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
12/22/2006
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams says he has invited the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori to the gathering of Primates meeting in Tanzania in February.
In a private Advent letter, obtained by VOL, addressed to The Most Revd Dr. Phillip J. Aspinall, Primate of Australia & Archbishop of Brisbane, Williams wrote, "I believe it is important that she be given a chance both to hear and to speak and to discuss face to face the problems we are confronting together. We are far too prone to talk about these matters from a distance, without ever having to face the human reality of those from whom we differ. However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion. I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised."
VOL believes that the other persons invited include Anglican Network leader, Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker and possibly John-David Schofield, Bishop of the San Joaquin, whose dicoese has threatened to leave the Episcopal Church. VOL has obtained no absolute confirmation that these are the persons the Archbishop of Canterbury is referring too.
But the Archbishop of Uganda, The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi is already on record as saying that Mrs. Schori will not be received by the Global South Primates and they will not be seated with her in the same room. The African Primate told Williams that he and other Global South Primates "cannot sit together with Mrs. Schori at the upcoming Primates Meeting in February," citing her position on the Bible's teachings about "faith and morality."
Nonetheless Williams has gone ahead and told the Australian Primate that he has invited Mrs. Schori saying there were two reasons for doing so - the first being what the communion's current position actually is in relation to the Episcopal Church. "This Province has agreed to withdraw its representation from certain bodies in the Communion until Lambeth 08; and the Joint Standing Committee has appointed a sub-group which has been working on a report to develop our thinking as to how we should as a meeting interpret the Episcopal Church’s response so far to the Windsor recommendations. In other words, questions remain to be considered about the Episcopal Church’s relations with other Provinces (though some Provinces have already made their position clear). I do not think it wise or just to take any action that will appear to bring that consideration and the whole process of our shared discernment to a premature end."
Williams then says his second point was to underline the importance of planning constructively for Lambeth 08. "If we become entirely paralysed by our continuing struggles to resolve the challenges posed by decisions in North America, we shall lose a major opportunity for strengthening our common life," he wrote.
Williams then opined that The Episcopal Church is not a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it. "I am sure that other Primates, like myself, will welcome the clear declarations by several bishops and diocesan conventions (including those dioceses represented at the Camp Allen meeting earlier this year) of their unequivocal support for the process and recommendations of the Windsor Report. There is much to build upon here. There are many in TEC who are deeply concerned as to how they should secure their relationships with the rest of the Communion; I hope we can listen patiently to these anxieties."
Williams then said that was why he had invited Mrs. Schori to Tanzania.
Williams also raised the question of invitations to Lambeth, especially as it related to the status of TEC, and other Provinces. "I shall seek the advice of the meeting on this. I am aware that decisions must be made soon, and I mention it primarily to alert you to the issues that lie ahead and to commend all this to your prayers over the coming season. But it illustrates the point I have made recently to the St Augustine’s Seminar and other groups: at the moment, we urgently need to create a climate of greater trust within the Communion, and to reinforce institutions and conventions that will serve that general climate in a global way."
Williams said that as a result of his visit to the Pope in November, "it was very clear that our ecumenical partners are looking to us not only to strengthen our bonds of ecclesial community and the coherence of our Christian witness, but also to show a hopeful and Christian spirit in resolving our current problems. Our partners are praying very intensely for us in this task, and their prayer deepens my own sense of resolve, as I am sure it will be yours."
Williams concluded his letter to Archbishop Aspinall saying that he had invited the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu to attend the Tanzania meeting at the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee "so that there is a distinction between the two roles of speaking for the Church of England and chairing and moderating the meeting overall."
END
18 December, 2006
The Most Revd Dr Phillip J Aspinall
Primate of Australia & Archbishop of Brisbane
PO Box 421
Brisbane
Queensland 4001
AUSTRALIA
During the last few weeks, I have been privileged to spend time first in China and then in Rome – two environments as different as could be, yet both giving abundant signs of the faithfulness of God to his people. The survival and growth of the Church in China is one of the great miracles of our time, and I know that several of you have witnessed something of this at first hand and are eager to find ways of supporting and assisting our brothers and sisters there. In Rome, I was able for the first time to visit the catacombs and to see there the evidence of the same faithfulness, as I looked at the ancient representations of costly witness painted on the walls – the images of the young men in the fiery furnace, Noah in the ark and the haunting and simple picture of the praying woman with hands raised, who is the symbol of the Church itself in its patient endurance. God is with us as he has promised, and in ways we cannot always see clearly. Also in Rome, I had the immense privilege of sharing in a celebration of the martyrdom in 2003 of our own Melanesian Brothers who gave their lives for reconciliation in a time of civil war. In persecution, conflict or obscurity, God is still present and powerfully active. In this Advent season, the great fact we are reminded of is that he is to be trusted in all things.
As Christmas approaches, preparations continue to be made for the Primates’ Meeting in February in Tanzania. A provisional outline of the programme is almost ready – but I am particularly glad that we shall have opportunity to celebrate in the cathedral in Zanzibar the anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in 1806, another great sign of God’s faithfulness and of what can be achieved by Christ’s disciples when they resist the powers of this world.
This meeting will be, of course, an important and difficult and important encounter, with several moments of discernment and decision to be faced, and a good deal of work to be done on our hopes for the Lambeth Conference, and on the nature and shape of the Covenant that we hope will assist us in strengthening our unity as a Communion.
There are two points I wish to touch on briefly. The first is a reminder of what our current position actually is in relation to the Episcopal Church. This Province has agreed to withdraw its representation from certain bodies in the Communion until Lambeth 08; and the Joint Standing Committee has appointed a sub-group which has been working on a report to develop our thinking as to how we should as a meeting interpret the Episcopal Church’s response so far to the Windsor recommendations. In other words, questions remain to be considered about the Episcopal Church’s relations with other Provinces (though some Provinces have already made their position clear). I do not think it wise or just to take any action that will appear to bring that consideration and the whole process of our shared discernment to a premature end.
Williams then says that his second point is to underline the importance of planning constructively for Lambeth 08. "If we become entirely paralysed by our continuing struggles to resolve the challenges posed by decisions in North America, we shall lose a major opportunity for strengthening our common life," he wrote.
Williams then opined that The Episcopal Church is not a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it. "I am sure that other Primates, like myself, will welcome the clear declarations by several bishops and diocesan conventions (including those dioceses represented at the Camp Allen meeting earlier this year) of their unequivocal support for the process and recommendations of the Windsor Report. There is much to build upon here. There are many in TEC who are deeply concerned as to how they should secure their relationships with the rest of the Communion; I hope we can listen patiently to these anxieties."
This is why I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the elected Primate of the Episcopal Church to attend the forthcoming meeting. I believe it is important that she be given a chance both to hear and to speak and to discuss face to face the problems we are confronting together. We are far too prone to talk about these matters from a distance, without ever having to face the human reality of those from whom we differ. However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion, I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.
The Episcopal Church is not in any way a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it. I am sure that other Primates, like myself, will welcome the clear declarations by several bishops and diocesan conventions (including those dioceses represented at the Camp Allen meeting earlier this year) of their unequivocal support for the process and recommendations of the Windsor Report. There is much to build upon here. There are many in TEC who are deeply concerned as to how they should secure their relationships with the rest of the Communion; I hope we can listen patiently to these anxieties.
My second point is to underline the importance of planning constructively for Lambeth 08. If we become entirely paralysed by our continuing struggles to resolve the challenges posed by decisions in North America, we shall lose a major opportunity for strengthening our common life. The recent St Augustine’s seminar which considered the Lambeth agenda was agreed by all to have been an outstandingly positive week, which has laid out a programme I believe to be worthy of our hopes for the Conference, and which was wholeheartedly owned and approved by people from very different regions and points of view within the seminar group. I do not want to lose that energy. I want to see it channelled properly into projects for better equipping ourselves as bishops and all our pastors and teachers, and into the work we all agree we must do in response to the crying needs created by poverty and violence in our world.
The question of invitations to Lambeth has been raised several times, in relation to the status of TEC, and indeed other Provinces. I shall seek the advice of the meeting on this. I am aware that decisions must be made soon, and I mention it primarily to alert you to the issues that lie ahead and to commend all this to your prayers over the coming season. But it illustrates the point I have made recently to the St Augustine’s Seminar and other groups: at the moment, we urgently need to create a climate of greater trust within the Communion, and to reinforce institutions and conventions that will serve that general climate in a global way.
During my visit to the Pope in November, it was very clear that our ecumenical partners are looking to us not only to strengthen our bonds of ecclesial community and the coherence of our Christian witness, but also to show a hopeful and Christian spirit in resolving our current problems. Our partners are praying very intensely for us in this task, and their prayer deepens my own sense of resolve, as I am sure it will yours.
I should also mention that I have accepted the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee that the Archbishop of York should be invited to the forthcoming meeting, so that there is a distinction between the two roles of speaking for the Church of England and chairing and moderating the meeting overall.
But finally, to end where I began, our reliance must be fundamentally upon God’s faithfulness. Whatever lies ahead, our God is the God who was present in the Roman catacombs with the martyrs and who has led his people in China through half a century of oppression and distress. Immanuel, God-with-us in Jesus Christ, born in Bethlehem, is our sole hope and our life, today, tomorrow and for ever. May God help us to honour his inexpressible gift by our faithfulness, forbearance and mutual love.
With every blessing for the Christmas season and the New Year.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
12/22/2006
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams says he has invited the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori to the gathering of Primates meeting in Tanzania in February.
In a private Advent letter, obtained by VOL, addressed to The Most Revd Dr. Phillip J. Aspinall, Primate of Australia & Archbishop of Brisbane, Williams wrote, "I believe it is important that she be given a chance both to hear and to speak and to discuss face to face the problems we are confronting together. We are far too prone to talk about these matters from a distance, without ever having to face the human reality of those from whom we differ. However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion. I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised."
VOL believes that the other persons invited include Anglican Network leader, Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker and possibly John-David Schofield, Bishop of the San Joaquin, whose dicoese has threatened to leave the Episcopal Church. VOL has obtained no absolute confirmation that these are the persons the Archbishop of Canterbury is referring too.
But the Archbishop of Uganda, The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi is already on record as saying that Mrs. Schori will not be received by the Global South Primates and they will not be seated with her in the same room. The African Primate told Williams that he and other Global South Primates "cannot sit together with Mrs. Schori at the upcoming Primates Meeting in February," citing her position on the Bible's teachings about "faith and morality."
Nonetheless Williams has gone ahead and told the Australian Primate that he has invited Mrs. Schori saying there were two reasons for doing so - the first being what the communion's current position actually is in relation to the Episcopal Church. "This Province has agreed to withdraw its representation from certain bodies in the Communion until Lambeth 08; and the Joint Standing Committee has appointed a sub-group which has been working on a report to develop our thinking as to how we should as a meeting interpret the Episcopal Church’s response so far to the Windsor recommendations. In other words, questions remain to be considered about the Episcopal Church’s relations with other Provinces (though some Provinces have already made their position clear). I do not think it wise or just to take any action that will appear to bring that consideration and the whole process of our shared discernment to a premature end."
Williams then says his second point was to underline the importance of planning constructively for Lambeth 08. "If we become entirely paralysed by our continuing struggles to resolve the challenges posed by decisions in North America, we shall lose a major opportunity for strengthening our common life," he wrote.
Williams then opined that The Episcopal Church is not a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it. "I am sure that other Primates, like myself, will welcome the clear declarations by several bishops and diocesan conventions (including those dioceses represented at the Camp Allen meeting earlier this year) of their unequivocal support for the process and recommendations of the Windsor Report. There is much to build upon here. There are many in TEC who are deeply concerned as to how they should secure their relationships with the rest of the Communion; I hope we can listen patiently to these anxieties."
Williams then said that was why he had invited Mrs. Schori to Tanzania.
Williams also raised the question of invitations to Lambeth, especially as it related to the status of TEC, and other Provinces. "I shall seek the advice of the meeting on this. I am aware that decisions must be made soon, and I mention it primarily to alert you to the issues that lie ahead and to commend all this to your prayers over the coming season. But it illustrates the point I have made recently to the St Augustine’s Seminar and other groups: at the moment, we urgently need to create a climate of greater trust within the Communion, and to reinforce institutions and conventions that will serve that general climate in a global way."
Williams said that as a result of his visit to the Pope in November, "it was very clear that our ecumenical partners are looking to us not only to strengthen our bonds of ecclesial community and the coherence of our Christian witness, but also to show a hopeful and Christian spirit in resolving our current problems. Our partners are praying very intensely for us in this task, and their prayer deepens my own sense of resolve, as I am sure it will be yours."
Williams concluded his letter to Archbishop Aspinall saying that he had invited the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu to attend the Tanzania meeting at the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee "so that there is a distinction between the two roles of speaking for the Church of England and chairing and moderating the meeting overall."
END
18 December, 2006
The Most Revd Dr Phillip J Aspinall
Primate of Australia & Archbishop of Brisbane
PO Box 421
Brisbane
Queensland 4001
AUSTRALIA
During the last few weeks, I have been privileged to spend time first in China and then in Rome – two environments as different as could be, yet both giving abundant signs of the faithfulness of God to his people. The survival and growth of the Church in China is one of the great miracles of our time, and I know that several of you have witnessed something of this at first hand and are eager to find ways of supporting and assisting our brothers and sisters there. In Rome, I was able for the first time to visit the catacombs and to see there the evidence of the same faithfulness, as I looked at the ancient representations of costly witness painted on the walls – the images of the young men in the fiery furnace, Noah in the ark and the haunting and simple picture of the praying woman with hands raised, who is the symbol of the Church itself in its patient endurance. God is with us as he has promised, and in ways we cannot always see clearly. Also in Rome, I had the immense privilege of sharing in a celebration of the martyrdom in 2003 of our own Melanesian Brothers who gave their lives for reconciliation in a time of civil war. In persecution, conflict or obscurity, God is still present and powerfully active. In this Advent season, the great fact we are reminded of is that he is to be trusted in all things.
As Christmas approaches, preparations continue to be made for the Primates’ Meeting in February in Tanzania. A provisional outline of the programme is almost ready – but I am particularly glad that we shall have opportunity to celebrate in the cathedral in Zanzibar the anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in 1806, another great sign of God’s faithfulness and of what can be achieved by Christ’s disciples when they resist the powers of this world.
This meeting will be, of course, an important and difficult and important encounter, with several moments of discernment and decision to be faced, and a good deal of work to be done on our hopes for the Lambeth Conference, and on the nature and shape of the Covenant that we hope will assist us in strengthening our unity as a Communion.
There are two points I wish to touch on briefly. The first is a reminder of what our current position actually is in relation to the Episcopal Church. This Province has agreed to withdraw its representation from certain bodies in the Communion until Lambeth 08; and the Joint Standing Committee has appointed a sub-group which has been working on a report to develop our thinking as to how we should as a meeting interpret the Episcopal Church’s response so far to the Windsor recommendations. In other words, questions remain to be considered about the Episcopal Church’s relations with other Provinces (though some Provinces have already made their position clear). I do not think it wise or just to take any action that will appear to bring that consideration and the whole process of our shared discernment to a premature end.
Williams then says that his second point is to underline the importance of planning constructively for Lambeth 08. "If we become entirely paralysed by our continuing struggles to resolve the challenges posed by decisions in North America, we shall lose a major opportunity for strengthening our common life," he wrote.
Williams then opined that The Episcopal Church is not a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it. "I am sure that other Primates, like myself, will welcome the clear declarations by several bishops and diocesan conventions (including those dioceses represented at the Camp Allen meeting earlier this year) of their unequivocal support for the process and recommendations of the Windsor Report. There is much to build upon here. There are many in TEC who are deeply concerned as to how they should secure their relationships with the rest of the Communion; I hope we can listen patiently to these anxieties."
This is why I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the elected Primate of the Episcopal Church to attend the forthcoming meeting. I believe it is important that she be given a chance both to hear and to speak and to discuss face to face the problems we are confronting together. We are far too prone to talk about these matters from a distance, without ever having to face the human reality of those from whom we differ. However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion, I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.
The Episcopal Church is not in any way a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it. I am sure that other Primates, like myself, will welcome the clear declarations by several bishops and diocesan conventions (including those dioceses represented at the Camp Allen meeting earlier this year) of their unequivocal support for the process and recommendations of the Windsor Report. There is much to build upon here. There are many in TEC who are deeply concerned as to how they should secure their relationships with the rest of the Communion; I hope we can listen patiently to these anxieties.
