From The Living Church:
01/29/2007
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has been allotted two sessions of next month’s primates’ meeting to describe The Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report.
Sessions on the “listening process,” the proposed Anglican Covenant, and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference, as well as social and development issues are on the agenda for the Feb. 12-19 meeting to be held at a hotel near Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, sources in London tell The Living Church.
Archbishop Peter Carnely, the former Primate of Australia and chairman of the Panel of Reference, will brief the primates and respond to criticism that the panel has been dilatory in its work. Established as a “matter of urgency” by the 2005 primates’ meeting, the panel has released recommendations on petitions received from the Diocese of Fort Worth and from traditionalist congregations in the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster. Petitions from the Dioceses of Florida and Lake Malawi are currently under review.
One session is to be devoted to the “listening process” envisioned by the 1998 Lambeth resolution 1.10. The bishops at Lambeth committed the church “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons” and assured them “they are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.” The resolution also reaffirmed the traditional Christian belief in the parameters of sexual behavior of faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman and abstinence for those unmarried.
The primates’ 2005 Dromantine communiqué urged the appointment of a facilitator to monitor the work being done in this area. Church of England Canon Phil Groves was appointed in January 2006, and will report on the work done to date.
Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies, chairman of the Covenant Design Group, will speak on the design group’s preliminary findings from its first meeting in Nassau this month. The primates will also make a pilgrimage to the Cathedral Church of Christ in Zanzibar, also known as the Cathedral of the Universities Mission in Central Africa.
Two full sessions of the meeting, as well as two external sessions with presentations by three American bishops, will discuss The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Bishop Jefferts Schori is expected to face tough questioning from the primates and is likely to outline what steps The Episcopal Church has taken in response to the Windsor Report.
Whether the primates will follow the agenda crafted in London by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is uncertain. The agenda for the 2005 primates meeting underwent significant changes as the meeting progressed, and similar changes are anticipated for this meeting. A pre-meeting strategy session for the African primates and other American and international church leaders will be held Feb. 10 in Nairobi, Kenya.
(The Rev.) George Conger
For complete coverage of the primates' meeting, and to find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, we invite you to subscribe to The Living Church magazine.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Nigerian Primate: Consensus on Sexuality Necessary Before Lambeth Conference
From The Living Church:
01/29/2007
The issue of homosexuality and the Anglican Communion must be resolved before the 2008 Lambeth Conference, if the Church of Nigeria is to participate, according to Archbishop Peter Akinola.
In a Jan. 14 interview with the Guardian newspaper of Lagos, Archbishop Akinola, the primate of the Communion’s largest province, said sending more than 100 Nigerian bishops to Lambeth would not be an act of prudent stewardship, if the conference was simply going to be an expensive episcopal jamboree.
“A Lambeth Conference that will not be able to guide the church in a way that the church will embrace” and “comply” is “not worth attending,” the archbishop said. The Church of Nigeria would be a “bad steward, to use God’s resources and waste it on jamboree. God will hold me responsible and accountable for spending money in that way.”
The Lambeth Conference “does not legislate” nor can it tell “any diocese or province” what to do, Archbishop Akinola said. However, “as a result of the fellowship, praying together, studying the word of God together,” the bishops at Lambeth come to a “consensus of opinion, which we now commend to the provinces for further actions.”
No decision as to whether the Nigerian bishops would attend Lambeth has yet been reached, Archbishop Akinola told the Guardian.
“We are hoping that after the primates’ meeting in Tanzania next month, we will have a clearer vision of what we have. If the Lambeth Conference is worth attending, we must put this problem behind us,” he said.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, we invite you to subscribe to The Living Church magazine.
01/29/2007
The issue of homosexuality and the Anglican Communion must be resolved before the 2008 Lambeth Conference, if the Church of Nigeria is to participate, according to Archbishop Peter Akinola.
In a Jan. 14 interview with the Guardian newspaper of Lagos, Archbishop Akinola, the primate of the Communion’s largest province, said sending more than 100 Nigerian bishops to Lambeth would not be an act of prudent stewardship, if the conference was simply going to be an expensive episcopal jamboree.
“A Lambeth Conference that will not be able to guide the church in a way that the church will embrace” and “comply” is “not worth attending,” the archbishop said. The Church of Nigeria would be a “bad steward, to use God’s resources and waste it on jamboree. God will hold me responsible and accountable for spending money in that way.”
The Lambeth Conference “does not legislate” nor can it tell “any diocese or province” what to do, Archbishop Akinola said. However, “as a result of the fellowship, praying together, studying the word of God together,” the bishops at Lambeth come to a “consensus of opinion, which we now commend to the provinces for further actions.”
No decision as to whether the Nigerian bishops would attend Lambeth has yet been reached, Archbishop Akinola told the Guardian.
“We are hoping that after the primates’ meeting in Tanzania next month, we will have a clearer vision of what we have. If the Lambeth Conference is worth attending, we must put this problem behind us,” he said.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, we invite you to subscribe to The Living Church magazine.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Details on Tanzania Meeting Few For Western Louisiana Bishop
From The Living Church:
01/26/2007
The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana and president
of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice, has accepted an invitation to
attend the primates' meeting in Tanzania on Feb. 14. He joins the Rt. Rev.