My second point is to underline the importance of planning constructively for Lambeth 08. If we become entirely paralysed by our continuing struggles to resolve the challenges posed by decisions in North America, we shall lose a major opportunity for strengthening our common life. The recent St Augustine’s seminar which considered the Lambeth agenda was agreed by all to have been an outstandingly positive week, which has laid out a programme I believe to be worthy of our hopes for the Conference, and which was wholeheartedly owned and approved by people from very different regions and points of view within the seminar group. I do not want to lose that energy. I want to see it channelled properly into projects for better equipping ourselves as bishops and all our pastors and teachers, and into the work we all agree we must do in response to the crying needs created by poverty and violence in our world.
The question of invitations to Lambeth has been raised several times, in relation to the status of TEC, and indeed other Provinces. I shall seek the advice of the meeting on this. I am aware that decisions must be made soon, and I mention it primarily to alert you to the issues that lie ahead and to commend all this to your prayers over the coming season. But it illustrates the point I have made recently to the St Augustine’s Seminar and other groups: at the moment, we urgently need to create a climate of greater trust within the Communion, and to reinforce institutions and conventions that will serve that general climate in a global way.
During my visit to the Pope in November, it was very clear that our ecumenical partners are looking to us not only to strengthen our bonds of ecclesial community and the coherence of our Christian witness, but also to show a hopeful and Christian spirit in resolving our current problems. Our partners are praying very intensely for us in this task, and their prayer deepens my own sense of resolve, as I am sure it will yours.
I should also mention that I have accepted the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee that the Archbishop of York should be invited to the forthcoming meeting, so that there is a distinction between the two roles of speaking for the Church of England and chairing and moderating the meeting overall.
But finally, to end where I began, our reliance must be fundamentally upon God’s faithfulness. Whatever lies ahead, our God is the God who was present in the Roman catacombs with the martyrs and who has led his people in China through half a century of oppression and distress. Immanuel, God-with-us in Jesus Christ, born in Bethlehem, is our sole hope and our life, today, tomorrow and for ever. May God help us to honour his inexpressible gift by our faithfulness, forbearance and mutual love.
With every blessing for the Christmas season and the New Year.
END
Friday, December 22, 2006
From the American Anglican Council
MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM THE AAC!
"Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
'Glory to the newborn King!'"
--Words by Charles Wesley, 1739
A MESSAGE FROM THE AAC PRESIDENT, THE REV. CANON DAVID C. ANDERSON
December 22, 2006
Beloved in Christ,
Let me begin by wishing you, each one of you, a very blessed Christmas. When Christian soldiers have been in foxholes during battle, they have paused for a moment at Christmas and remembered that this is their Savior’s birthday. Many of our priests and bishops feel very much “in a foxhole” this Christmas, but in the midst of it all, they and we re-think - maybe the word anamnesis is better - vividly relive - the great gift that God our Father has given us in his Son, Jesus the Christ.
Our God seems to prefer the incarnation model - first his own Son, but then through saints, well known and unknown, and on to us, you and me - to accomplish his purpose. Jesus was God incarnate in a unique and singular way, and we continue the incarnation action in a much less profound way. My prayer is that we all may be faithful to the high calling that our Lord gives us.
Back on the battle front, things are jumping in Virginia. Charlotte Allen, in a column in The Guardian , says, “Jefferts Schori pooh-poohed the mass departure of the Virginians, declaring that they were a splinter collection of malcontents...” It is interesting that the former bishop of Nevada, whose elevation from parish cleric to backwater bishop to Presiding Bishop makes the term “fast track” seem inadequate, has demeaned the northern Virginia people who left the Episcopal Church for safety under an orthodox Anglican bishop by calling them a splinter of malcontents.
When she was bishop of Nevada, her baptized membership was appoximately 6,000, with an average Sunday attendance of just over 2,300, for an entire diocese! The group she lightly dismisses as a "splinter" constitutes nearly 7,600 baptized members who have an average Sunday attendance of 4,300. She has dismissed and demeaned a group of departing Anglicans that is considerably larger than her entire former diocese. The numbers would also seem to indicate that the Virginia Anglicans go to church on Sunday a good deal more often that the ones in Nevada. The former bishop of Las Vegas becomes the “take a chance” Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC), and she demeans those whose faith is firmly rooted and their actions godly.
As new orthodox congregations are starting up all over North America in response to the realignment in Anglicanism, one of the pressing needs is an inexpensive or free (free is always better) supply of basic necessities such as processional crosses, candlesticks, altar linens, chalices, patens, etc. The Lord has put it on my heart to do something about this, and the American Anglican Council could act as a redistribution center for such basic necessities. If your church has more of any of these, and if they are in decent condition (no junk please!), would you consider it a mission to the larger church to send them to us; we will store them; and when a church is in need, we will redeploy them to those who will gratefully receive the items and use them for the furtherance of the kingdom of God? Most churches I have known have extras, and if you could share your abundance with those who are struggling to restart the church, it would be a great blessing. I pose this request at a time when we celebrate the greatest gift of all, the gift of our Lord Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas.
Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson
CEO & President of the AAC
"Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
'Glory to the newborn King!'"
--Words by Charles Wesley, 1739
A MESSAGE FROM THE AAC PRESIDENT, THE REV. CANON DAVID C. ANDERSON
December 22, 2006
Beloved in Christ,
Let me begin by wishing you, each one of you, a very blessed Christmas. When Christian soldiers have been in foxholes during battle, they have paused for a moment at Christmas and remembered that this is their Savior’s birthday. Many of our priests and bishops feel very much “in a foxhole” this Christmas, but in the midst of it all, they and we re-think - maybe the word anamnesis is better - vividly relive - the great gift that God our Father has given us in his Son, Jesus the Christ.
Our God seems to prefer the incarnation model - first his own Son, but then through saints, well known and unknown, and on to us, you and me - to accomplish his purpose. Jesus was God incarnate in a unique and singular way, and we continue the incarnation action in a much less profound way. My prayer is that we all may be faithful to the high calling that our Lord gives us.
Back on the battle front, things are jumping in Virginia. Charlotte Allen, in a column in The Guardian , says, “Jefferts Schori pooh-poohed the mass departure of the Virginians, declaring that they were a splinter collection of malcontents...” It is interesting that the former bishop of Nevada, whose elevation from parish cleric to backwater bishop to Presiding Bishop makes the term “fast track” seem inadequate, has demeaned the northern Virginia people who left the Episcopal Church for safety under an orthodox Anglican bishop by calling them a splinter of malcontents.
When she was bishop of Nevada, her baptized membership was appoximately 6,000, with an average Sunday attendance of just over 2,300, for an entire diocese! The group she lightly dismisses as a "splinter" constitutes nearly 7,600 baptized members who have an average Sunday attendance of 4,300. She has dismissed and demeaned a group of departing Anglicans that is considerably larger than her entire former diocese. The numbers would also seem to indicate that the Virginia Anglicans go to church on Sunday a good deal more often that the ones in Nevada. The former bishop of Las Vegas becomes the “take a chance” Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC), and she demeans those whose faith is firmly rooted and their actions godly.
As new orthodox congregations are starting up all over North America in response to the realignment in Anglicanism, one of the pressing needs is an inexpensive or free (free is always better) supply of basic necessities such as processional crosses, candlesticks, altar linens, chalices, patens, etc. The Lord has put it on my heart to do something about this, and the American Anglican Council could act as a redistribution center for such basic necessities. If your church has more of any of these, and if they are in decent condition (no junk please!), would you consider it a mission to the larger church to send them to us; we will store them; and when a church is in need, we will redeploy them to those who will gratefully receive the items and use them for the furtherance of the kingdom of God? Most churches I have known have extras, and if you could share your abundance with those who are struggling to restart the church, it would be a great blessing. I pose this request at a time when we celebrate the greatest gift of all, the gift of our Lord Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas.
Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson
CEO & President of the AAC
Thursday, December 21, 2006
World Magazine: Who owns the steeple?
Religion: Litigation looms over church property as conservative congregations and dioceses consider leaving mainline denominations | Edward E. Plowman
As The Episcopal Church (TEC) finds itself cracking apart, the question on everybody's mind is: "Can departing churches keep their property?"
The answer: It depends. Courts differ in how they handle church property disputes. State corporate laws governing property ownership, deeds, and trusts are far from uniform and may be subject to conflicting interpretations. So, as litigation looms, attorneys on all sides are busy researching case law and assembling briefs.
Many denominations have clauses declaring that property owned by congregations is held in trust for the denomination: A church is free to leave, but not with its property. For many years, most courts routinely deferred to denominational law in property disputes—especially in cases involving "hierarchical" denominations with structured top-down government, including TEC, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA), and the United Methodist Church (UMC). All three are strife riven over doctrine and discipline—and ownership of church property.
But times—and the courts—are changing. Because property ownership is in the realm of state corporate law, a few courts years ago began deciding church property disputes according to "neutral principles" while steering clear of doctrinal squabbles. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 (Jones v. Wolf) not only approved but also encouraged this approach. TEC hurried to add the Dennis Canon to its constitution, clearly claiming that property owned by churches is held in trust for TEC.
However, a California appeals court in 1981 spelled out a series of neutral principles in deciding The Protestant Episcopal Church v. Barker. It in effect ignored the Dennis law and allowed three departing Episcopal congregations to keep their property while denying another.
Fast forward to 2004: A California appeals court allowed St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Fresno, which had left the UMC, to keep its property. St. Luke's had changed its articles of incorporation, clearly deeding all its property to itself with no mention of a trust. That act, the court ruled unanimously, revoked the UMC trust. In short, trusts are not a dead-end; the party that created a trust can revoke it. The California Supreme Court upheld the decision that same year.
The ruling sent shock waves through denominational offices across the country. Officials and lawyers from several hierarchical denominations huddled: Should the UMC appeal to the federal courts and risk having the U.S. Supreme Court uphold St. Luke's? If that were to happen, the floodgates would open, and there would be an immediate exodus of many congregations in any of the major strife-affected denominations. So far, no appeal. And this year, California courts have issued decisions in favor of several congregations that have exited TEC in Los Angeles and San Diego.
A landmark case is shaping up in Tulsa, where the Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church quietly left the PCUSA and joined the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The 2,700-member congregation is the largest in the PCUSA's Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery. It left by an overwhelming vote after the PCUSA general assembly in June made it possible for ordaining bodies to bypass the church constitution and ordain homosexuals. The presbytery has sued for the property under the PCUSA trust provision. Many other PCUSA churches are poised to walk, and are following the case closely.
An informal survey by WORLD found courts in only about 20 percent of states so far applying neutral principles in church property disputes involving a denominational trust claim. (Many courts still seem inclined to rely mainly on their own precedents, tilted in favor of denominations.) Changes will keep coming, states will amend corporate laws to more clearly define property rights, and the cutting edge will see courts giving greater attention to such issues as revocable trusts, several lawyers told WORLD.
Denominational leaders, alarmed by the judicial trends and fast-moving developments among conservatives intent on leaving TEC with their property, are preparing for court battles. A bishops' Task Force on Property Disputes, led by Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington, Ky., was set up last year to monitor "problem" dioceses.
Seven of TEC's 110 dioceses have rejected serving under new liberal Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, and they have appealed to the archbishop of Canterbury for some form of biblically faithful alternate oversight. These seven and three other dioceses that belong to the conservative Anglican Communion Network account for 175,000 Episcopalians in 650 congregations, including many of TEC's largest ones, according to network figures. Another 350 churches in other dioceses also belong to the network.
Ostensibly, most will be part of whatever plans for alternate oversight the Global South steering committee will unveil at the meeting of Anglican primates (chief bishops of the world's 38 Anglican provinces) in February in Africa. Jefferts Schori is scheduled to be there but may be shunned by many of her fellow primates for her theological views. (She approves same-sex blessings, voted to confirm the 2003 consecration of partnered homosexual V. Gene Robinson as a bishop, and believes there are other ways to God besides Jesus.)
TEC's property task force has assembled a package of briefs, court filings, and other research materials, even lists of expert witnesses, to assist loyal dioceses with lawsuits against dissident parishes that want to leave with their property.
David Booth Beers, TEC's top in-house lawyer, said he doesn't foresee many court cases arising from the church split. At a recent briefing on legal issues for a liberal-led group, he said only 10 property cases have been filed since 2000, and TEC "has prevailed" in all except one in Los Angeles that will be appealed. He also predicted unfavorable "preliminary" rulings in San Diego, South Carolina, and Central New York would be overturned.
TEC's gatekeepers also are now resorting to hardball tactics and even preemptive strikes, especially with the "problem" dioceses. Although Beers said he doesn't expect any dioceses to leave, the task force wants to be ready. The 8,000-member Diocese of San Joaquin, led by Bishop John-David Schofield, this month voted overwhelmingly to begin the process of withdrawal, to take effect after a second vote sometime next year. The diocese's corporate documents were amended to omit all links to TEC.
Earlier, several fellow bishops in California filed the equivalent of sedition charges against Schofield, who is disabled and ailing, claiming he had abandoned the communion; a review committee of other bishops dismissed them. Jefferts Schori fired off a letter warning that TEC had the authority to remove him and his leaders, and to take control of the diocese. Schofield served notice that if she moved against him, he and his diocese would resist, and the second vote to withdraw would occur quickly.
Stern letters similar to Jefferts Schori's have started showing up in mailboxes of parishes that want to leave. Under pressure from TEC headquarters, Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia, the largest of TEC's 110 dioceses (90,000 members), abruptly cut off settlement negotiations with Truro Church and The Falls Church. In almost a year's work, the churches and a diocesan committee had agreed upon all but the buyout figures. Lee said any withdrawal arrangement was subject to approval at TEC's highest levels. He warned of takeover if the churches attempted to leave without such approval.
One of the states whose corporate laws should encourage church property owners is Virginia—though court decisions in church disputes have been inconsistent. Both sides would be wary of letting a judge decide their futures. It all may come down to how much money is on the table.
As The Episcopal Church (TEC) finds itself cracking apart, the question on everybody's mind is: "Can departing churches keep their property?"
The answer: It depends. Courts differ in how they handle church property disputes. State corporate laws governing property ownership, deeds, and trusts are far from uniform and may be subject to conflicting interpretations. So, as litigation looms, attorneys on all sides are busy researching case law and assembling briefs.
Many denominations have clauses declaring that property owned by congregations is held in trust for the denomination: A church is free to leave, but not with its property. For many years, most courts routinely deferred to denominational law in property disputes—especially in cases involving "hierarchical" denominations with structured top-down government, including TEC, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA), and the United Methodist Church (UMC). All three are strife riven over doctrine and discipline—and ownership of church property.
But times—and the courts—are changing. Because property ownership is in the realm of state corporate law, a few courts years ago began deciding church property disputes according to "neutral principles" while steering clear of doctrinal squabbles. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 (Jones v. Wolf) not only approved but also encouraged this approach. TEC hurried to add the Dennis Canon to its constitution, clearly claiming that property owned by churches is held in trust for TEC.
However, a California appeals court in 1981 spelled out a series of neutral principles in deciding The Protestant Episcopal Church v. Barker. It in effect ignored the Dennis law and allowed three departing Episcopal congregations to keep their property while denying another.
Fast forward to 2004: A California appeals court allowed St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Fresno, which had left the UMC, to keep its property. St. Luke's had changed its articles of incorporation, clearly deeding all its property to itself with no mention of a trust. That act, the court ruled unanimously, revoked the UMC trust. In short, trusts are not a dead-end; the party that created a trust can revoke it. The California Supreme Court upheld the decision that same year.
The ruling sent shock waves through denominational offices across the country. Officials and lawyers from several hierarchical denominations huddled: Should the UMC appeal to the federal courts and risk having the U.S. Supreme Court uphold St. Luke's? If that were to happen, the floodgates would open, and there would be an immediate exodus of many congregations in any of the major strife-affected denominations. So far, no appeal. And this year, California courts have issued decisions in favor of several congregations that have exited TEC in Los Angeles and San Diego.
A landmark case is shaping up in Tulsa, where the Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church quietly left the PCUSA and joined the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The 2,700-member congregation is the largest in the PCUSA's Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery. It left by an overwhelming vote after the PCUSA general assembly in June made it possible for ordaining bodies to bypass the church constitution and ordain homosexuals. The presbytery has sued for the property under the PCUSA trust provision. Many other PCUSA churches are poised to walk, and are following the case closely.
An informal survey by WORLD found courts in only about 20 percent of states so far applying neutral principles in church property disputes involving a denominational trust claim. (Many courts still seem inclined to rely mainly on their own precedents, tilted in favor of denominations.) Changes will keep coming, states will amend corporate laws to more clearly define property rights, and the cutting edge will see courts giving greater attention to such issues as revocable trusts, several lawyers told WORLD.
Denominational leaders, alarmed by the judicial trends and fast-moving developments among conservatives intent on leaving TEC with their property, are preparing for court battles. A bishops' Task Force on Property Disputes, led by Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington, Ky., was set up last year to monitor "problem" dioceses.
Seven of TEC's 110 dioceses have rejected serving under new liberal Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, and they have appealed to the archbishop of Canterbury for some form of biblically faithful alternate oversight. These seven and three other dioceses that belong to the conservative Anglican Communion Network account for 175,000 Episcopalians in 650 congregations, including many of TEC's largest ones, according to network figures. Another 350 churches in other dioceses also belong to the network.
Ostensibly, most will be part of whatever plans for alternate oversight the Global South steering committee will unveil at the meeting of Anglican primates (chief bishops of the world's 38 Anglican provinces) in February in Africa. Jefferts Schori is scheduled to be there but may be shunned by many of her fellow primates for her theological views. (She approves same-sex blessings, voted to confirm the 2003 consecration of partnered homosexual V. Gene Robinson as a bishop, and believes there are other ways to God besides Jesus.)
TEC's property task force has assembled a package of briefs, court filings, and other research materials, even lists of expert witnesses, to assist loyal dioceses with lawsuits against dissident parishes that want to leave with their property.
David Booth Beers, TEC's top in-house lawyer, said he doesn't foresee many court cases arising from the church split. At a recent briefing on legal issues for a liberal-led group, he said only 10 property cases have been filed since 2000, and TEC "has prevailed" in all except one in Los Angeles that will be appealed. He also predicted unfavorable "preliminary" rulings in San Diego, South Carolina, and Central New York would be overturned.
TEC's gatekeepers also are now resorting to hardball tactics and even preemptive strikes, especially with the "problem" dioceses. Although Beers said he doesn't expect any dioceses to leave, the task force wants to be ready. The 8,000-member Diocese of San Joaquin, led by Bishop John-David Schofield, this month voted overwhelmingly to begin the process of withdrawal, to take effect after a second vote sometime next year. The diocese's corporate documents were amended to omit all links to TEC.
Earlier, several fellow bishops in California filed the equivalent of sedition charges against Schofield, who is disabled and ailing, claiming he had abandoned the communion; a review committee of other bishops dismissed them. Jefferts Schori fired off a letter warning that TEC had the authority to remove him and his leaders, and to take control of the diocese. Schofield served notice that if she moved against him, he and his diocese would resist, and the second vote to withdraw would occur quickly.
Stern letters similar to Jefferts Schori's have started showing up in mailboxes of parishes that want to leave. Under pressure from TEC headquarters, Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia, the largest of TEC's 110 dioceses (90,000 members), abruptly cut off settlement negotiations with Truro Church and The Falls Church. In almost a year's work, the churches and a diocesan committee had agreed upon all but the buyout figures. Lee said any withdrawal arrangement was subject to approval at TEC's highest levels. He warned of takeover if the churches attempted to leave without such approval.
One of the states whose corporate laws should encourage church property owners is Virginia—though court decisions in church disputes have been inconsistent. Both sides would be wary of letting a judge decide their futures. It all may come down to how much money is on the table.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
The liberal church in meltdown
From the Guardian (UK):
The rift within the Episcopal Church is a sign of the failure of liberal Christianity.
Charlotte Allen
December 20, 2006 08:15 PM
This past Sunday several churches in Northern Virginia announced that their congregations had voted overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate themselves with Anglican dioceses in Nigeria and Uganda.
Their reasons were the same ones that have prompted Episcopal congregations and even entire dioceses across the country to sever their national ties in recent months: decades of liberalising trends in the Episcopal Church that have led to, among other things, the confirmation in 2003 of the openly gay V Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire and the election in July 2006 of a presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Diocese of Nevada, who is not only a woman (a contentious issue among conservative Episcopalians) but supports both Robinson's confirmation and church blessings for gay unions.
Jefferts Schori pooh-poohed the mass departure of the Virginians, declaring that they were a splinter collection of malcontents looking for a "quick fix" and that they had failed to embrace "diversity" and "tension," which she defined as the essence of Anglicanism.
She has her head in the sand. The Episcopal Church is in serious trouble only compounded by the current schism. It is a church in demographic free-fall, its numbers now standing at 2.2 million (by Jefferts Schori's own estimate), down from 3.4 million at its heyday in 1965. At the 2,700 Episcopalian parishes nationwide, the median Sunday worship attendance is 80 people, and the churches they attend would be crumbling ruins were it not for their substantial endowments left over from the 19th century, when most of them were founded.
Like other mainline Protestant groups in America - Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and the like - the Episcopal Church decided some 40 years ago that the future of Christianity lay in accommodating its theology and moral teachings to whatever was fashionable or politically correct in the secular culture. Militant feminism and blessings for gay sex were only part of the doctrinal upheaval. Avant-garde clerics and theologians throughout North America and Western Europe scoffed at the traditional Christian teachings that Jesus Christ had been born of a virgin, worked miracles, died for human sin, rose from the dead, and founded a church that was supposed to be the means of salvation.
All those liberal strands of Christianity are paying the price for their devil's bargain with secularism in vastly diminished numbers, as members figure out that when a religion lets them do whatever they want, one of the things they don't want to do is go to church on Sunday. The mainline denominations, which once represented 40% of US Protestants, now represent only 12%: 17 million out of 135 million.
To put it bluntly, liberal Christianity is in meltdown. The election of Jefferts Schori, a theological liberal who prayed to a female Jesus at last summer's bishops' convention, together with the bishops' vote not to endorse the bedrock Christian proposition that Jesus is Lord, proved to be the last straw for many Episcopalians who believe that the essence of their Anglican faith isn't "tension" but fidelity to the Bible and the Christian creeds.
In fact, those conservative Northern Virginia churches that split off on Sunday may be few in number, but they represent an island of vibrancy in an otherwise moribund denomination. They are large, prosperous, highly educated congregations in large, prosperous, highly-educated Washington, DC, suburbs: Fairfax, Falls Church, Sterling, Woodbridge.
They join four other Northern Virginia churches that have similarly severed their ties with the Episcopal Church, and two more churches are likely to schedule similar votes in January. These 14 churches, together with a 15th that had been expected to announce a vote on Sunday but did not, constitute only 7% of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia's 197 parishes, but represent 11% of its baptised membership of about 90,000 and 18% of its average Sunday attendance of 32,000. Live people instead of dead people pay for their upkeep.
What happened in Virginia is a sign of growing awareness among conservative Christians that they are not - contrary to the way they have been painted by the liberal denominations and their sympathetic friends in the liberal media - a theologically backward, inevitably diminishing minority of dissenters from the enlightened Christian mainstream.
The recent petition by evangelical Anglican clerics in England to be freed from the supervision of liberal bishops is another sign of changing times - for their congregations represent a full 34% of the 900,000 English Anglicans who bother to go to church on Sunday. It has finally dawned on orthodox believers in the west that they may have the numbers on their side after all. The worldwide Anglican Communion has 77 million members, and in the Third World, where the Anglican Church is growing rapidly, conservative Anglicanism prevails.
For years the wealth, historic prestige, and trendy theology of the Episcopal Church have secured it outsize press attention that has obscured its marginal status in worldwide Anglicanism and American Protestantism. The election of Jefferts Schori as presiding bishop and the pomp surrounding her installation at the National Cathedral in Washington seemed designed as displays of liberal triumphalism.
Lately, however, the cracks in the façade have been showing. There is talk among liberal Episcopalians of "remnant" churches, and Jefforts Schori's assertion in a New York Times interview that Episcopalians are "better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations" amounted to a candid admission of numerical decline.
Jefferts Schori has also indicated that she will use the resources of the national church to fight to the teeth in court any efforts by churches in Virginia and elsewhere to keep their property after they secede. Perhaps she will succeed, and tiny groups of liberals will replace burgeoning conservative congregations. When and if that happens, however, it is likely that she and her church will be competing with a thriving branch of American Anglicanism that takes the traditional teachings of its faith very seriously.
The rift within the Episcopal Church is a sign of the failure of liberal Christianity.
Charlotte Allen
December 20, 2006 08:15 PM
This past Sunday several churches in Northern Virginia announced that their congregations had voted overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate themselves with Anglican dioceses in Nigeria and Uganda.
Their reasons were the same ones that have prompted Episcopal congregations and even entire dioceses across the country to sever their national ties in recent months: decades of liberalising trends in the Episcopal Church that have led to, among other things, the confirmation in 2003 of the openly gay V Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire and the election in July 2006 of a presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Diocese of Nevada, who is not only a woman (a contentious issue among conservative Episcopalians) but supports both Robinson's confirmation and church blessings for gay unions.
Jefferts Schori pooh-poohed the mass departure of the Virginians, declaring that they were a splinter collection of malcontents looking for a "quick fix" and that they had failed to embrace "diversity" and "tension," which she defined as the essence of Anglicanism.
She has her head in the sand. The Episcopal Church is in serious trouble only compounded by the current schism. It is a church in demographic free-fall, its numbers now standing at 2.2 million (by Jefferts Schori's own estimate), down from 3.4 million at its heyday in 1965. At the 2,700 Episcopalian parishes nationwide, the median Sunday worship attendance is 80 people, and the churches they attend would be crumbling ruins were it not for their substantial endowments left over from the 19th century, when most of them were founded.
Like other mainline Protestant groups in America - Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and the like - the Episcopal Church decided some 40 years ago that the future of Christianity lay in accommodating its theology and moral teachings to whatever was fashionable or politically correct in the secular culture. Militant feminism and blessings for gay sex were only part of the doctrinal upheaval. Avant-garde clerics and theologians throughout North America and Western Europe scoffed at the traditional Christian teachings that Jesus Christ had been born of a virgin, worked miracles, died for human sin, rose from the dead, and founded a church that was supposed to be the means of salvation.
All those liberal strands of Christianity are paying the price for their devil's bargain with secularism in vastly diminished numbers, as members figure out that when a religion lets them do whatever they want, one of the things they don't want to do is go to church on Sunday. The mainline denominations, which once represented 40% of US Protestants, now represent only 12%: 17 million out of 135 million.
To put it bluntly, liberal Christianity is in meltdown. The election of Jefferts Schori, a theological liberal who prayed to a female Jesus at last summer's bishops' convention, together with the bishops' vote not to endorse the bedrock Christian proposition that Jesus is Lord, proved to be the last straw for many Episcopalians who believe that the essence of their Anglican faith isn't "tension" but fidelity to the Bible and the Christian creeds.
In fact, those conservative Northern Virginia churches that split off on Sunday may be few in number, but they represent an island of vibrancy in an otherwise moribund denomination. They are large, prosperous, highly educated congregations in large, prosperous, highly-educated Washington, DC, suburbs: Fairfax, Falls Church, Sterling, Woodbridge.
They join four other Northern Virginia churches that have similarly severed their ties with the Episcopal Church, and two more churches are likely to schedule similar votes in January. These 14 churches, together with a 15th that had been expected to announce a vote on Sunday but did not, constitute only 7% of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia's 197 parishes, but represent 11% of its baptised membership of about 90,000 and 18% of its average Sunday attendance of 32,000. Live people instead of dead people pay for their upkeep.
What happened in Virginia is a sign of growing awareness among conservative Christians that they are not - contrary to the way they have been painted by the liberal denominations and their sympathetic friends in the liberal media - a theologically backward, inevitably diminishing minority of dissenters from the enlightened Christian mainstream.
The recent petition by evangelical Anglican clerics in England to be freed from the supervision of liberal bishops is another sign of changing times - for their congregations represent a full 34% of the 900,000 English Anglicans who bother to go to church on Sunday. It has finally dawned on orthodox believers in the west that they may have the numbers on their side after all. The worldwide Anglican Communion has 77 million members, and in the Third World, where the Anglican Church is growing rapidly, conservative Anglicanism prevails.
For years the wealth, historic prestige, and trendy theology of the Episcopal Church have secured it outsize press attention that has obscured its marginal status in worldwide Anglicanism and American Protestantism. The election of Jefferts Schori as presiding bishop and the pomp surrounding her installation at the National Cathedral in Washington seemed designed as displays of liberal triumphalism.
Lately, however, the cracks in the façade have been showing. There is talk among liberal Episcopalians of "remnant" churches, and Jefforts Schori's assertion in a New York Times interview that Episcopalians are "better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations" amounted to a candid admission of numerical decline.
Jefferts Schori has also indicated that she will use the resources of the national church to fight to the teeth in court any efforts by churches in Virginia and elsewhere to keep their property after they secede. Perhaps she will succeed, and tiny groups of liberals will replace burgeoning conservative congregations. When and if that happens, however, it is likely that she and her church will be competing with a thriving branch of American Anglicanism that takes the traditional teachings of its faith very seriously.
From the Los Angeles Times
EDITORIAL
Blessed be the lawyers
When a church and a congregation disagree, it's the laws of men, not of God, that usually settle the matter.
December 19, 2006
THE DECISION BY two Virginia congregations to leave the Episcopal Church of the United States and submit to the leadership of a Nigerian archbishop is rooted in a dispute about God's will. But the parting of theological ways inevitably involves things of this world.
The Virginia congregations voted not only to change their institutional allegiance but also to hold on to church property. The latter decision moved the bishop of Virginia to issue a statement asserting the larger church's "canonical and legal rights over these properties."
Both sides in this dispute could end up submitting not to God's law but to man's. When three Episcopal parishes in Southern California broke away from the church, the Diocese of Los Angeles went to court to assert its claim to their property. A judge disagreed, and the diocese is appealing. Nationally, litigation has produced mixed outcomes, including that holy grail of trial lawyers, the settlement.
The theological debate over homosexuality that has fueled the debate in Virginia is a recent one. Last weekend, two prominent congregations voted to "leave" the Episcopal Church of the United States for that of Nigeria, where the archbishop has called acceptance of gay relationships a "satanic attack" on the church. It was the latest fissure in the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion over the ordination of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire and the willingness of some Episcopal clergy to bless same-sex couples.
But Christians have argued about the disposition of property for centuries. Although the earliest followers of Jesus prayed and broke bread in private homes, it wasn't long before the movement began to accumulate assets that eventually included not only basilicas and Bibles but baseball fields and bingo halls.
As the historian James Hitchcock delicately put it, organized religions "have usually been quick to secure their property rights, justifying this on the grounds that material assets are necessary in order to witness the reality of the spiritual."
Maybe so. But when disputes about property arise in this society, they tend to be settled by litigation, a process not known for much turning of the other cheek. Whatever one's view of the issues that have split the Episcopal Church, civil lawsuits over the disposition of pews, altars and prayer books seem more than a little like rendering unto Caesar the things that are God's.
Blessed be the lawyers
When a church and a congregation disagree, it's the laws of men, not of God, that usually settle the matter.
December 19, 2006
THE DECISION BY two Virginia congregations to leave the Episcopal Church of the United States and submit to the leadership of a Nigerian archbishop is rooted in a dispute about God's will. But the parting of theological ways inevitably involves things of this world.
The Virginia congregations voted not only to change their institutional allegiance but also to hold on to church property. The latter decision moved the bishop of Virginia to issue a statement asserting the larger church's "canonical and legal rights over these properties."
Both sides in this dispute could end up submitting not to God's law but to man's. When three Episcopal parishes in Southern California broke away from the church, the Diocese of Los Angeles went to court to assert its claim to their property. A judge disagreed, and the diocese is appealing. Nationally, litigation has produced mixed outcomes, including that holy grail of trial lawyers, the settlement.
The theological debate over homosexuality that has fueled the debate in Virginia is a recent one. Last weekend, two prominent congregations voted to "leave" the Episcopal Church of the United States for that of Nigeria, where the archbishop has called acceptance of gay relationships a "satanic attack" on the church. It was the latest fissure in the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion over the ordination of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire and the willingness of some Episcopal clergy to bless same-sex couples.
But Christians have argued about the disposition of property for centuries. Although the earliest followers of Jesus prayed and broke bread in private homes, it wasn't long before the movement began to accumulate assets that eventually included not only basilicas and Bibles but baseball fields and bingo halls.
As the historian James Hitchcock delicately put it, organized religions "have usually been quick to secure their property rights, justifying this on the grounds that material assets are necessary in order to witness the reality of the spiritual."