Robert W. Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the Anglican
Communion Network, as the other voices from The Episcopal Church that
Archbishop of Canterbury proposed including in an Advent letter to the
primates.
"The Episcopal Church (TEC) is not in any way a monochrome body and we need
to be aware of the full range of conviction within it," Archbishop Rowan
Williams wrote. "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."
In a Jan. 26 interview with The Living Church, Bishop MacPherson said he had
very few specific details as to what responsibilities he and Bishop Duncan
would have during the meeting or how long the two diocesan bishops would be
staying in Tanzania.
"I was asked to attend by the Archbishop of Canterbury," he said. "I spoke
with the Presiding Bishop after accepting and informed her of the invitation
and my decision."
Last month after a Dec. 4-6 meeting of the Presiding Bishop's Council of
Advice in Weehawken, N.J., Episcopal News Service published an article in
which it was noted that the council had discouraged Archbishop Williams from
inviting "additional 'dissenting' bishops from this church" to the February
14-19 primates' meeting in Tanzania. Bishop MacPherson said the council was
not scheduled to meet again before the primates' meeting, but the group
often conducts business by telephone conference call and it was possible
that they would confer in that manner prior to the start of the primates'
meeting.
"This is an important meeting, a time during which the Windsor Report and
the direction forward with the development of a Covenant will play a
significant part in their time together," Bishop MacPherson wrote in a
letter to his clergy that was published on the internet website Drell's
Descants. "Importantly, the response of our General Convention 2006 to the
Windsor Report will be addressed as a part of this work. The outcome of this
gathering of the primates could have a significant impact on not only
Episcopal Church, but the Communion as a whole. I ask that you hold this
meeting in your prayers, and know that in a few days I will be sending out a
suggested prayer for use in our worship, and commended to the diocese for
personal use."
Bishop MacPherson said the prayer resource for the primates' meeting was
planned before he received the invitation to participate.
"This invitation is not just about me, but it is about us, the Diocese of
Western Louisiana and the faithful ministry that we hold up before the wider
church," Bi shop MacPherson wrote in his letter to the clergy.
Steve Waring
01/26/2007
The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana and president
of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice, has accepted an invitation to
attend the primates' meeting in Tanzania on Feb. 14. He joins the Rt. Rev.
Robert W. Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the Anglican
Communion Network, as the other voices from The Episcopal Church that
Archbishop of Canterbury proposed including in an Advent letter to the
primates.
"The Episcopal Church (TEC) is not in any way a monochrome body and we need
to be aware of the full range of conviction within it," Archbishop Rowan
Williams wrote. "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."
In a Jan. 26 interview with The Living Church, Bishop MacPherson said he had
very few specific details as to what responsibilities he and Bishop Duncan
would have during the meeting or how long the two diocesan bishops would be
staying in Tanzania.
"I was asked to attend by the Archbishop of Canterbury," he said. "I spoke
with the Presiding Bishop after accepting and informed her of the invitation
and my decision."
Last month after a Dec. 4-6 meeting of the Presiding Bishop's Council of
Advice in Weehawken, N.J., Episcopal News Service published an article in
which it was noted that the council had discouraged Archbishop Williams from
inviting "additional 'dissenting' bishops from this church" to the February
14-19 primates' meeting in Tanzania. Bishop MacPherson said the council was
not scheduled to meet again before the primates' meeting, but the group
often conducts business by telephone conference call and it was possible
that they would confer in that manner prior to the start of the primates'
meeting.
"This is an important meeting, a time during which the Windsor Report and
the direction forward with the development of a Covenant will play a
significant part in their time together," Bishop MacPherson wrote in a
letter to his clergy that was published on the internet website Drell's
Descants. "Importantly, the response of our General Convention 2006 to the
Windsor Report will be addressed as a part of this work. The outcome of this
gathering of the primates could have a significant impact on not only
Episcopal Church, but the Communion as a whole. I ask that you hold this
meeting in your prayers, and know that in a few days I will be sending out a
suggested prayer for use in our worship, and commended to the diocese for
personal use."
Bishop MacPherson said the prayer resource for the primates' meeting was
planned before he received the invitation to participate.
"This invitation is not just about me, but it is about us, the Diocese of
Western Louisiana and the faithful ministry that we hold up before the wider
church," Bi shop MacPherson wrote in his letter to the clergy.
Steve Waring
Friday, January 26, 2007
Minns to Lee
Convocation of Anglicans in North America
January 26, 2007
The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee
pjlee@thediocese.net
FAX: 804.644.6928
Dear Bishop Lee:
I am writing to you in response to your recent decision to “inhibit” 21 Anglican clergy and to rescind the licenses of 6 additional clergy who serve as faithful pastors in congregations throughout Virginia.
As you well know, such an action was not necessary since it has long been the custom of the church to permit an orderly transfer of clergy when they move from one Anglican jurisdiction to another. Indeed, several of your brother bishops in The Episcopal Church have followed this pattern and have done so with generosity and grace. Those who have applied to serve as part of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) have now been received, appropriate licenses have been granted, and they function as ordained Anglican clergy in Christ’’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church under my episcopal oversight.
I have already responded in my letter of January 16th to your erroneous claim that you were not able to make such a transfer because the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) is allegedly not ““recognized”. ADV is an integral part of CANA, which is — as you have repeatedly acknowledged –— a missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). Are you, by your actions, suggesting that the Church of Nigeria is somehow not fully Anglican? Such a suggestion would be ironic in light of the meeting of the Primates in Dar es Salaam to be held early next month when a major agenda topic is whether or not The Episcopal Church –— and hence the Diocese of Virginia –— should continue to be recognized as fully Anglican or moved to a diminished or separated status.
I would also point out that the manner in which you have treated these clergy, and the lay staff of the churches they serve, by refusing to permit an adequate grace period for the transfer of their healthcare benefits, appears uncharitable. Maintaining adequate healthcare coverage during times of employment transition has been a government mandate for all employees through programs such as COBRA. It does not cost the previous employing agency–in this case the Diocese of Virginia–a penny, and yet you have deliberately denied it.
In your letter to me of January 22nd, in which you expressed your concern about the recent vandalism at Truro Church, you said that it ““does not honor Christ and simply gives to the world a false impression of how differences are dealt with in the Christian community.”” I was grateful for your expression of concern about the damage to our property; I urge you to show the same concern for these individuals and their families.
In an open letter dated November 17, 2006 the president of the diocesan Standing Committee promised that congregations which decided to disaffiliate from the diocese, would be able to part ways ““within a context of mutual understanding and compassion.” There is still time to fulfill that promise.
I am mindful that you will receive this letter as you begin the 212th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia and as your own ministry transition accelerates by the election of a Bishop Coadjutor. It is my prayer that you will be sustained by God’’s grace during these trying times.
Sincerely,
+Martyn Minns
Missionary Bishop of CANA
Cc: 21 inhibited clergy
Episcopal Diocese of Virginia Standing Committee
Members of the 212th Annual Council
January 26, 2007
The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee
pjlee@thediocese.net
FAX: 804.644.6928
Dear Bishop Lee:
I am writing to you in response to your recent decision to “inhibit” 21 Anglican clergy and to rescind the licenses of 6 additional clergy who serve as faithful pastors in congregations throughout Virginia.
As you well know, such an action was not necessary since it has long been the custom of the church to permit an orderly transfer of clergy when they move from one Anglican jurisdiction to another. Indeed, several of your brother bishops in The Episcopal Church have followed this pattern and have done so with generosity and grace. Those who have applied to serve as part of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) have now been received, appropriate licenses have been granted, and they function as ordained Anglican clergy in Christ’’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church under my episcopal oversight.
I have already responded in my letter of January 16th to your erroneous claim that you were not able to make such a transfer because the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) is allegedly not ““recognized”. ADV is an integral part of CANA, which is — as you have repeatedly acknowledged –— a missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). Are you, by your actions, suggesting that the Church of Nigeria is somehow not fully Anglican? Such a suggestion would be ironic in light of the meeting of the Primates in Dar es Salaam to be held early next month when a major agenda topic is whether or not The Episcopal Church –— and hence the Diocese of Virginia –— should continue to be recognized as fully Anglican or moved to a diminished or separated status.
I would also point out that the manner in which you have treated these clergy, and the lay staff of the churches they serve, by refusing to permit an adequate grace period for the transfer of their healthcare benefits, appears uncharitable. Maintaining adequate healthcare coverage during times of employment transition has been a government mandate for all employees through programs such as COBRA. It does not cost the previous employing agency–in this case the Diocese of Virginia–a penny, and yet you have deliberately denied it.
In your letter to me of January 22nd, in which you expressed your concern about the recent vandalism at Truro Church, you said that it ““does not honor Christ and simply gives to the world a false impression of how differences are dealt with in the Christian community.”” I was grateful for your expression of concern about the damage to our property; I urge you to show the same concern for these individuals and their families.
In an open letter dated November 17, 2006 the president of the diocesan Standing Committee promised that congregations which decided to disaffiliate from the diocese, would be able to part ways ““within a context of mutual understanding and compassion.” There is still time to fulfill that promise.
I am mindful that you will receive this letter as you begin the 212th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia and as your own ministry transition accelerates by the election of a Bishop Coadjutor. It is my prayer that you will be sustained by God’’s grace during these trying times.
Sincerely,
+Martyn Minns
Missionary Bishop of CANA
Cc: 21 inhibited clergy
Episcopal Diocese of Virginia Standing Committee
Members of the 212th Annual Council
A fractured church: Western Kansas bishop's letter voices his disapproval of Episcopal Church's leader
By Kathy Hanks
The Hutchinson News
Waddell Reed
The bishop of western Kansas has jumped into a national dispute over theology dividing the Episcopal Church.
Bishop James Adams has caught the attention of the newly appointed Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori with a letter stating he disapproves of her theology.
In response, the first female primate in the 500-year history of the Anglican Church has offered to visit the Western Kansas Diocese, which has about 2,500 members.