Maybe so. But when disputes about property arise in this society, they tend to be settled by litigation, a process not known for much turning of the other cheek. Whatever one's view of the issues that have split the Episcopal Church, civil lawsuits over the disposition of pews, altars and prayer books seem more than a little like rendering unto Caesar the things that are God's.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
News Coverage in Northern Virginia
Anglican keys in Northern Virginia
By: tmatt [Terry Mattingly]
Tomorrow is a giant news day in the Anglican wars, which is a global story that also has an American angle, a new York City angle, a Virginia angle and a Washington, D.C., suburban angle.
That’s some story.
I am referring, of course, to the fact that a circle of conservative, and in some cases historic, Anglican parishes have been voting all week on motions to withdraw from the Diocese of Virginia and, thus, the Episcopal Church, which is currently the Canterbury-recognized branch of Anglicanism here in the United States of America.
It is a giant, complex story and a very hard one for reporters to cover. There are all kinds of people — left, right and center — who would prefer that the entire drama play out behind closed doors.
But that isn’t going to happen. Too much is at stake. However, the odds are good that there will be a media circus tomorrow as the decisions are expected to be announced. As I noted in a previous post, the most powerful of these parishes — Truro Episcopal Church and the Falls Church — have tried to control the media madness by setting some strict coverage guidelines. Click here for background on that story.
It seemed to me that one of the main consequences of the media-riot memo was going to be keeping veteran reporters and columnists — the people who know the most about the issues at stake — from being able to cover the story, even if all they wanted to do was sit silently in pews and listen to what is said and, later, talk to people who were willing to talk with them. This drew a strong comment from one of these reporters, Julia Duin of the Washington Times:
Terry is absolutely right. The memo was aimed towards religion writers who folks could recognize at the door. Yours truly did make an appearance in disguise at, well, you guess the church. She did not want some bouncer to walk up to her during a service and ask her if she was “researching” or “worshipping.” One reporter (Mike McManus) who did not get the above memo and did attend the service at TFC was told to desist by one of the clergy present when he began interviewing two women. And they were willing to talk with him. . . .
God only knows what this coming Sunday is going to be like. . . . So, TFC and Truro readers: Have patience. What you are doing is historic; it’s the largest chunk of churches leaving in the country — out of the largest diocese — so do be charitable towards those of us who are doing our best to accurately write the first draft of history about these events.
Posted by Julia Duin at 2:36 pm on December 13, 2006
People are tense for a number of reasons. Millions of dollars are at stake and, if you take issues of Communion seriously, central issues of doctrine and sacraments are a stake.
In the end, it comes down to one legal question: Who controls the keys to these churches?
And even if the liberal Episcopal establishment wins, who will worship at the altars inside these powerful churches after the faithful (and their resources, spiritual and material) have been locked out? Will the national church simply sell these buildings rather than let conservative Anglicans — Americans whose faith mirrors that of the majority of Anglicans worldwide — worship in them? And what happens to the people who leave? Do they form competing conservative groups? Can they maintain order and unity as a minority in a liberal land, with long-range ties to bishops in other parts of the world? Do they slide into congregationalism?
There are lots of questions and the media has to cover the debates.
Which brings us back to those media-control memos.
One of the most important elements of journalism is the ability to hear words, record them and then quote them accurately. This requires access, or reporters are driven into second-hand reporting.
I think the sermons delivered in these churches tomorrow are important. I believe that the prayers said and the scriptures read are important. They have content relevant to this global story.
How do reporters hear, record and report these words if they are not allowed polite access? I would, by the way, feel exactly the same way if we were talking about a liberal Episcopal parish in traditionalist Fort Worth that was discussing fleeing that diocese in order to align with the establishment left in New York City.
How to you “get” the religion in these stories if you are prevented from reporting the religious content of these public services? Talking to people in the parking lot will not get you this theological content, other than second-hand reports. This story is too important for that.
So, no riots. No cameras, if that is what the churches want. No rude reporters disturbing the worshippers. No badgering the faithful who do not want to talk.
But if reporters — including the ones who know the story the best — want to sit in silence and listen, I say let them listen. Then they can leave the sanctuaries and talk to people who agree to talk with them, outside if that is what people prefer. In the parking lot, even, if that is what the church leaders want. But the reporters have to be there. They have work to do.
By: tmatt [Terry Mattingly]
Tomorrow is a giant news day in the Anglican wars, which is a global story that also has an American angle, a new York City angle, a Virginia angle and a Washington, D.C., suburban angle.
That’s some story.
I am referring, of course, to the fact that a circle of conservative, and in some cases historic, Anglican parishes have been voting all week on motions to withdraw from the Diocese of Virginia and, thus, the Episcopal Church, which is currently the Canterbury-recognized branch of Anglicanism here in the United States of America.
It is a giant, complex story and a very hard one for reporters to cover. There are all kinds of people — left, right and center — who would prefer that the entire drama play out behind closed doors.
But that isn’t going to happen. Too much is at stake. However, the odds are good that there will be a media circus tomorrow as the decisions are expected to be announced. As I noted in a previous post, the most powerful of these parishes — Truro Episcopal Church and the Falls Church — have tried to control the media madness by setting some strict coverage guidelines. Click here for background on that story.
It seemed to me that one of the main consequences of the media-riot memo was going to be keeping veteran reporters and columnists — the people who know the most about the issues at stake — from being able to cover the story, even if all they wanted to do was sit silently in pews and listen to what is said and, later, talk to people who were willing to talk with them. This drew a strong comment from one of these reporters, Julia Duin of the Washington Times:
Terry is absolutely right. The memo was aimed towards religion writers who folks could recognize at the door. Yours truly did make an appearance in disguise at, well, you guess the church. She did not want some bouncer to walk up to her during a service and ask her if she was “researching” or “worshipping.” One reporter (Mike McManus) who did not get the above memo and did attend the service at TFC was told to desist by one of the clergy present when he began interviewing two women. And they were willing to talk with him. . . .
God only knows what this coming Sunday is going to be like. . . . So, TFC and Truro readers: Have patience. What you are doing is historic; it’s the largest chunk of churches leaving in the country — out of the largest diocese — so do be charitable towards those of us who are doing our best to accurately write the first draft of history about these events.
Posted by Julia Duin at 2:36 pm on December 13, 2006
People are tense for a number of reasons. Millions of dollars are at stake and, if you take issues of Communion seriously, central issues of doctrine and sacraments are a stake.
In the end, it comes down to one legal question: Who controls the keys to these churches?
And even if the liberal Episcopal establishment wins, who will worship at the altars inside these powerful churches after the faithful (and their resources, spiritual and material) have been locked out? Will the national church simply sell these buildings rather than let conservative Anglicans — Americans whose faith mirrors that of the majority of Anglicans worldwide — worship in them? And what happens to the people who leave? Do they form competing conservative groups? Can they maintain order and unity as a minority in a liberal land, with long-range ties to bishops in other parts of the world? Do they slide into congregationalism?
There are lots of questions and the media has to cover the debates.
Which brings us back to those media-control memos.
One of the most important elements of journalism is the ability to hear words, record them and then quote them accurately. This requires access, or reporters are driven into second-hand reporting.
I think the sermons delivered in these churches tomorrow are important. I believe that the prayers said and the scriptures read are important. They have content relevant to this global story.
How do reporters hear, record and report these words if they are not allowed polite access? I would, by the way, feel exactly the same way if we were talking about a liberal Episcopal parish in traditionalist Fort Worth that was discussing fleeing that diocese in order to align with the establishment left in New York City.
How to you “get” the religion in these stories if you are prevented from reporting the religious content of these public services? Talking to people in the parking lot will not get you this theological content, other than second-hand reports. This story is too important for that.
So, no riots. No cameras, if that is what the churches want. No rude reporters disturbing the worshippers. No badgering the faithful who do not want to talk.
But if reporters — including the ones who know the story the best — want to sit in silence and listen, I say let them listen. Then they can leave the sanctuaries and talk to people who agree to talk with them, outside if that is what people prefer. In the parking lot, even, if that is what the church leaders want. But the reporters have to be there. They have work to do.
Life After ECUSA
From Kentucky:
2 former Episcopal groups are prospering
Now Anglican, both are acquiring buildings
By Frank E. Lockwood
HERALD-LEADER RELIGION WRITER
When it severed ties with its denomination, Church of the Apostles forfeited more than its "Episcopal" label. It also gave up its buildings, its bank accounts, its furniture, even its name tags.
For nearly two years, the Lexington congregation met in an elementary school cafeteria, but now the church has a home of its own again.
Apostles Anglican Church bought Chevy Chase Baptist Church's building earlier this month for $1.8 million.
On Sunday, they gathered for their first morning worship service. The Rev. Martin Gornik, pastor of Apostles, says churchgoers contributed $1.5 million in cash and pledges in about six weeks to make the purchase possible.
"I think it's a testament that this congregation's courage and hope had not been crushed by what had happened," Gornik said. "There's a great deal of excitement and enthusiasm."
The new facility seats 350 people and is across the street from the Catholic Cathedral of Christ the King.
Moving wasn't difficult. Other than some office furniture and supplies, everything the church owned fit in a 14-foot trailer.
Now affiliated with the Anglican Church in Uganda, Apostles has average attendance of about 100 people. While some conservative Episcopal congregations have chosen to stay and fight in the courts for their property, Gornik says that wasn't an option Apostles wanted to pursue. "We are glad to be out and to be moving forward in mission, and we have no regrets," he said.
Lexington bishop Stacy Sauls, who helped start a new Episcopal parish in Apostles' old building, said he wishes the best for the breakaway group.
"I am glad to hear that the people of the Church of the Apostles have found a new home. I pray that their ministry will flourish in their new location and the people of Lexington will be well-served by their ministry," he said in a statement. "I am saddened beyond words that their relationship with us has been broken, but I wish them well, and I entrust the healing that I know God intends to the love of Jesus in whom all things are possible."
Apostles is one of dozens of Episcopal congregations across the country to lose most or all of their members after the denomination consecrated an openly gay man, Lexington native Gene Robinson, as bishop.
Another breakaway congregation, St. Andrews Anglican Church in Versailles, meets in a Woodford County elementary school. Formed by former members of St. John's Episcopal Church, St. Andrews has purchased 7 acres at the corner of Bluegrass Parkway and Route 33. It hopes to break ground on a new 400-seat sanctuary in the summer.
Also affiliated with the church of Uganda, St. Andrews plans has average attendance of about 180, according to Rev. David Brannen, the church's pastor.
Members of St. Andrews also lost the sanctuary and trust funds when they walked away from the Episcopal Church, but they are prospering anyway, Brannen said.
"We don't have to have a building to accomplish our purposes," Brannen said. "The people are far more valuable than the property."
Reach Frank Lockwood at (859) 231-3211 or 800-950-6397, Ext. 3211, or flockwood@herald-leader.com.
2 former Episcopal groups are prospering
Now Anglican, both are acquiring buildings
By Frank E. Lockwood
HERALD-LEADER RELIGION WRITER
When it severed ties with its denomination, Church of the Apostles forfeited more than its "Episcopal" label. It also gave up its buildings, its bank accounts, its furniture, even its name tags.
For nearly two years, the Lexington congregation met in an elementary school cafeteria, but now the church has a home of its own again.
Apostles Anglican Church bought Chevy Chase Baptist Church's building earlier this month for $1.8 million.
On Sunday, they gathered for their first morning worship service. The Rev. Martin Gornik, pastor of Apostles, says churchgoers contributed $1.5 million in cash and pledges in about six weeks to make the purchase possible.
"I think it's a testament that this congregation's courage and hope had not been crushed by what had happened," Gornik said. "There's a great deal of excitement and enthusiasm."
The new facility seats 350 people and is across the street from the Catholic Cathedral of Christ the King.
Moving wasn't difficult. Other than some office furniture and supplies, everything the church owned fit in a 14-foot trailer.
Now affiliated with the Anglican Church in Uganda, Apostles has average attendance of about 100 people. While some conservative Episcopal congregations have chosen to stay and fight in the courts for their property, Gornik says that wasn't an option Apostles wanted to pursue. "We are glad to be out and to be moving forward in mission, and we have no regrets," he said.
Lexington bishop Stacy Sauls, who helped start a new Episcopal parish in Apostles' old building, said he wishes the best for the breakaway group.
"I am glad to hear that the people of the Church of the Apostles have found a new home. I pray that their ministry will flourish in their new location and the people of Lexington will be well-served by their ministry," he said in a statement. "I am saddened beyond words that their relationship with us has been broken, but I wish them well, and I entrust the healing that I know God intends to the love of Jesus in whom all things are possible."
Apostles is one of dozens of Episcopal congregations across the country to lose most or all of their members after the denomination consecrated an openly gay man, Lexington native Gene Robinson, as bishop.
Another breakaway congregation, St. Andrews Anglican Church in Versailles, meets in a Woodford County elementary school. Formed by former members of St. John's Episcopal Church, St. Andrews has purchased 7 acres at the corner of Bluegrass Parkway and Route 33. It hopes to break ground on a new 400-seat sanctuary in the summer.
Also affiliated with the church of Uganda, St. Andrews plans has average attendance of about 180, according to Rev. David Brannen, the church's pastor.
Members of St. Andrews also lost the sanctuary and trust funds when they walked away from the Episcopal Church, but they are prospering anyway, Brannen said.
"We don't have to have a building to accomplish our purposes," Brannen said. "The people are far more valuable than the property."
Reach Frank Lockwood at (859) 231-3211 or 800-950-6397, Ext. 3211, or flockwood@herald-leader.com.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Those Bad Conservatives
From the Midwest Conservative Journal:
According to the Telegraph, a major conservative rebellion will soon be underway in the Church of England:
Liberal bishops who support homosexual priests are to be barred from entering some churches and money intended for Anglican coffers will be withheld.
In a dramatic escalation in the Church of England’s civil war over homosexual clergy, scores of evangelical churches will break their historic links with liberal bishops who oversee their parishes.
The deepening of the conflict represents the "ultimate" protest by conservative clergy against liberal bishops’ support for homosexual priests who have used the Civil Partnerships Act to "marry" their boyfriends.
The rebel clerics are setting up a panel of retired bishops to provide pastoral care to parishes in dioceses run by liberal bishops. The move is similar to the provision of "flying bishops" to opponents of women priests when they were first ordained in 1994.
Up to 100 churches have said that they intend to split from their bishops and seek support from the new panel. That is likely to mark only the beginning of the schism, however, as the panel of conservative bishops will provide an attractive alternative to other disaffected parishes.
No doubt, Dr. Williams will once again wish that he'd stayed in Wales.
Leading evangelicals will meet the Most Rev Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on Tuesday to deliver papers laying out the plans for a restructuring of the Church.
The archbishop will be told that dozens of churches in liberal dioceses feel forced to take the radical step of breaking with their bishops. The initiative has been organised by Reform and Anglican Mainstream, evangelical groups that represent about 2,000 parishes. The initial number of disaffected parishes could rise dramatically, however, because traditionalists from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church have expressed their support.
Other evangelical parishes might also follow suit if an incumbent bishop with whom they agree is succeeded by a liberal cleric.
This could have a devastating impact on the Church of England.
The revolt will deal a fresh blow to the embattled archbishop, who has fought to hold the Church together despite entrenched views on both sides of the debate. It also threatens to cripple the Church’s finances, because about 40 per cent of its income is supplied by evangelical parishes. Liberal bishops risk the loss of millions of pounds of income as parishes that are traditionally the largest contributors withhold funds.
The decision to take action is likely to have serious financial repercussions. The average annual income from parishioners in evangelical churches in 2003 was £84,000, compared with £40,000 in non-evangelical churches, according to latest figures from Christian Research. The Church receives about £250 million a year from evangelical worshippers.
The bottom line is that C of E conservatives will no longer accept mere rhetoric.
In an effort to mollify conservative Anglican leaders, the archbishop vowed last year that it would be "a disciplinary offence" if clergy wanting to "marry" their boyfriends failed to give those assurances.
While some priests such as Mr John, who "wed" his long-term lover in July, have stated that they are in a celibate relationship, others have flouted the rule and escaped censure. In Durham diocese, the Rev Christopher Wardale had his "marriage" to his boyfriend, Malcolm Macourt, blessed in church.
The evangelical rebels have lost patience, believing that the archbishop is relinquishing control over a Church deeply divided by gay clergy and that many of their bishops are turning a blind eye to these "marriages".
If this report is accurate, it is difficult to see how Dr. Williams can possibly hold things together. The C of E wouild take a major financial hit even if only half the evangelical churches withheld funds. Liberal bishops could, one supposes, depose clergy who wouldn't let them in the door but that wouldn't turn the financial spigot back on; indeed, liberal heavy-handedness might cause even more evangelical parishes to withhold funds and take that much more money out of Lambeth's coffers.
On the other hand, if Dr. Williams were to concede to conservative wishes and start disciplining liberal bishops or clergy, he would anger and alienate the left and probably hasten a split. It's not too tough to imagine a liberal bishop barring the Archbishop of Canterbury from his diocese while paying for a visit by Katharine Jefferts Schori as well as attending every liberal Anglican meeting anywhere in the world that he possibly can.
Will anything come of this? It's difficult to say given the inborn Anglican reluctance to engage in anything that smacks of defiance. But this story bears watching.
According to the Telegraph, a major conservative rebellion will soon be underway in the Church of England:
Liberal bishops who support homosexual priests are to be barred from entering some churches and money intended for Anglican coffers will be withheld.
In a dramatic escalation in the Church of England’s civil war over homosexual clergy, scores of evangelical churches will break their historic links with liberal bishops who oversee their parishes.
The deepening of the conflict represents the "ultimate" protest by conservative clergy against liberal bishops’ support for homosexual priests who have used the Civil Partnerships Act to "marry" their boyfriends.
The rebel clerics are setting up a panel of retired bishops to provide pastoral care to parishes in dioceses run by liberal bishops. The move is similar to the provision of "flying bishops" to opponents of women priests when they were first ordained in 1994.
Up to 100 churches have said that they intend to split from their bishops and seek support from the new panel. That is likely to mark only the beginning of the schism, however, as the panel of conservative bishops will provide an attractive alternative to other disaffected parishes.
No doubt, Dr. Williams will once again wish that he'd stayed in Wales.
Leading evangelicals will meet the Most Rev Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on Tuesday to deliver papers laying out the plans for a restructuring of the Church.
The archbishop will be told that dozens of churches in liberal dioceses feel forced to take the radical step of breaking with their bishops. The initiative has been organised by Reform and Anglican Mainstream, evangelical groups that represent about 2,000 parishes. The initial number of disaffected parishes could rise dramatically, however, because traditionalists from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church have expressed their support.
Other evangelical parishes might also follow suit if an incumbent bishop with whom they agree is succeeded by a liberal cleric.
This could have a devastating impact on the Church of England.
The revolt will deal a fresh blow to the embattled archbishop, who has fought to hold the Church together despite entrenched views on both sides of the debate. It also threatens to cripple the Church’s finances, because about 40 per cent of its income is supplied by evangelical parishes. Liberal bishops risk the loss of millions of pounds of income as parishes that are traditionally the largest contributors withhold funds.
The decision to take action is likely to have serious financial repercussions. The average annual income from parishioners in evangelical churches in 2003 was £84,000, compared with £40,000 in non-evangelical churches, according to latest figures from Christian Research. The Church receives about £250 million a year from evangelical worshippers.
The bottom line is that C of E conservatives will no longer accept mere rhetoric.
In an effort to mollify conservative Anglican leaders, the archbishop vowed last year that it would be "a disciplinary offence" if clergy wanting to "marry" their boyfriends failed to give those assurances.
While some priests such as Mr John, who "wed" his long-term lover in July, have stated that they are in a celibate relationship, others have flouted the rule and escaped censure. In Durham diocese, the Rev Christopher Wardale had his "marriage" to his boyfriend, Malcolm Macourt, blessed in church.
The evangelical rebels have lost patience, believing that the archbishop is relinquishing control over a Church deeply divided by gay clergy and that many of their bishops are turning a blind eye to these "marriages".
If this report is accurate, it is difficult to see how Dr. Williams can possibly hold things together. The C of E wouild take a major financial hit even if only half the evangelical churches withheld funds. Liberal bishops could, one supposes, depose clergy who wouldn't let them in the door but that wouldn't turn the financial spigot back on; indeed, liberal heavy-handedness might cause even more evangelical parishes to withhold funds and take that much more money out of Lambeth's coffers.
On the other hand, if Dr. Williams were to concede to conservative wishes and start disciplining liberal bishops or clergy, he would anger and alienate the left and probably hasten a split. It's not too tough to imagine a liberal bishop barring the Archbishop of Canterbury from his diocese while paying for a visit by Katharine Jefferts Schori as well as attending every liberal Anglican meeting anywhere in the world that he possibly can.
Will anything come of this? It's difficult to say given the inborn Anglican reluctance to engage in anything that smacks of defiance. But this story bears watching.
From Today's Daily Office Readings
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20-21
Collect for Proper 14:
Grant to us, Lord, we pray, the spirit to think and do always those things that are right, that we, who cannot exist without you, may by you be enabled to live according to your will; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Collect for Proper 14:
Grant to us, Lord, we pray, the spirit to think and do always those things that are right, that we, who cannot exist without you, may by you be enabled to live according to your will; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
From Diana Butler Bass of the Washington National Cathedral
State of the Episcopal Church
Diana Butler Bass
Church Historian
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; 3:00 PM
A dispute with national leadership about the installation of a gay bishop has congregations across the country voting to leave the Episcopal Church.
Historian Diana Butler Bass was online Wednesday, Dec. 6 at 3 p.m. to discuss the reasons behind the split and the possible outcomes for the church.
A transcript follows.
Butler Bass holds a Ph.D. in religious studies from Duke University and is the author of six books on American religious practice. Her latest book is "Christianity for the Rest of Us" (Harper, 2006), and she is currently working on "Episcopalians in America" (Columbia University Press, 2007). She was a senior research fellow at the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Va., and is now a senior fellow at the Cathedral College of the Washington National Cathedral.
____________________
Diana Butler Bass: As an introduction to the chat, it may help folks to know that I am both a church historian and an independent researcher in contemporary American religion. My Ph.D. is from Duke University, where I wrote a prize-winning dissertation (published by Oxford University Press) about evangelical religion in the Episcopal Church in 19th-century America. My most recent book, "Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith," was a Lilly Endowment-funded study of mainline Protestant vitality and it was just named one of the best books of the year by Publishers' Weekly.
I am not an Episcopal priest, nor do I work for the Episcopal Church in any official capacity at the present time. I am an active lay-person -- my family and I are members of the Church of the Epiphany in downtown Washington, D.C.
So, my answers to questions posed come from both my historical knowledge and contemporary expertise -- and they are my own opinions, not that of any institution, congregation or diocese.
_______________________
Sykesville, Md.: As an Episcopalian, I am appalled to hear that anyone wants to join forces with someone who advocates jailing people simply for being gay or bisexual.
That is Orwellian in my view. As in, "All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others."
Maybe that is because I am female, and women have historically been the scapegoat for religions anyway. Now that it's being grudgingly acknowledged that we are human beings too, its sad to see the hunt continuing for a smaller community to bully.
Diana Butler Bass: As a Christian, I equally worry about scapegoating. Scapegoating tends to occur in history when people fear change and when communities think the world is chaotic and needs to be re-ordered by eliminating the source of sin.
Your comments bring to mind the story about St. Paul and the boat. Paul was on a missionary journey when the ship in which he was traveling encountered a storm at sea. The terrified crew blamed Paul and his "foreign god" for the storm. To appease their own gods, they tossed Paul and his party overboard!
Too often Christians toss overboard those whom they think have a "foreign god," in order to calm the storm of change when they real response in the storm should be "all hands on deck"!
_______________________
University Park, Md.: Are the physical plants and real estate occupied by Episcopal churches all owned by the diocese to which they belong, or does this vary by parish? What can we look forward to as far as litigation over these valuable assets?
Diana Butler Bass: I'm not a lawyer or historian of cannon law. My understanding is that both Virginia and Maryland have upheld the contention that the Episcopal Church holds the property of congregations -- and congregations bear property in trust for the larger body. Most court cases, in all mainline denominations, have resulted in the larger body retaining property rights in the case of schism.
_______________________
Capitol Hill: As an Episcopalian who empathizes with the position of the conservatives in the Church, but who attends a socially liberal parish, I am disgusted with the leadership on both sides. But perhaps more so with the liberal leadership since they hold such a majority in the General Convention body, and have been thumbing their noses at conservatives for quite some time. It is the seeming lack of accommodation for conservative parishes on a National level which I think is hardheaded and hypocritical. I hear a great deal of rhetoric about appeals for healing, but when push comes to shove, I think many Church leaders would be happy to show conservatives the door (as long as they leave their property behind). I find it fascinating that my Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Chane, who has been very forward on where he stands in this matter, has found a way to accommodate one of the richest parishes in his Diocese - All Saints Chevy Chase - to keep them happy. He is allowing another more conservative retired bishop to provide pastoral oversight for them. I wonder what Bp. Chane would do if a smaller, poorer parish asked for the same benefits. Is the All Saints case a sign of hope for accommodation, or just another rich squeaky wheel getting the oil?
Diana Butler Bass: Your comments are interesting to me. I do not believe that there are only two sides in this dispute -- I can identify five distinct groups of Episcopalians.
Yes, there are two parties in tension: Old-line liberals and radicalized conservatives. This is the fight we most often read about in the media. However, you point out a third possibility, a centrist party that is trying to navigate between the two extremes (Bishop Peter Lee in Virginia would represent the centrists). From my own research, you are right. The extremes aren't the whole story.
However, there are two additional groups, and these two are far less noticed. I refer to these groups (they don't have a clear "party" identity) as "progressive pilgrims" and "emergent conservatives." These two groups tend to see "issues" like this one as secondary concerns to the practice of Christian faith and are more concerned with things like the practice of hospitality, living forgiveness, practicing reconciliation, learning to pray, feeding the hungry, caring for the environment, and maintaining the Anglican practice of comprehensiveness (being a church of the "middle way"). They may lean slightly left or slightly right on "issues," but reject partisan solutions to theological problems. Both progressive pilgrims and emergent conservatives are far more interested in unity than uniformity; and they appreciate diversity in their congregations as a sign of God's dream for humanity to live in peace.
From observing (and knowing him a bit), I think Bp. Chane is more of a progressive pilgrims than an old-line liberal. And I think he is trying very hard to embody this alternative position in the diocese of Washington.
If the centrists, the progressive pilgrims, and emergent conservatives can come together and offer their distinctive spiritual gifts in the midst of this conflict, I think the Episcopal Church may be able to move forward.
_______________________
Mayfield, Ky.: Ms. Bass: Do you have an idea of why the Episcopal parishes and/or dioceses leaving the Episcopal Church are leaning towards going to a bishop outside the U.S.? There are groups in the U.S. who adhere to the Biblical teachings of the traditional Episcopal Church, such as the ACC, ACA, and the APCK. Thanks for taking my question.
Diana Butler Bass: I actually don't! You would think it would be easier to join one of these groups (or the Reformed Episcopal Church) than going to all the trouble of reaching to Africa.
_______________________
Poolesville: I will start out by explicitly saying I am an evangelical Anglican, who has left his local parish and now attend a small, independent Anglo-Catholic parish in Montgomery County, Md., but still feel brokenhearted, lost and adrift by the movement of the Church away from "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
I'm interested in further explanation of the current strife being "politics, not theology..." as quoted in the article.
From the politics standpoint, the "liberals" do certainly control the levers, but consider the issues of Woman's Ordinations and now acceptance of homosexuality as Holy Spirit inspired new revelation. So it seems that even the political victors won't generally apply political language.
Either way, I suspect they will be Pyrrhic victories, leaving trust funds (e.g., Trinity Wall St) and beautiful cathedrals, but ever smaller memberships, and rejection by orthodox Christian bodies.
I have to say it is a -painful, sorrowful- thing to finally have to decide between one's soul and the local parish, but there is only one choice to make.
Diana Butler Bass: To quote the former president, I feel your pain. A lot of people are in pain right now. Including me, even though I love my local parish; I love the Episcopal Church; and I love Anglicanism. It is painful when Christians have a public fight like this.
My argument relates to my answer to "Capitol Hill." I think that two parties in the Episcopal Church, the Old-line liberals and the Radicalized Conservatives have politicized their particular visions of Christianity into a winner-takes-all strategy of making all Episcopalians agree with their views. From a historical perspective, since 1945, there has been a well-documented, increasing politicization of all of American religion into hardened positions. It is those two groups that are involved right now in political hardball and are trying to drag the rest of us into their argument.
I do, however, think there are some significant groups of Episcopalians -- the centrists, the progressive pilgrims, and the emergent conservatives -- who are attempting to resist politicization in the church and are trying to reground the church on spiritual practice and Christian (and Anglican) traditions. I think this middling-groups (not exactly parties) are working very hard to have a genuine theological discussion (or even argument...arguments are okay in theology...without arguing in the right ways, theology wouldn't even exist!) in the din. So, while some people are concerned about Christian life and theological vision, most of the loudest voices are from partisan combatants. Politics is drowning out theology.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Could you please explain the relevance of a schism within the Episcopalian Church. I understand why this would be a big deal in the Catholic church because it purports to be the one true single and universal church. My understanding is that protestant religions are based on the idea that people should follow the dictates of their consciences and not the dictates of church hierarchy. Is the Episcopal religion different from other protestant religions in a way that makes a schism more significant?
Diana Butler Bass: The history of Anglicanism (the older tradition of which the Episcopal Church is a part) is a long attempt to avoid schism. Throughout Anglicanism's first century, in the 1500s, England raged between extremes of Roman Catholicism and extreme Protestantism in a violent series of religious and political reversals that left the nation -- and the nation's church -- exhausted.
Richard Hooker, the Anglican theologian who is credited with ending this theological strife, helped the English Church envision itself as a "middle way" between Catholic and Protestant, a church that would be Catholic in its worship and sensibilities and Protestant in its theology. This is known as the Anglican via media and this vision undergirds and defines Anglican piety and spiritual temperament.
Only a few times in Anglican history has this spirit been badly violated (one time being during the 1600s with the Puritan victory in the English Civil Wars); otherwise, Anglicans and Episcopalians go A LONG WAY to avoid schism on the basis of their devotion to the church as a via media.
_______________________
Capitol Hill: Hi Diana -- Many of the U.S. dioceses and congregations that are threatening to split off from the U.S. Episcopal church are citing the Gene Robinson's installation as bishop as the precipitating factor, followed by Kathryn Schori's selection as presiding bishop. But isn't it true that for many of these detractors, the real issue goes back to unresolved tensions over the ordination of women, and that Schori's selection is perhaps even more deeply offensive to them than Robinson?
Diana Butler Bass: Capitol Hill, you pay attention to historical trends! The exact same parishes and dioceses who are stressed by Gene's election were also extremely upset about the ordination of women in the 1970s. I believe that your analysis is largely correct. The current cry for schism has been around for some thirty years and found new traction with the New Hampshire election and around the arguments regarding gay and lesbian persons in the church.
However, there exists a small number of conservative women priests who insist that the two issues are separate.
If the radicalized conservatives form a separate denomination, I wonder if they will allow women clergy? I think they might divide into pro-women's ordination and anti-women's ordination conservative factions.
Without the spiritual vision of the via media, how can they hope to create a stable, spiritually sustaining institution?
_______________________
Richmond, Va.: Ms Bass,
Do those who might place themselves under the authority of African bishops understand the profound cultural differences they may encounter? It seems that an impulsive move could have unintended consequences.
Diana Butler Bass: I think not.
_______________________
Carrboro, N.C.: I strongly disagree with your claim that the "old-line liberals" are using a "winner-takes-all strategy" to force their views on everyone in a way that is comparable to the "Radicalized Conservatives." This is a false equivalence.
There's a big difference between seeking to limit who New Hampshire can select as a bishop (a "winner takes all" approach) and allowing New Hampshire to make its own choice (a "live and let live" approach).
The liberals are willing to let people make up their minds. The conservatives insist on everyone agreeing with them.
Diana Butler Bass: Thanks, Carrboro (I used to live in your area!). I know that it may well be difficult for "old line liberals" to see that their views have had a hardening effect on the church. But, and I say this as someone who is deeply sympathetic with their position, I think that some policies and attitudes of my liberal friends have helped to make this situation worse than it may otherwise have been.
Liberalism does have the fundamental position that individuals should make up their own minds. But, on occasion, liberal enthusiasm (hubris, perhaps?) seems to others that people are free mostly to agree with liberals...
I think liberals need to examine this shortfall in their own spirituality honestly.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: Maybe this isn't a popular position to take, but I for one am looking forward to a split. I do not want to be a member of a church that discriminates against the gay community, or any community. I want to go to church with people who think that way too.
Diana Butler Bass: Fairfax, a lot of conservatives think that the slight decrease in church attendance this year is the result of people like themselves protesting Gene Robinson's election. I suspect that a fair percentage comes from folks like yourself who are protesting the other side, too.
Thanks for posting. Yours is an important voice.