The issues that separate Adams and Jefferts Schori are part of the new face of the Episcopal Church, according to Ian Douglas, professor of mission and world Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass.
"Until recently it was pretty clear what Episcopalians looked like and where they resided. They were overly educated, financially secure," Douglas said.
But in the past 40 years, membership has branched out to include African Americans, women and most recently, gay and lesbian people, Douglas said.
As evident by the disagreement between Adams and Jefferts Schori, not all leaders in the church come down on the same side.
The next move in their exchange will be up to Adams - under church protocol, Jefferts Schori cannot visit unless invited.
"I have offered to be in western Kansas during holy week if he wishes," Jefferts Schori said. "It's up to him."
Wednesday, at the Cathedral in Salina, Adams said he hadn't received Jefferts Schori's offer. But, he added, he didn't know if the church's schedule would allow time for a visit from the highest-ranking official of the Episcopal Church.
Meanwhile, he stood firm, describing Jefferts Schori as "too conciliatory to others' beliefs."
"I don't deny she is the presiding bishop; she was duly elected," Adams said. However, in his letter sent to Jefferts Schori, after her installation in November 2006, he denied her authority over him.
"What I said was she can't represent me or my diocese by what she is stating in the press. Every interview gets harder to have her represent me," he said.
Adams struggles with Jefferts Schori's theology, worried that she and some others in the church seem to give up the claims of Christ to avoid offending anyone.
Meanwhile, Jefferts Schori, 52, said she was "cognizant that western Kansas has challenges."
Adams may think he understands her theological positions, Jefferts Schori said, but "I have a broader understanding of how salvation works."
Bishops with a history
Adams and Jefferts Schori first met while attending the same church meetings, when she was still the Bishop of Nevada.
Jefferts Schori holds a Ph.D. in oceanography and master of divinity and an honorary Divinity Degree from Church Divinity School of the Pacific.
"It's not that she is not talented or smart," Adams said, "but she has little experience in the church."
He said Jefferts Schori had been a priest only since 1994, and never a rector before she was appointed bishop in 2000. During the 75th General Convention in June 2006, she was elected the 26th Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church.
"I didn't vote for her. That doesn't mean I don't like her, I just don't think she's qualified," he said.
Since 2003, when the church voted to ordain Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, as the bishop of New Hampshire, Adams and Jefferts Schori have had opposing views.
A changing church
Now that the church is hearing a variety of new voices, those who once enjoyed the privilege of power are being asked to make room for all the others, Professor Douglas said.
This is an incredible time of change and transition, not only in Anglican Communion but also in world Christianity in general, he said.
"Such changes result in anxiety, fear and concern of where we're going, who is in control and who gets the say," he said. "If it was up to me, I would rather sit and have conversation with those who have different theological understanding to find where are the commonalities and truth, where are the points of difference, and how to do we live together as brothers and sisters in Christ."
The division in the church has its consequences, Adams says.
"People are leaving," he said. "Why go to a church that all they are doing is arguing?"
Jefferts Schori disagreed, saying the number of congregations leaving the church over the controversy represent only one half of 1 percent of the total 2.2 million church membership.
She described the problems facing the church as a part of life.
"One of the great gifts of being in the church is that God puts you with people you might not otherwise choose," she said.
Jefferts Schori wants to ignore the loud and angry voices and instead focus on the fact that the church is healthy and engaged in a mission to heal the world.
"The bulk of the Episcopal Church is small congregations," Jefferts Schori said, "more typical of the faithfulness of people in western Kansas. The Gospel is preached and Christian lives are lived in small congregations and large ones all across the church."
01/26/2007; 02:38:55 AM
The Hutchinson News
Waddell Reed
The bishop of western Kansas has jumped into a national dispute over theology dividing the Episcopal Church.
Bishop James Adams has caught the attention of the newly appointed Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori with a letter stating he disapproves of her theology.
In response, the first female primate in the 500-year history of the Anglican Church has offered to visit the Western Kansas Diocese, which has about 2,500 members.
The issues that separate Adams and Jefferts Schori are part of the new face of the Episcopal Church, according to Ian Douglas, professor of mission and world Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass.
"Until recently it was pretty clear what Episcopalians looked like and where they resided. They were overly educated, financially secure," Douglas said.
But in the past 40 years, membership has branched out to include African Americans, women and most recently, gay and lesbian people, Douglas said.
As evident by the disagreement between Adams and Jefferts Schori, not all leaders in the church come down on the same side.
The next move in their exchange will be up to Adams - under church protocol, Jefferts Schori cannot visit unless invited.
"I have offered to be in western Kansas during holy week if he wishes," Jefferts Schori said. "It's up to him."
Wednesday, at the Cathedral in Salina, Adams said he hadn't received Jefferts Schori's offer. But, he added, he didn't know if the church's schedule would allow time for a visit from the highest-ranking official of the Episcopal Church.
Meanwhile, he stood firm, describing Jefferts Schori as "too conciliatory to others' beliefs."
"I don't deny she is the presiding bishop; she was duly elected," Adams said. However, in his letter sent to Jefferts Schori, after her installation in November 2006, he denied her authority over him.