_______________________
Baltimore: What is your take on the election of Katherine Jefferts Schiori to Presiding Bishop? I do believe she is the best person and would have been delighted at any other time. However, her election seems to be a slap in the face to those who want to take the church on a conservative/traditionalist path. How did she get elected? Is it the death knell for acceptance by the conservative/traditional diocese worldwide? Is it salt in the wound?
Diana Butler Bass: From conversations with friends of mine in the House of Bishops, they elected KJS because the Holy Spirit directed them to do so.
I wish that some of the conservatives would talk with her. She is a very spiritual person with a profound sense of mission, one who is open to all sorts of innovative ideas regarding church structure, evangelism, and social justice. She's one of those progressive pilgrim types--if only the politicized extremes could give her a chance to live into her call and very distinctive gifts.
To Workingham UK: I think Rowan Williams is one of the most creative post-modern theologians in the world and one of the most authentically spiritual Christian leaders today. I wonder if the old structures of the Church of England--and the global Anglican Communion--can change to accept his leadership? Rather than expecting RW to conform to a dying set of institution structures?
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Ms. Bass,
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Jesus covered all of this with one simple command: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." When I saw other denominations using theology to justify their bigotry, I was disgusted. Now when I see Episcopal churches doing the same I am truly saddened. It amazes me that there are Christians who really believe that if Jesus reappeared today and gave a sermon where he listed all the things that are wrong with our society, that gay bishops and priests would be No. 1 on his list. Forget thousands of children dying of preventable diseases every day, hundreds of thousands of human beings erased by genocide and starvation in Africa, poverty and lack of health care for people in this country. I certainly respect everyone's right to an opinion. I just don't understand how a person could feel this way and call themselves a Christian. But then again, who am I to judge.
Diana Butler Bass: Thank you. I replied to Poolesville by talking about pain. You articulate my pain very well. I joined the Episcopal Church in 1980 for the exact reasons you articulate here. My heart is breaking that the church that taught me so much about loving my neighbor is devolving (in certain quarters at least) into partisan politics, hate mongering, scapegoating, spiritual and verbal violence.
I'm having trouble seeing Jesus these days. And for that, especially this Christmas, I'm very sad.
_______________________
Diana Butler Bass: Thank you to everyone who participated today. I wish you a blessed Advent. And remember: Advent is about waiting, waiting to see God, waiting for the blessedness of peace.
Perhaps the Episcopal Church must be, for the time being, an Advent Church.
_______________________
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Diana Butler Bass
Church Historian
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; 3:00 PM
A dispute with national leadership about the installation of a gay bishop has congregations across the country voting to leave the Episcopal Church.
Historian Diana Butler Bass was online Wednesday, Dec. 6 at 3 p.m. to discuss the reasons behind the split and the possible outcomes for the church.
A transcript follows.
Butler Bass holds a Ph.D. in religious studies from Duke University and is the author of six books on American religious practice. Her latest book is "Christianity for the Rest of Us" (Harper, 2006), and she is currently working on "Episcopalians in America" (Columbia University Press, 2007). She was a senior research fellow at the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Va., and is now a senior fellow at the Cathedral College of the Washington National Cathedral.
____________________
Diana Butler Bass: As an introduction to the chat, it may help folks to know that I am both a church historian and an independent researcher in contemporary American religion. My Ph.D. is from Duke University, where I wrote a prize-winning dissertation (published by Oxford University Press) about evangelical religion in the Episcopal Church in 19th-century America. My most recent book, "Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith," was a Lilly Endowment-funded study of mainline Protestant vitality and it was just named one of the best books of the year by Publishers' Weekly.
I am not an Episcopal priest, nor do I work for the Episcopal Church in any official capacity at the present time. I am an active lay-person -- my family and I are members of the Church of the Epiphany in downtown Washington, D.C.
So, my answers to questions posed come from both my historical knowledge and contemporary expertise -- and they are my own opinions, not that of any institution, congregation or diocese.
_______________________
Sykesville, Md.: As an Episcopalian, I am appalled to hear that anyone wants to join forces with someone who advocates jailing people simply for being gay or bisexual.
That is Orwellian in my view. As in, "All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others."
Maybe that is because I am female, and women have historically been the scapegoat for religions anyway. Now that it's being grudgingly acknowledged that we are human beings too, its sad to see the hunt continuing for a smaller community to bully.
Diana Butler Bass: As a Christian, I equally worry about scapegoating. Scapegoating tends to occur in history when people fear change and when communities think the world is chaotic and needs to be re-ordered by eliminating the source of sin.
Your comments bring to mind the story about St. Paul and the boat. Paul was on a missionary journey when the ship in which he was traveling encountered a storm at sea. The terrified crew blamed Paul and his "foreign god" for the storm. To appease their own gods, they tossed Paul and his party overboard!
Too often Christians toss overboard those whom they think have a "foreign god," in order to calm the storm of change when they real response in the storm should be "all hands on deck"!
_______________________
University Park, Md.: Are the physical plants and real estate occupied by Episcopal churches all owned by the diocese to which they belong, or does this vary by parish? What can we look forward to as far as litigation over these valuable assets?
Diana Butler Bass: I'm not a lawyer or historian of cannon law. My understanding is that both Virginia and Maryland have upheld the contention that the Episcopal Church holds the property of congregations -- and congregations bear property in trust for the larger body. Most court cases, in all mainline denominations, have resulted in the larger body retaining property rights in the case of schism.
_______________________
Capitol Hill: As an Episcopalian who empathizes with the position of the conservatives in the Church, but who attends a socially liberal parish, I am disgusted with the leadership on both sides. But perhaps more so with the liberal leadership since they hold such a majority in the General Convention body, and have been thumbing their noses at conservatives for quite some time. It is the seeming lack of accommodation for conservative parishes on a National level which I think is hardheaded and hypocritical. I hear a great deal of rhetoric about appeals for healing, but when push comes to shove, I think many Church leaders would be happy to show conservatives the door (as long as they leave their property behind). I find it fascinating that my Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Chane, who has been very forward on where he stands in this matter, has found a way to accommodate one of the richest parishes in his Diocese - All Saints Chevy Chase - to keep them happy. He is allowing another more conservative retired bishop to provide pastoral oversight for them. I wonder what Bp. Chane would do if a smaller, poorer parish asked for the same benefits. Is the All Saints case a sign of hope for accommodation, or just another rich squeaky wheel getting the oil?
Diana Butler Bass: Your comments are interesting to me. I do not believe that there are only two sides in this dispute -- I can identify five distinct groups of Episcopalians.
Yes, there are two parties in tension: Old-line liberals and radicalized conservatives. This is the fight we most often read about in the media. However, you point out a third possibility, a centrist party that is trying to navigate between the two extremes (Bishop Peter Lee in Virginia would represent the centrists). From my own research, you are right. The extremes aren't the whole story.
However, there are two additional groups, and these two are far less noticed. I refer to these groups (they don't have a clear "party" identity) as "progressive pilgrims" and "emergent conservatives." These two groups tend to see "issues" like this one as secondary concerns to the practice of Christian faith and are more concerned with things like the practice of hospitality, living forgiveness, practicing reconciliation, learning to pray, feeding the hungry, caring for the environment, and maintaining the Anglican practice of comprehensiveness (being a church of the "middle way"). They may lean slightly left or slightly right on "issues," but reject partisan solutions to theological problems. Both progressive pilgrims and emergent conservatives are far more interested in unity than uniformity; and they appreciate diversity in their congregations as a sign of God's dream for humanity to live in peace.
From observing (and knowing him a bit), I think Bp. Chane is more of a progressive pilgrims than an old-line liberal. And I think he is trying very hard to embody this alternative position in the diocese of Washington.
If the centrists, the progressive pilgrims, and emergent conservatives can come together and offer their distinctive spiritual gifts in the midst of this conflict, I think the Episcopal Church may be able to move forward.
_______________________
Mayfield, Ky.: Ms. Bass: Do you have an idea of why the Episcopal parishes and/or dioceses leaving the Episcopal Church are leaning towards going to a bishop outside the U.S.? There are groups in the U.S. who adhere to the Biblical teachings of the traditional Episcopal Church, such as the ACC, ACA, and the APCK. Thanks for taking my question.
Diana Butler Bass: I actually don't! You would think it would be easier to join one of these groups (or the Reformed Episcopal Church) than going to all the trouble of reaching to Africa.
_______________________
Poolesville: I will start out by explicitly saying I am an evangelical Anglican, who has left his local parish and now attend a small, independent Anglo-Catholic parish in Montgomery County, Md., but still feel brokenhearted, lost and adrift by the movement of the Church away from "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
I'm interested in further explanation of the current strife being "politics, not theology..." as quoted in the article.
From the politics standpoint, the "liberals" do certainly control the levers, but consider the issues of Woman's Ordinations and now acceptance of homosexuality as Holy Spirit inspired new revelation. So it seems that even the political victors won't generally apply political language.
Either way, I suspect they will be Pyrrhic victories, leaving trust funds (e.g., Trinity Wall St) and beautiful cathedrals, but ever smaller memberships, and rejection by orthodox Christian bodies.
I have to say it is a -painful, sorrowful- thing to finally have to decide between one's soul and the local parish, but there is only one choice to make.
Diana Butler Bass: To quote the former president, I feel your pain. A lot of people are in pain right now. Including me, even though I love my local parish; I love the Episcopal Church; and I love Anglicanism. It is painful when Christians have a public fight like this.
My argument relates to my answer to "Capitol Hill." I think that two parties in the Episcopal Church, the Old-line liberals and the Radicalized Conservatives have politicized their particular visions of Christianity into a winner-takes-all strategy of making all Episcopalians agree with their views. From a historical perspective, since 1945, there has been a well-documented, increasing politicization of all of American religion into hardened positions. It is those two groups that are involved right now in political hardball and are trying to drag the rest of us into their argument.
I do, however, think there are some significant groups of Episcopalians -- the centrists, the progressive pilgrims, and the emergent conservatives -- who are attempting to resist politicization in the church and are trying to reground the church on spiritual practice and Christian (and Anglican) traditions. I think this middling-groups (not exactly parties) are working very hard to have a genuine theological discussion (or even argument...arguments are okay in theology...without arguing in the right ways, theology wouldn't even exist!) in the din. So, while some people are concerned about Christian life and theological vision, most of the loudest voices are from partisan combatants. Politics is drowning out theology.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Could you please explain the relevance of a schism within the Episcopalian Church. I understand why this would be a big deal in the Catholic church because it purports to be the one true single and universal church. My understanding is that protestant religions are based on the idea that people should follow the dictates of their consciences and not the dictates of church hierarchy. Is the Episcopal religion different from other protestant religions in a way that makes a schism more significant?
Diana Butler Bass: The history of Anglicanism (the older tradition of which the Episcopal Church is a part) is a long attempt to avoid schism. Throughout Anglicanism's first century, in the 1500s, England raged between extremes of Roman Catholicism and extreme Protestantism in a violent series of religious and political reversals that left the nation -- and the nation's church -- exhausted.
Richard Hooker, the Anglican theologian who is credited with ending this theological strife, helped the English Church envision itself as a "middle way" between Catholic and Protestant, a church that would be Catholic in its worship and sensibilities and Protestant in its theology. This is known as the Anglican via media and this vision undergirds and defines Anglican piety and spiritual temperament.
Only a few times in Anglican history has this spirit been badly violated (one time being during the 1600s with the Puritan victory in the English Civil Wars); otherwise, Anglicans and Episcopalians go A LONG WAY to avoid schism on the basis of their devotion to the church as a via media.
_______________________
Capitol Hill: Hi Diana -- Many of the U.S. dioceses and congregations that are threatening to split off from the U.S. Episcopal church are citing the Gene Robinson's installation as bishop as the precipitating factor, followed by Kathryn Schori's selection as presiding bishop. But isn't it true that for many of these detractors, the real issue goes back to unresolved tensions over the ordination of women, and that Schori's selection is perhaps even more deeply offensive to them than Robinson?
Diana Butler Bass: Capitol Hill, you pay attention to historical trends! The exact same parishes and dioceses who are stressed by Gene's election were also extremely upset about the ordination of women in the 1970s. I believe that your analysis is largely correct. The current cry for schism has been around for some thirty years and found new traction with the New Hampshire election and around the arguments regarding gay and lesbian persons in the church.
However, there exists a small number of conservative women priests who insist that the two issues are separate.
If the radicalized conservatives form a separate denomination, I wonder if they will allow women clergy? I think they might divide into pro-women's ordination and anti-women's ordination conservative factions.
Without the spiritual vision of the via media, how can they hope to create a stable, spiritually sustaining institution?
_______________________
Richmond, Va.: Ms Bass,
Do those who might place themselves under the authority of African bishops understand the profound cultural differences they may encounter? It seems that an impulsive move could have unintended consequences.
Diana Butler Bass: I think not.
_______________________
Carrboro, N.C.: I strongly disagree with your claim that the "old-line liberals" are using a "winner-takes-all strategy" to force their views on everyone in a way that is comparable to the "Radicalized Conservatives." This is a false equivalence.
There's a big difference between seeking to limit who New Hampshire can select as a bishop (a "winner takes all" approach) and allowing New Hampshire to make its own choice (a "live and let live" approach).
The liberals are willing to let people make up their minds. The conservatives insist on everyone agreeing with them.
Diana Butler Bass: Thanks, Carrboro (I used to live in your area!). I know that it may well be difficult for "old line liberals" to see that their views have had a hardening effect on the church. But, and I say this as someone who is deeply sympathetic with their position, I think that some policies and attitudes of my liberal friends have helped to make this situation worse than it may otherwise have been.
Liberalism does have the fundamental position that individuals should make up their own minds. But, on occasion, liberal enthusiasm (hubris, perhaps?) seems to others that people are free mostly to agree with liberals...
I think liberals need to examine this shortfall in their own spirituality honestly.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: Maybe this isn't a popular position to take, but I for one am looking forward to a split. I do not want to be a member of a church that discriminates against the gay community, or any community. I want to go to church with people who think that way too.
Diana Butler Bass: Fairfax, a lot of conservatives think that the slight decrease in church attendance this year is the result of people like themselves protesting Gene Robinson's election. I suspect that a fair percentage comes from folks like yourself who are protesting the other side, too.
Thanks for posting. Yours is an important voice.
_______________________
Baltimore: What is your take on the election of Katherine Jefferts Schiori to Presiding Bishop? I do believe she is the best person and would have been delighted at any other time. However, her election seems to be a slap in the face to those who want to take the church on a conservative/traditionalist path. How did she get elected? Is it the death knell for acceptance by the conservative/traditional diocese worldwide? Is it salt in the wound?
Diana Butler Bass: From conversations with friends of mine in the House of Bishops, they elected KJS because the Holy Spirit directed them to do so.
I wish that some of the conservatives would talk with her. She is a very spiritual person with a profound sense of mission, one who is open to all sorts of innovative ideas regarding church structure, evangelism, and social justice. She's one of those progressive pilgrim types--if only the politicized extremes could give her a chance to live into her call and very distinctive gifts.
To Workingham UK: I think Rowan Williams is one of the most creative post-modern theologians in the world and one of the most authentically spiritual Christian leaders today. I wonder if the old structures of the Church of England--and the global Anglican Communion--can change to accept his leadership? Rather than expecting RW to conform to a dying set of institution structures?
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Ms. Bass,
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Jesus covered all of this with one simple command: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." When I saw other denominations using theology to justify their bigotry, I was disgusted. Now when I see Episcopal churches doing the same I am truly saddened. It amazes me that there are Christians who really believe that if Jesus reappeared today and gave a sermon where he listed all the things that are wrong with our society, that gay bishops and priests would be No. 1 on his list. Forget thousands of children dying of preventable diseases every day, hundreds of thousands of human beings erased by genocide and starvation in Africa, poverty and lack of health care for people in this country. I certainly respect everyone's right to an opinion. I just don't understand how a person could feel this way and call themselves a Christian. But then again, who am I to judge.
Diana Butler Bass: Thank you. I replied to Poolesville by talking about pain. You articulate my pain very well. I joined the Episcopal Church in 1980 for the exact reasons you articulate here. My heart is breaking that the church that taught me so much about loving my neighbor is devolving (in certain quarters at least) into partisan politics, hate mongering, scapegoating, spiritual and verbal violence.
I'm having trouble seeing Jesus these days. And for that, especially this Christmas, I'm very sad.
_______________________
Diana Butler Bass: Thank you to everyone who participated today. I wish you a blessed Advent. And remember: Advent is about waiting, waiting to see God, waiting for the blessedness of peace.
Perhaps the Episcopal Church must be, for the time being, an Advent Church.
_______________________
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Another Answer to Lionel
In the comments section under the story from The Living Church, "Bishop-elect Lawrence Sees Election Resistance in Broader Context," Lionel Deimel of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh comments on my editor's note:
If what you say is correct, the people asking about Barbara Harris were misled. According to the canons, standing committees give consent on the basis of knowling of no impediment to the consecration. That is pretty general and doesn’t specifically refer to process. Bishops with jurisdiction only vote up or down. No criteria are listed in the canons. Mark Lawrence is fair game, but so is every other bishop-elect. Practice may have been otherwise, and that may have been unfortunate.
5:00 AM
In addition to the comment from another priest that I posted there, is the following from Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina about his giving consent for the consecration of Gene Robinson. For a full transcript of this reflection, go to www.episdionc.com/bishops_reflection.htm
"This reflection is written from the context of my decision to give consent
to the election and consecration of the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as bishop
of New Hampshire.
"I need not go into great detail about the discussion engendered by this
election. Concern centered on the fact that Canon Robinson is a gay man who
is in a life long, monogamous partnership with another Christian man. My
decision to give consent was a statement. The process of electing the new
bishop was prayerful, lawful according to canon law of our church, and
conducted in “decency and order.”"
Now, I ask, was there anything in the election of Mark Lawrence that wasn't "prayerful, lawful according to canon law of our church, and
conducted in “decency and order?" If the election in SC followed the criteria given by the Bishop of NC, why are liberal dioceses withholding consents to his consecration? My answer is that liberals have two standards; one is applied to conservative bishops' elect and another is applied to their fellow liberals. As we have seen with Bishops Harris, Iker, Ackerman, Robinson and now Bishop-elect Lawrence, liberals are not consistent and will not engage the business of the church with any sense of fair play.
If what you say is correct, the people asking about Barbara Harris were misled. According to the canons, standing committees give consent on the basis of knowling of no impediment to the consecration. That is pretty general and doesn’t specifically refer to process. Bishops with jurisdiction only vote up or down. No criteria are listed in the canons. Mark Lawrence is fair game, but so is every other bishop-elect. Practice may have been otherwise, and that may have been unfortunate.
5:00 AM
In addition to the comment from another priest that I posted there, is the following from Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina about his giving consent for the consecration of Gene Robinson. For a full transcript of this reflection, go to www.episdionc.com/bishops_reflection.htm
"This reflection is written from the context of my decision to give consent
to the election and consecration of the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as bishop
of New Hampshire.
"I need not go into great detail about the discussion engendered by this
election. Concern centered on the fact that Canon Robinson is a gay man who
is in a life long, monogamous partnership with another Christian man. My
decision to give consent was a statement. The process of electing the new
bishop was prayerful, lawful according to canon law of our church, and
conducted in “decency and order.”"
Now, I ask, was there anything in the election of Mark Lawrence that wasn't "prayerful, lawful according to canon law of our church, and
conducted in “decency and order?" If the election in SC followed the criteria given by the Bishop of NC, why are liberal dioceses withholding consents to his consecration? My answer is that liberals have two standards; one is applied to conservative bishops' elect and another is applied to their fellow liberals. As we have seen with Bishops Harris, Iker, Ackerman, Robinson and now Bishop-elect Lawrence, liberals are not consistent and will not engage the business of the church with any sense of fair play.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Archbishop Venables to the Diocese of San Joaquin
posted December 6, 2006
The Most Reverend Gregory Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone
Crisis in the Anglican Communion
These are difficult days in the Anglican Communion. As Primates we are only too aware of the problems orthodox believers are facing in the Episcopal Church in the United States. The division which we face, and to which we referred as “the tearing at the very fabric of the Anglican Communion,” has already happened, and has been recognized as having happened. At the Lambeth conference in 1998, over 90 percent of the bishops present voted to make it clear that the overwhelming mind of the Anglican Communion is that in terms--in the area of human sexuality, there are two options to the Christian: marriage between two people, and intended for life; or abstinence.
We thought that that was clear enough, but it soon became clear from actions, and words, and decisions made, that not everybody wanted to follow the line of the Communion, and we all knew at that moment that this present separation was going to happen; and basically it happened because there are two ways, at the present moment, of defining Christianity. One is to accept the way the Church—catholic—over the last 2,000 years has defined it, in terms of God and the revelation He’s given us in Scripture, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only Savior. Or, at the present moment, in post-modern terms, where it’s whatever you want it to be because truth no longer can be defined.
In our Primates’ meeting in Brazil in 2003, we said very clearly, as Primates, “Please, don’t do it.” And then the decision was made in the United States, in spite of us pleading with the leadership there not to do it. We met together, and in an emergency meeting in Lambeth in October, 2003, and we said, “Don’t go ahead with the consecration,” and a few weeks later, the consecration took place. We then worked towards the completion of the Windsor Report, and at our meeting in Northern Ireland in February, 2005, we said, “Here is the Windsor Report. Take it-- Take it outside. Read it. Consider it, and then let us know whether you are prepared to come back into the Anglican Communion with an expression of repentance and putting things right, and then we’ll be able to move forward once again in terms of what we would call ‘Communion.’”
At the General Convention in the United States in 2006 the decisions made and the actions taken have made it perfectly clear that ECUSA is not willing to comply with the minimal request of the Windsor report. On the basis of that, the Global South primates met in Kigali, in Rwanda in September, 2006, and we decided to move ahead with the preparation of a model of Alternative Primatial Oversight. We discussed this with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and we are clear that we want to do everything in collaboration and consultation with the Four Instruments of Unity. We met together in Washington, D.C. in November, 2006, and we listened to the experiences and the voices of Windsor Report Dioceses, of the Network, and of other people, and it became clear that God is calling us to form a united group which will move together with this plan for there to be Alternative Primatial Oversight within the United States, worked through and authorized by the Primates of the Anglican Communion. That suggestion will go to the Primates in February at our meeting in Tanzania, which is a unified, consistent, and fully supported message from the leadership of the Global South. It is as though you might need to separate from an agenda which has left long ago the plan of God for the Christian Church, and no time will you have to separate from the Anglican Communion.
So, our word for you, with great respect, and with great love, and with our prayers-- is, “Don’t despair.” “Don’t fret.” As James, in his Epistle, said, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,” and there’s a very good reason for that. When Jesus Christ calls you to be a member of the Christian Church, it is an offer he makes, as a result of enormous sacrifice, which he made. As a result of his great sacrifice you and I will never have to face what he faced. We will never face that awful moment when he cried out from his very heart as his body was wracked with physical and mental and emotional and spiritual pain, “Why have you abandoned me?” We are in communion with our Creator, God, through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for eternity. But standing for that here, in this world, does require sacrifice, and that sacrifice means that we have to move out of our comfort zone.
When the Apostle Paul was freed from a religion which had abandoned God’s agenda, and freed into the true Christian faith, God sent a message to him through Ananias, telling him “how much he must suffer for my sake.” My dear friends, I don’t say this lightly: suffering is not an easy thing. But if you are serious about the Lord Jesus Christ then you will have to prepare for this. There are no two ways about it; and the major price you and I will have to pay is standing up in the face of criticism, and in the face of opposition, and in the face of rejection. There has never been a moment in the history of the Christian Church when that has not been true, and our wonderful, our beloved Anglican Church is founded on the blood of martyrs, like Latimer, and Ridley, and Cranmer, who gave at the stake their lives because they knew they had no other option.
When I’m preparing people for service, ordained ministry or lay ministry, I often like to remind them of what the Apostle Paul had to face when he became a minister. Let me read you those words just to remind you. He said, “Are they servants of Christ?” –I’m a better one— “I’m talking like a madman--with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death, five times I received at the hands of the Jews the 40 lashes less one, three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, at night and a day I was adrift at sea. Frequent journeys in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers, in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure, and apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches.”
My dear brothers and sisters, to be a follower of Jesus Christ and to serve him is not a comfortable or an easy option, and if we expect it to be then we are going to be disappointed. If we are not facing great difficulties in our Christian lives and our Christian ministry then I seriously believe we need to question whether we really are at all Christians. If you stand up for the Lord Jesus Christ, if you offer yourself to serve him, then you’re going to face difficulties, but we have no option. So please, do not be over-distressed at what is happening.
When the Apostle Paul finished, he wrote from imprisonment to a very worried Timothy. He was able to say that he’d completed his ministry, but consider the terms he used to describe it: “I have fought the good fight, I’ve run the race, I have kept the faith.” And you and I are called to do exactly the same. It is a fight. It’s a race that requires discipline, and exertion, and effort, and we have to keep the faith, both in terms of keeping the faith pure, and in faith of being—and in terms of being obedient to the faith. The coming days might well be difficult, but listen to what the Apostle Paul said about his experience of keeping the faith: “We don’t want you to be ignorant, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia, for we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we’d received the sentence of death.” There is always, and had to be, that sort of tension in true Christian service. We are always going to find ourselves between a rock and a hard place, but he goes on to say that “that was to make us—but that was to make us rely not on ourselves, but on God who raises the dead.”
I do pray that that speaks to your heart, my dear brother, my dear sister. The difficult place you and I find ourselves in all too often as a result of wanting to follow Jesus, is the very thing that causes us to remain faithful, and listen to what Paul goes on to say: “He delivered us from such a deadly peril.” We can all look back and say, “Yes, he delivered me.” Yes, he delivered me, and I’m so grateful, that when I was so up against it, I didn’t know which way to turn. As an Argentine friend of mine once said in preaching, “I was so low, I had to raise my hand to touch the floor, but he delivered me, because that’s the sort of God we serve.” We might find ourselves in the fiery furnace, but at the very moment when the worst thing happens we suddenly find that the Son of God is walking with us there in the flames. And in the fiery furnace the only thing that got burned up are the ropes that bound them. Maybe God is going to free us up a whole lot in this trial we’re going through. But then he goes on and says, “On Him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again,” and there is the moment of faith. We look back, and we say, “He’s delivered us.” And we know he’s going to deliver us again.
Nobody enjoys a bad moment. Nobody who is a true Christian says, “I enjoy suffering, I enjoy the trial, I think this is great.” Of course we don’t. But we can count it all joy because even in the midst of trials there is glory, and that’s where we meet God.
And please don’t think I’m talking to you from a great distance and sitting comfortably. If you weep, I weep, too. If your heart is broken, my heart is broken. If you struggle, I struggle, and that’s why we’re doing this together, because we are all out of the same fragile, sinful mold, and we are all walking our way towards the wonderful future that God has for us.
So, please, be assured not only of our prayers, but of the fact that we’re standing with you, and that we’re working this through with you. I cannot tell you how much I respect your wonderful bishop, John-David. He’s a man that I’ve learned to listen to, and to draw near to, and I am so thrilled that God has given you a courageous-- a brave man-- to lead your church at this time. I urge you to give him your full support, and to work with him, and be assured, I, and my other colleagues at the Global South are walking with you, too. May God bless you and be with you.
The Most Reverend Gregory Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone
Crisis in the Anglican Communion
These are difficult days in the Anglican Communion. As Primates we are only too aware of the problems orthodox believers are facing in the Episcopal Church in the United States. The division which we face, and to which we referred as “the tearing at the very fabric of the Anglican Communion,” has already happened, and has been recognized as having happened. At the Lambeth conference in 1998, over 90 percent of the bishops present voted to make it clear that the overwhelming mind of the Anglican Communion is that in terms--in the area of human sexuality, there are two options to the Christian: marriage between two people, and intended for life; or abstinence.
We thought that that was clear enough, but it soon became clear from actions, and words, and decisions made, that not everybody wanted to follow the line of the Communion, and we all knew at that moment that this present separation was going to happen; and basically it happened because there are two ways, at the present moment, of defining Christianity. One is to accept the way the Church—catholic—over the last 2,000 years has defined it, in terms of God and the revelation He’s given us in Scripture, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only Savior. Or, at the present moment, in post-modern terms, where it’s whatever you want it to be because truth no longer can be defined.
In our Primates’ meeting in Brazil in 2003, we said very clearly, as Primates, “Please, don’t do it.” And then the decision was made in the United States, in spite of us pleading with the leadership there not to do it. We met together, and in an emergency meeting in Lambeth in October, 2003, and we said, “Don’t go ahead with the consecration,” and a few weeks later, the consecration took place. We then worked towards the completion of the Windsor Report, and at our meeting in Northern Ireland in February, 2005, we said, “Here is the Windsor Report. Take it-- Take it outside. Read it. Consider it, and then let us know whether you are prepared to come back into the Anglican Communion with an expression of repentance and putting things right, and then we’ll be able to move forward once again in terms of what we would call ‘Communion.’”
At the General Convention in the United States in 2006 the decisions made and the actions taken have made it perfectly clear that ECUSA is not willing to comply with the minimal request of the Windsor report. On the basis of that, the Global South primates met in Kigali, in Rwanda in September, 2006, and we decided to move ahead with the preparation of a model of Alternative Primatial Oversight. We discussed this with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and we are clear that we want to do everything in collaboration and consultation with the Four Instruments of Unity. We met together in Washington, D.C. in November, 2006, and we listened to the experiences and the voices of Windsor Report Dioceses, of the Network, and of other people, and it became clear that God is calling us to form a united group which will move together with this plan for there to be Alternative Primatial Oversight within the United States, worked through and authorized by the Primates of the Anglican Communion. That suggestion will go to the Primates in February at our meeting in Tanzania, which is a unified, consistent, and fully supported message from the leadership of the Global South. It is as though you might need to separate from an agenda which has left long ago the plan of God for the Christian Church, and no time will you have to separate from the Anglican Communion.
So, our word for you, with great respect, and with great love, and with our prayers-- is, “Don’t despair.” “Don’t fret.” As James, in his Epistle, said, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,” and there’s a very good reason for that. When Jesus Christ calls you to be a member of the Christian Church, it is an offer he makes, as a result of enormous sacrifice, which he made. As a result of his great sacrifice you and I will never have to face what he faced. We will never face that awful moment when he cried out from his very heart as his body was wracked with physical and mental and emotional and spiritual pain, “Why have you abandoned me?” We are in communion with our Creator, God, through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for eternity. But standing for that here, in this world, does require sacrifice, and that sacrifice means that we have to move out of our comfort zone.
When the Apostle Paul was freed from a religion which had abandoned God’s agenda, and freed into the true Christian faith, God sent a message to him through Ananias, telling him “how much he must suffer for my sake.” My dear friends, I don’t say this lightly: suffering is not an easy thing. But if you are serious about the Lord Jesus Christ then you will have to prepare for this. There are no two ways about it; and the major price you and I will have to pay is standing up in the face of criticism, and in the face of opposition, and in the face of rejection. There has never been a moment in the history of the Christian Church when that has not been true, and our wonderful, our beloved Anglican Church is founded on the blood of martyrs, like Latimer, and Ridley, and Cranmer, who gave at the stake their lives because they knew they had no other option.
When I’m preparing people for service, ordained ministry or lay ministry, I often like to remind them of what the Apostle Paul had to face when he became a minister. Let me read you those words just to remind you. He said, “Are they servants of Christ?” –I’m a better one— “I’m talking like a madman--with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death, five times I received at the hands of the Jews the 40 lashes less one, three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, at night and a day I was adrift at sea. Frequent journeys in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers, in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure, and apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches.”
My dear brothers and sisters, to be a follower of Jesus Christ and to serve him is not a comfortable or an easy option, and if we expect it to be then we are going to be disappointed. If we are not facing great difficulties in our Christian lives and our Christian ministry then I seriously believe we need to question whether we really are at all Christians. If you stand up for the Lord Jesus Christ, if you offer yourself to serve him, then you’re going to face difficulties, but we have no option. So please, do not be over-distressed at what is happening.
When the Apostle Paul finished, he wrote from imprisonment to a very worried Timothy. He was able to say that he’d completed his ministry, but consider the terms he used to describe it: “I have fought the good fight, I’ve run the race, I have kept the faith.” And you and I are called to do exactly the same. It is a fight. It’s a race that requires discipline, and exertion, and effort, and we have to keep the faith, both in terms of keeping the faith pure, and in faith of being—and in terms of being obedient to the faith. The coming days might well be difficult, but listen to what the Apostle Paul said about his experience of keeping the faith: “We don’t want you to be ignorant, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia, for we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we’d received the sentence of death.” There is always, and had to be, that sort of tension in true Christian service. We are always going to find ourselves between a rock and a hard place, but he goes on to say that “that was to make us—but that was to make us rely not on ourselves, but on God who raises the dead.”