"What I said was she can't represent me or my diocese by what she is stating in the press. Every interview gets harder to have her represent me," he said.
Adams struggles with Jefferts Schori's theology, worried that she and some others in the church seem to give up the claims of Christ to avoid offending anyone.
Meanwhile, Jefferts Schori, 52, said she was "cognizant that western Kansas has challenges."
Adams may think he understands her theological positions, Jefferts Schori said, but "I have a broader understanding of how salvation works."
Bishops with a history
Adams and Jefferts Schori first met while attending the same church meetings, when she was still the Bishop of Nevada.
Jefferts Schori holds a Ph.D. in oceanography and master of divinity and an honorary Divinity Degree from Church Divinity School of the Pacific.
"It's not that she is not talented or smart," Adams said, "but she has little experience in the church."
He said Jefferts Schori had been a priest only since 1994, and never a rector before she was appointed bishop in 2000. During the 75th General Convention in June 2006, she was elected the 26th Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church.
"I didn't vote for her. That doesn't mean I don't like her, I just don't think she's qualified," he said.
Since 2003, when the church voted to ordain Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, as the bishop of New Hampshire, Adams and Jefferts Schori have had opposing views.
A changing church
Now that the church is hearing a variety of new voices, those who once enjoyed the privilege of power are being asked to make room for all the others, Professor Douglas said.
This is an incredible time of change and transition, not only in Anglican Communion but also in world Christianity in general, he said.
"Such changes result in anxiety, fear and concern of where we're going, who is in control and who gets the say," he said. "If it was up to me, I would rather sit and have conversation with those who have different theological understanding to find where are the commonalities and truth, where are the points of difference, and how to do we live together as brothers and sisters in Christ."
The division in the church has its consequences, Adams says.
"People are leaving," he said. "Why go to a church that all they are doing is arguing?"
Jefferts Schori disagreed, saying the number of congregations leaving the church over the controversy represent only one half of 1 percent of the total 2.2 million church membership.
She described the problems facing the church as a part of life.
"One of the great gifts of being in the church is that God puts you with people you might not otherwise choose," she said.
Jefferts Schori wants to ignore the loud and angry voices and instead focus on the fact that the church is healthy and engaged in a mission to heal the world.
"The bulk of the Episcopal Church is small congregations," Jefferts Schori said, "more typical of the faithfulness of people in western Kansas. The Gospel is preached and Christian lives are lived in small congregations and large ones all across the church."
01/26/2007; 02:38:55 AM
AAC President Clarifies Status of CANA
Press Release
January 25, 2007
For Immediate Release
Who is really Anglican? Would the real Anglicans please stand up!
A Statement by the Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, AAC President and CEO
In recent pronouncements, the Episcopal Bishop of Virginia, the Rt. Rev. Peter Lee, has stated that the new Anglican organization called CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) is not a part of the Anglican Communion. He says this to undermine the credibility of the northern Virginia district of CANA (the Anglican District of Virginia) in the eyes of Virginians and others. This is in part because he feels that he has a franchise right to Anglicanism in his part of the state, much as a medieval lord might have rights to his domain, his serfs, and the property located therein. Bishop Lee feels that in the Anglican world one piece of land can only have one jurisdiction, or at least one Anglican jurisdiction (since the Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists and Roman Catholics seem to have overlapping jurisdiction on land he claims).
There is, as you might guess, more to the story.
First, in the Anglican world there are often anomalies, such as is the case with Europe, where both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church USA (now called TEC) both claim the same territory, and each has churches and bishops overseeing the same geography if not the same churches. This should inform Bishop Lee’s concerns about his singular claim to the Virginia topography: Bishop, it’s time to share.
Second, Bishop Lee and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, which comprises the middle and northern portions of the state, would claim that they are a part of the Anglican Communion, even as they would deny this about CANA. In fact, Bishop Lee’s connection, and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia’s connection, to the Anglican Communion are not direct, but subsequent to being a part of the Episcopal Church USA/TEC. It is the province of TEC that has global membership, and Bishop Lee and his diocese are members through TEC. The only problem is that TEC’s membership is currently in a stand-down mode and is under critical review. Further sanctions may in fact be levied against TEC, and this would weaken Bishop Lee’s standing in the Anglican Communion as well.
CANA, on the other hand is also a part of the Anglican Communion, but through the Anglican Province of Nigeria instead of The Episcopal Church in the United States. CANA was formed legally within the Constitution and Canons of the Nigerian church, and CANA’s bishop, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, was consecrated with other Nigerian bishops at a service in the cathedral in Abuja, Nigeria, last summer. Bishop Minns sits in the House of Bishops of Nigeria as a voting member along with the other Nigerian bishops. CANA’s connection to the Anglican Communion is through Nigeria, which is not under any stand-down protocol or critical review within the Anglican Communion. It is, in fact, the largest and fastest growing of all the Anglican provinces.
The irony of Bishop Lee’s remarks is that he gets the exclusive claim wrong. The Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church (of the United States) are both tarnished at present, whereas the Province of Nigeria and her CANA mission in the United States are untarnished and in good standing. Although both the Diocese of Virginia and CANA exist as churches under their representative provinces, the status of the U.S. province is clouded; furthermore, TEC is diminishing numbers, representing just over 2 million individuals on the roles, whereas the Province of Nigeria is rapidly growing and has approximately 20 million in church on Sundays.