I do pray that that speaks to your heart, my dear brother, my dear sister. The difficult place you and I find ourselves in all too often as a result of wanting to follow Jesus, is the very thing that causes us to remain faithful, and listen to what Paul goes on to say: “He delivered us from such a deadly peril.” We can all look back and say, “Yes, he delivered me.” Yes, he delivered me, and I’m so grateful, that when I was so up against it, I didn’t know which way to turn. As an Argentine friend of mine once said in preaching, “I was so low, I had to raise my hand to touch the floor, but he delivered me, because that’s the sort of God we serve.” We might find ourselves in the fiery furnace, but at the very moment when the worst thing happens we suddenly find that the Son of God is walking with us there in the flames. And in the fiery furnace the only thing that got burned up are the ropes that bound them. Maybe God is going to free us up a whole lot in this trial we’re going through. But then he goes on and says, “On Him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again,” and there is the moment of faith. We look back, and we say, “He’s delivered us.” And we know he’s going to deliver us again.
Nobody enjoys a bad moment. Nobody who is a true Christian says, “I enjoy suffering, I enjoy the trial, I think this is great.” Of course we don’t. But we can count it all joy because even in the midst of trials there is glory, and that’s where we meet God.
And please don’t think I’m talking to you from a great distance and sitting comfortably. If you weep, I weep, too. If your heart is broken, my heart is broken. If you struggle, I struggle, and that’s why we’re doing this together, because we are all out of the same fragile, sinful mold, and we are all walking our way towards the wonderful future that God has for us.
So, please, be assured not only of our prayers, but of the fact that we’re standing with you, and that we’re working this through with you. I cannot tell you how much I respect your wonderful bishop, John-David. He’s a man that I’ve learned to listen to, and to draw near to, and I am so thrilled that God has given you a courageous-- a brave man-- to lead your church at this time. I urge you to give him your full support, and to work with him, and be assured, I, and my other colleagues at the Global South are walking with you, too. May God bless you and be with you.
Update to an Editor's Note from August 31
DCNY has taken a small change in direction due to some information that the editor has received about what information parishioners are receiving from their parish priests. I have been told that parishioners in the Diocese of Central NY are not being informed about what is going on at the national level of The Episcopal Church, nor what is happening in the Anglican Communion. Apparently, parish priests in our diocese believe that the best course of action is keeping their people in the dark about the realignment that is happening in ecusa and the Anglican Communion.
Update: I had the above confirmed at our recently concluded diocesan convention. There I was told by two rectors that they purposely keep their people in the dark about what is happening in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion so that they can focus on "local ministry." I wonder what will happen in these places when their people hear that ecusa has been disciplined by the Anglican Communion - sidelined or kicked out? Maybe that won't matter to their people. Who knows?
Continuing from 8/31: DCNY will continue to publish articles that pertain to actions within our diocese, but also articles that explain what is going on nationally and internationally. The light of Christ is shining out in remarkable ways in ecusa as parishes aligned with the Anglican Communion Network and other Anglican bodies in the United States and Canada are joining to work together for the kingdom of God. Thanks be to God.
Update: I had the above confirmed at our recently concluded diocesan convention. There I was told by two rectors that they purposely keep their people in the dark about what is happening in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion so that they can focus on "local ministry." I wonder what will happen in these places when their people hear that ecusa has been disciplined by the Anglican Communion - sidelined or kicked out? Maybe that won't matter to their people. Who knows?
Continuing from 8/31: DCNY will continue to publish articles that pertain to actions within our diocese, but also articles that explain what is going on nationally and internationally. The light of Christ is shining out in remarkable ways in ecusa as parishes aligned with the Anglican Communion Network and other Anglican bodies in the United States and Canada are joining to work together for the kingdom of God. Thanks be to God.
Passing the Blame Around
From the IRD website:
Ralph Webb
In an essay entitled "Lab Report" from her forthcoming book A Wing and a Prayer, new Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori laments signs of conflict in the world, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet she is most concerned with "some pretty profound disunity"1 in the Anglican Communion. On this issue, her words for some fellow primates in the Anglican Communion are as strong as the words that she has been using when communicating with orthodox Anglicans in the Episcopal Church (TEC).
What is the source of this "pretty profound disunity"? In the bishop's own words, it's "primates lobbing fiats of dis-fellowship, edicts of impaired communion, and, when all else fails, intercontinental ballistic bishops."2 While she does not mention any primates by name, she apparently blames the current crisis in the Anglican Communion on the orthodox primates who have declared that their provinces are in "impaired communion" with the Episcopal Church.
In a soon to be released book, Jefferts Schori accuses conservative bishops of "lobbing fiats of dis-fellowship" in an attempt to foster disunity.
The phrase "intercontinental ballistic bishops" appears to be Jefferts Schori's caustic characterization of overseas primates who have taken TEC's orthodox Anglican parishes under their wing. Progressive Episcopalians long have decried what they call "boundary crossings"—cases in which bishops of another province take actions within TEC dioceses without the diocesan bishop's permission. This term has been applied to acts such as confirmations and the ordination of clergy, as well as the aforementioned instances of parishes leaving the Episcopal Church and placing themselves under another Anglican province.
From here, the "Lab Report" gets "curiouser and curiouser" as Bishop Jefferts Schori proceeds deeper into her own Alice in Wonderland-like rabbit hole. She makes this comment: "This is not the friendly rivalry of a game of pick-up basketball. It is the grievous division of Joseph and his brothers."3
This last biblical image is both revealing and puzzling. According to the story in Genesis 37-50, Joseph was favored by God and his father Jacob. He also was hated and envied by his brothers. This hatred and envy were so intense that they sold Joseph into slavery. He was taken to Egypt, where many years later he rose to become Pharoah's second-in-command. His brothers were reunited with him after a famine forced them to go to Egypt for food. Through a lengthy process, all of the brothers were reconciled with Joseph and, ironically, were spared from death due to Joseph's mercy on them. The story relates God's providential, if mysterious, outworking of all things for good—a truth later affirmed by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans.
So how does this story relate to the Anglican Communion? "Joseph," to Bishop Jefferts Schori, must be the Episcopal Church. "His brothers," then, are the orthodox Anglican primates. By comparing TEC with Joseph, Bishop Jefferts Schori implies that TEC is following and is favored by God. The primates, meanwhile, appear in a much less favorable light.
Does Bishop Jefferts Schori have a particular moment in the story of Joseph and his brothers to which she wants to compare the current situation in the Anglican Communion? At least three possibilities present themselves.
First, the primates could be the brothers in the early part of the story, when they are jealous of both Joseph's famous coat and the favor shown to him by both God and man. In this case, the primates are implicitly charged with the sin of envy.
Second, the primates could be the brothers at the point when they dispose of Joseph. Do the primates have destructive ends in mind for the Episcopal Church? Are they selling gays and lesbians into slavery by standing for traditional Christian teachings on sexuality? Perhaps this was the train of thought in the Presiding Bishop's mind. Or, third, the primates could be the brothers who many years later find that their left-for-dead brother is actually the source of their salvation from famine. If this is her intention, Bishop Jefferts Schori may be looking toward the day when the primates eventually recognize that the Episcopal Church has been right on the issues that have divided the Anglican Communion.4
It's possible that any combination of these three possibilities is on Bishop Jefferts Schori's mind—or none of them. She may have other connections in mind, or even just a vague, not fully formed association of the current crisis with the story of Joseph.5 In any case, however, the implied association of the primates with Joseph's brothers seems ill-informed and even insulting.
More importantly, in her description of the Anglican Communion crisis, the bishop acknowledges no culpability on the part of the Episcopal Church in the current crisis facing the Anglican Communion:
*
She ignores the July 2003 warning of many primates that if TEC proceeded with actions at odds with traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, it would place itself outside the consensus of the Anglican Communion.
*
She sidesteps former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold's signature on an October 2003 statement in which the primates recognized that if TEC continued on its path, the whole Anglican Communion would be torn apart. (Bishop Griswold almost immediately turned around and declared his intention to participate in the consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. He fulfilled his promise the following month.)
*
She disregards the deep internal strife within TEC. Even supporters of the highly controversial B033, the major resolution at the 2006 General Convention responding to the Anglican Communion's Windsor Report, admitted that the resolution was only "the best that we [could] do."
She also does not mention Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' critique of TEC's actions in his post-General Convention letter of June 27:
[N]o member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions—and sacramental actions in particular—just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn't a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences—and that actions believed in good faith to be 'prophetic' in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.
Instead, Bishop Jefferts Schori charges that the root cause of the Anglican Communion's mess is "the great sin of the church … the desire to be right."6 And what do the primates "desire to be right" about so much that they would, from her perspective, "[lob] fiats … [and] edicts" across the Communion? They desire to serve God faithfully in their teaching regarding issues and institutions such as marriage. Is marriage a "bond and covenant [between one man and one woman]… established by God in creation," as the Book of Common Prayer says? Or is it something culturally bound and therefore malleable?
Certainly the bishop herself "desire[s] to be right" concerning her overarching "vision of shalom." She is in earnest about the UN's Millennium Development Goals as an expression of her progressive social justice-inspired "dream of God." Jefferts Schori outlined these planks of her vision for TEC in her investiture sermon. Sadly, neither they nor her unorthodox theology will heal the wounds of either the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion.
For TEC's new Presiding Bishop to make headway with orthodox Anglicans both in the United States and around the world, she needs to offer more than just words of "shalom." As a start, she needs to accept TEC's contribution to the current crisis. And, through her words and actions, she needs to show an understanding of and respect for the positions of those who differ with her.
1Katharine Jefferts Schori, A Wing and a Prayer: A Message of Faith and Hope (booklet of excerpts). New York: Morehouse Publishing, 2007. 11.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4She said as much in a June 2006 interview with PBS' Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly: "I hope that our decisions at this General Convention send several messages to the rest of the communion: … that people of all colors and races and nations and language groups and sexual orientations are fully part of this creation that God has blessed us with."
5Bishop Jefferts Schori does express confidence in God's turning evil actions into good, with the evil being defined as "hate toward us" (p. 13). While she speaks in general terms here, her previous comments raise the question of whether she would understand the orthodox Anglican primates' disposition toward TEC as "hate toward us."
6Ibid.
Date: 12/4/2006
Ralph Webb
In an essay entitled "Lab Report" from her forthcoming book A Wing and a Prayer, new Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori laments signs of conflict in the world, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet she is most concerned with "some pretty profound disunity"1 in the Anglican Communion. On this issue, her words for some fellow primates in the Anglican Communion are as strong as the words that she has been using when communicating with orthodox Anglicans in the Episcopal Church (TEC).
What is the source of this "pretty profound disunity"? In the bishop's own words, it's "primates lobbing fiats of dis-fellowship, edicts of impaired communion, and, when all else fails, intercontinental ballistic bishops."2 While she does not mention any primates by name, she apparently blames the current crisis in the Anglican Communion on the orthodox primates who have declared that their provinces are in "impaired communion" with the Episcopal Church.
In a soon to be released book, Jefferts Schori accuses conservative bishops of "lobbing fiats of dis-fellowship" in an attempt to foster disunity.
The phrase "intercontinental ballistic bishops" appears to be Jefferts Schori's caustic characterization of overseas primates who have taken TEC's orthodox Anglican parishes under their wing. Progressive Episcopalians long have decried what they call "boundary crossings"—cases in which bishops of another province take actions within TEC dioceses without the diocesan bishop's permission. This term has been applied to acts such as confirmations and the ordination of clergy, as well as the aforementioned instances of parishes leaving the Episcopal Church and placing themselves under another Anglican province.
From here, the "Lab Report" gets "curiouser and curiouser" as Bishop Jefferts Schori proceeds deeper into her own Alice in Wonderland-like rabbit hole. She makes this comment: "This is not the friendly rivalry of a game of pick-up basketball. It is the grievous division of Joseph and his brothers."3
This last biblical image is both revealing and puzzling. According to the story in Genesis 37-50, Joseph was favored by God and his father Jacob. He also was hated and envied by his brothers. This hatred and envy were so intense that they sold Joseph into slavery. He was taken to Egypt, where many years later he rose to become Pharoah's second-in-command. His brothers were reunited with him after a famine forced them to go to Egypt for food. Through a lengthy process, all of the brothers were reconciled with Joseph and, ironically, were spared from death due to Joseph's mercy on them. The story relates God's providential, if mysterious, outworking of all things for good—a truth later affirmed by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans.
So how does this story relate to the Anglican Communion? "Joseph," to Bishop Jefferts Schori, must be the Episcopal Church. "His brothers," then, are the orthodox Anglican primates. By comparing TEC with Joseph, Bishop Jefferts Schori implies that TEC is following and is favored by God. The primates, meanwhile, appear in a much less favorable light.
Does Bishop Jefferts Schori have a particular moment in the story of Joseph and his brothers to which she wants to compare the current situation in the Anglican Communion? At least three possibilities present themselves.
First, the primates could be the brothers in the early part of the story, when they are jealous of both Joseph's famous coat and the favor shown to him by both God and man. In this case, the primates are implicitly charged with the sin of envy.
Second, the primates could be the brothers at the point when they dispose of Joseph. Do the primates have destructive ends in mind for the Episcopal Church? Are they selling gays and lesbians into slavery by standing for traditional Christian teachings on sexuality? Perhaps this was the train of thought in the Presiding Bishop's mind. Or, third, the primates could be the brothers who many years later find that their left-for-dead brother is actually the source of their salvation from famine. If this is her intention, Bishop Jefferts Schori may be looking toward the day when the primates eventually recognize that the Episcopal Church has been right on the issues that have divided the Anglican Communion.4
It's possible that any combination of these three possibilities is on Bishop Jefferts Schori's mind—or none of them. She may have other connections in mind, or even just a vague, not fully formed association of the current crisis with the story of Joseph.5 In any case, however, the implied association of the primates with Joseph's brothers seems ill-informed and even insulting.
More importantly, in her description of the Anglican Communion crisis, the bishop acknowledges no culpability on the part of the Episcopal Church in the current crisis facing the Anglican Communion:
*
She ignores the July 2003 warning of many primates that if TEC proceeded with actions at odds with traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, it would place itself outside the consensus of the Anglican Communion.
*
She sidesteps former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold's signature on an October 2003 statement in which the primates recognized that if TEC continued on its path, the whole Anglican Communion would be torn apart. (Bishop Griswold almost immediately turned around and declared his intention to participate in the consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. He fulfilled his promise the following month.)
*
She disregards the deep internal strife within TEC. Even supporters of the highly controversial B033, the major resolution at the 2006 General Convention responding to the Anglican Communion's Windsor Report, admitted that the resolution was only "the best that we [could] do."
She also does not mention Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' critique of TEC's actions in his post-General Convention letter of June 27:
[N]o member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions—and sacramental actions in particular—just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn't a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences—and that actions believed in good faith to be 'prophetic' in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.
Instead, Bishop Jefferts Schori charges that the root cause of the Anglican Communion's mess is "the great sin of the church … the desire to be right."6 And what do the primates "desire to be right" about so much that they would, from her perspective, "[lob] fiats … [and] edicts" across the Communion? They desire to serve God faithfully in their teaching regarding issues and institutions such as marriage. Is marriage a "bond and covenant [between one man and one woman]… established by God in creation," as the Book of Common Prayer says? Or is it something culturally bound and therefore malleable?
Certainly the bishop herself "desire[s] to be right" concerning her overarching "vision of shalom." She is in earnest about the UN's Millennium Development Goals as an expression of her progressive social justice-inspired "dream of God." Jefferts Schori outlined these planks of her vision for TEC in her investiture sermon. Sadly, neither they nor her unorthodox theology will heal the wounds of either the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion.
For TEC's new Presiding Bishop to make headway with orthodox Anglicans both in the United States and around the world, she needs to offer more than just words of "shalom." As a start, she needs to accept TEC's contribution to the current crisis. And, through her words and actions, she needs to show an understanding of and respect for the positions of those who differ with her.
1Katharine Jefferts Schori, A Wing and a Prayer: A Message of Faith and Hope (booklet of excerpts). New York: Morehouse Publishing, 2007. 11.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4She said as much in a June 2006 interview with PBS' Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly: "I hope that our decisions at this General Convention send several messages to the rest of the communion: … that people of all colors and races and nations and language groups and sexual orientations are fully part of this creation that God has blessed us with."
5Bishop Jefferts Schori does express confidence in God's turning evil actions into good, with the evil being defined as "hate toward us" (p. 13). While she speaks in general terms here, her previous comments raise the question of whether she would understand the orthodox Anglican primates' disposition toward TEC as "hate toward us."
6Ibid.
Date: 12/4/2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)