It finally becomes quite a study in contrasts; no wonder Bishop Lee is anxious about the future.
The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
-30-
January 25, 2007
For Immediate Release
Who is really Anglican? Would the real Anglicans please stand up!
A Statement by the Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, AAC President and CEO
In recent pronouncements, the Episcopal Bishop of Virginia, the Rt. Rev. Peter Lee, has stated that the new Anglican organization called CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) is not a part of the Anglican Communion. He says this to undermine the credibility of the northern Virginia district of CANA (the Anglican District of Virginia) in the eyes of Virginians and others. This is in part because he feels that he has a franchise right to Anglicanism in his part of the state, much as a medieval lord might have rights to his domain, his serfs, and the property located therein. Bishop Lee feels that in the Anglican world one piece of land can only have one jurisdiction, or at least one Anglican jurisdiction (since the Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists and Roman Catholics seem to have overlapping jurisdiction on land he claims).
There is, as you might guess, more to the story.
First, in the Anglican world there are often anomalies, such as is the case with Europe, where both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church USA (now called TEC) both claim the same territory, and each has churches and bishops overseeing the same geography if not the same churches. This should inform Bishop Lee’s concerns about his singular claim to the Virginia topography: Bishop, it’s time to share.
Second, Bishop Lee and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, which comprises the middle and northern portions of the state, would claim that they are a part of the Anglican Communion, even as they would deny this about CANA. In fact, Bishop Lee’s connection, and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia’s connection, to the Anglican Communion are not direct, but subsequent to being a part of the Episcopal Church USA/TEC. It is the province of TEC that has global membership, and Bishop Lee and his diocese are members through TEC. The only problem is that TEC’s membership is currently in a stand-down mode and is under critical review. Further sanctions may in fact be levied against TEC, and this would weaken Bishop Lee’s standing in the Anglican Communion as well.
CANA, on the other hand is also a part of the Anglican Communion, but through the Anglican Province of Nigeria instead of The Episcopal Church in the United States. CANA was formed legally within the Constitution and Canons of the Nigerian church, and CANA’s bishop, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, was consecrated with other Nigerian bishops at a service in the cathedral in Abuja, Nigeria, last summer. Bishop Minns sits in the House of Bishops of Nigeria as a voting member along with the other Nigerian bishops. CANA’s connection to the Anglican Communion is through Nigeria, which is not under any stand-down protocol or critical review within the Anglican Communion. It is, in fact, the largest and fastest growing of all the Anglican provinces.
The irony of Bishop Lee’s remarks is that he gets the exclusive claim wrong. The Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church (of the United States) are both tarnished at present, whereas the Province of Nigeria and her CANA mission in the United States are untarnished and in good standing. Although both the Diocese of Virginia and CANA exist as churches under their representative provinces, the status of the U.S. province is clouded; furthermore, TEC is diminishing numbers, representing just over 2 million individuals on the roles, whereas the Province of Nigeria is rapidly growing and has approximately 20 million in church on Sundays.
It finally becomes quite a study in contrasts; no wonder Bishop Lee is anxious about the future.
The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
-30-
Bp. Bruce Macpherson Invited to Tanzania
Bishop Bruce Macpherson of the Diocese of Western Louisiana received a phone call from the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday requesting that he attend the Primates’ Meeting in Tanzania. He has since received a follow up email confirming the telephone call. Specifically, he has been asked to be there on February 14, at the beginning of the Primates’ Meeting, rather than as part of a preliminary meeting before the Primates officially convene. This is the same invitation given to Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh. +Bruce has accepted this invitation.
Bp. Macpherson is the president of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advise and voted against the consecration of Gene Robinson. He is reported to be a solid orthodox bishop, but not of the Network or the Windsor Bishops.
Please pray for +Bruce and the Primates’ Meeting.
[the bulk of this item is from Drell's Descants]
Bp. Macpherson is the president of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advise and voted against the consecration of Gene Robinson. He is reported to be a solid orthodox bishop, but not of the Network or the Windsor Bishops.
Please pray for +Bruce and the Primates’ Meeting.
[the bulk of this item is from Drell's Descants]
CNY Diocese: Episcopal Diocese Refuses to Settle its Lawsuit Against Syracuse Parish
Thursday, January 25, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Raymond J. Dague 315-422-2052
http://www.DagueLaw.com
After six months of litigation by the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York to take over one of its former parishes in Syracuse, that parish has offered to settle the case by giving their property to the diocese, but the diocese has refused. The diocese filed the lawsuit against St. Andrews Church last July to take the property from those who have worshiped in the local congregation since 1903. The Diocese did this because the parish transferred its allegiance from Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams, III of Syracuse to the Anglican Archbishop of Rwanda.
"We thought we were making a very generous and charitable offer to settle their lawsuit against our people," said Raymond Dague, attorney for the parish. "They would get the buildings which are owned by us and for which they have sued us. This would have spared everyone the continuing scandal of a bishop suing a local church to assert spiritual authority in the civil courts."
St. Andrews Church at 5013 South Salina Street in Syracuse, New York offered to stop defending the lawsuit and deed the church building, the parish hall, and the rectory over to the diocese in exchange for a nominal lease arrangement of up to five years so the people in the local congregation could find another place to worship. During the time of the lease, the local congregation and not the diocese would have been responsible to maintain the buildings, and then turn the keys over to the diocese once the congregation built a new church.
Until now, St. Andrews and its priest, Fr. Robert Hackendorf, have successfully resisted the attempt by the diocese to take the parish through legal action, both last July and again last September. The lawsuit became highly acrimonious when the Episcopal Diocese sued the individual members of the church governing vestry in addition to suing the local congregation. In September, the judge dismissed the part of the lawsuit where the diocese sued individual members of the parish vestry, and also denied a request for a preliminary injunction against the local church. The lawsuit against the parish and the rector was allowed to continue.
The settlement was patterned after a deal worked out last fall between All Saints Church in Woodbridge, Virginia and the Diocese of Virginia. But since the All Saints deal, the Virginia Episcopal bishop has now signaled his intention to sue up to 11 parishes which have separated from that diocese. The Virginia bishop has also refused to negotiate with those parishes, indicating a more aggressive posture against local parishes. The lawsuits in Syracuse and Virginia are part of a national trend of some Episcopal dioceses suing parishes. In California the Diocese of Los Angeles has unsuccessfully sued several churches, and those cases are now on appeal.
Bishop "Skip" Adams and the Syracuse parish are on opposite sides of a controversy over homosexual bishops and the authority of Scripture which has for years engulfed the Episcopal Church, and which is now heating up with more lawsuits by some dioceses. St. Andrews adheres to the traditional teaching of the church that sex outside of marriage is prohibited by the Bible, while the Bishop and the leaders of the larger church have been outspoken supporters of the actively homosexual bishop of New Hampshire and a more liberal view of the Scriptures.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Raymond J. Dague 315-422-2052
http://www.DagueLaw.com
After six months of litigation by the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York to take over one of its former parishes in Syracuse, that parish has offered to settle the case by giving their property to the diocese, but the diocese has refused. The diocese filed the lawsuit against St. Andrews Church last July to take the property from those who have worshiped in the local congregation since 1903. The Diocese did this because the parish transferred its allegiance from Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams, III of Syracuse to the Anglican Archbishop of Rwanda.
"We thought we were making a very generous and charitable offer to settle their lawsuit against our people," said Raymond Dague, attorney for the parish. "They would get the buildings which are owned by us and for which they have sued us. This would have spared everyone the continuing scandal of a bishop suing a local church to assert spiritual authority in the civil courts."
St. Andrews Church at 5013 South Salina Street in Syracuse, New York offered to stop defending the lawsuit and deed the church building, the parish hall, and the rectory over to the diocese in exchange for a nominal lease arrangement of up to five years so the people in the local congregation could find another place to worship. During the time of the lease, the local congregation and not the diocese would have been responsible to maintain the buildings, and then turn the keys over to the diocese once the congregation built a new church.
Until now, St. Andrews and its priest, Fr. Robert Hackendorf, have successfully resisted the attempt by the diocese to take the parish through legal action, both last July and again last September. The lawsuit became highly acrimonious when the Episcopal Diocese sued the individual members of the church governing vestry in addition to suing the local congregation. In September, the judge dismissed the part of the lawsuit where the diocese sued individual members of the parish vestry, and also denied a request for a preliminary injunction against the local church. The lawsuit against the parish and the rector was allowed to continue.
The settlement was patterned after a deal worked out last fall between All Saints Church in Woodbridge, Virginia and the Diocese of Virginia. But since the All Saints deal, the Virginia Episcopal bishop has now signaled his intention to sue up to 11 parishes which have separated from that diocese. The Virginia bishop has also refused to negotiate with those parishes, indicating a more aggressive posture against local parishes. The lawsuits in Syracuse and Virginia are part of a national trend of some Episcopal dioceses suing parishes. In California the Diocese of Los Angeles has unsuccessfully sued several churches, and those cases are now on appeal.
Bishop "Skip" Adams and the Syracuse parish are on opposite sides of a controversy over homosexual bishops and the authority of Scripture which has for years engulfed the Episcopal Church, and which is now heating up with more lawsuits by some dioceses. St. Andrews adheres to the traditional teaching of the church that sex outside of marriage is prohibited by the Bible, while the Bishop and the leaders of the larger church have been outspoken supporters of the actively homosexual bishop of New Hampshire and a more liberal view of the Scriptures.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Burma 'orders Christians to be wiped out'
By Peter Pattisson in Kayin State, southern Burma, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:02am GMT 21/01/2007
The military regime in Burma is intent on wiping out Christianity in the
country, according to claims in a secret document believed to have been
leaked from a government ministry. Entitled "Programme to destroy the
Christian religion in Burma", the incendiary memo contains point by point
instructions on how to drive Christians out of the state.
The text, which opens with the line "There shall be no home where the
Christian religion is practised", calls for anyone caught evangelising to
be imprisoned. It advises: "The Christian religion is very gentle –
identify and utilise its weakness."
Its discovery follows widespread reports of religious persecution, with
churches burnt to the ground, Christians forced to convert to the state
religion, Buddhism, and their children barred from school.
advertisementHuman rights groups claim that the treatment meted out to
Christians, who make up six per cent of the population, is part of a wider
campaign by the regime, also targeted at ethnic minority tribes, to create
a uniform society in which the race and language is Burmese and the only
accepted religion is Buddhism.
In the past year, an estimated 27,000 members of the predominantly
Christian Karen tribe were driven from their homes in eastern Burma.
In Koh Kyi village, in Arakan State, a monk backed by the military burnt
down the local church. In another state, 300 monks were allegedly sent by
the regime to forcibly convert the populace, all of whom belonged to the
Chin ethnic group, which is mostly Christian.
The document, shown to The Sunday Telegraph by human rights groups, may
have been produced by a state-sponsored Buddhist group, but with the tacit
approval of the military junta. The regime has denied authorship of the
document – which also calls for teenagers to be prevented from wearing
Western clothes – but has made no public attempt to refute or repudiate
its contents.
The dictatorship has long been accused of large-scale human rights abuses.
In power since 1988, the generals annulled the National League for
Democracy's sweeping 1990 election victory and jailed its leader, the
Nobel peace prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi. She remains under house arrest.
Last week she was accused of tax evasion for failing to hand over any of
her Nobel prize winnings to the authorities.
Eha Hsar Paw, a Karen Christian, who fled her village while heavily
pregnant to a refugee camp near the border with Thailand, said: "The
journey here was very difficult. It was hard to leave our village, but if
we had stayed there we would all be dead."
Last Updated: 12:02am GMT 21/01/2007
The military regime in Burma is intent on wiping out Christianity in the
country, according to claims in a secret document believed to have been
leaked from a government ministry. Entitled "Programme to destroy the
Christian religion in Burma", the incendiary memo contains point by point
instructions on how to drive Christians out of the state.
The text, which opens with the line "There shall be no home where the
Christian religion is practised", calls for anyone caught evangelising to
be imprisoned. It advises: "The Christian religion is very gentle –
identify and utilise its weakness."
Its discovery follows widespread reports of religious persecution, with
churches burnt to the ground, Christians forced to convert to the state
religion, Buddhism, and their children barred from school.
advertisementHuman rights groups claim that the treatment meted out to
Christians, who make up six per cent of the population, is part of a wider
campaign by the regime, also targeted at ethnic minority tribes, to create
a uniform society in which the race and language is Burmese and the only
accepted religion is Buddhism.
In the past year, an estimated 27,000 members of the predominantly
Christian Karen tribe were driven from their homes in eastern Burma.
In Koh Kyi village, in Arakan State, a monk backed by the military burnt
down the local church. In another state, 300 monks were allegedly sent by
the regime to forcibly convert the populace, all of whom belonged to the
Chin ethnic group, which is mostly Christian.
The document, shown to The Sunday Telegraph by human rights groups, may
have been produced by a state-sponsored Buddhist group, but with the tacit
approval of the military junta. The regime has denied authorship of the
document – which also calls for teenagers to be prevented from wearing
Western clothes – but has made no public attempt to refute or repudiate
its contents.
The dictatorship has long been accused of large-scale human rights abuses.
In power since 1988, the generals annulled the National League for
Democracy's sweeping 1990 election victory and jailed its leader, the
Nobel peace prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi. She remains under house arrest.
Last week she was accused of tax evasion for failing to hand over any of
her Nobel prize winnings to the authorities.
Eha Hsar Paw, a Karen Christian, who fled her village while heavily
pregnant to a refugee camp near the border with Thailand, said: "The
journey here was very difficult. It was hard to leave our village, but if
we had stayed there we would all be dead."
VGR: Where Does He Find the Time?
Hartford speech, Sundance Film Festival, what's next for the peripatetic bishop? And I thought being a bishop was full-time work. ed.
At The Center Of The Divide
Episcopal Church's First Openly Gay Bishop Sees A Higher Purpose To The Debate
January 23, 2007
By JOEL LANG, The Hartford Courant
Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop at the center of the rift over homosexuality that has led some Virginia parishes to align themselves with the Anglican Church of Nigeria, stopped in Hartford Monday to deliver a message of reconciliation for the church and some news about himself.
"I believe with my whole heart that the Archbishop of Nigeria [Peter Akinola] and I are going to be in heaven together. And we're going to get along together, because God won't have it any other way. So we better start practicing now," Robinson said at a luncheon attended by a dozen local church leaders at Real Art Ways.
He was responding to a plea from The Very Rev. Mark Pendleton, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Hartford, who told Robinson, "You've been demonized by so many. ... How do you help me to not demonize others?"
Looking at ease in gray slacks and a blue fleece vest worn unzipped over a burgundy shirt, Robinson, 59, said he received 500 to 600 e-mails a day, both angry and supportive, after he was elected Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, the event that ignited revolts by some conservative parishes, including a group known as the Connecticut Six.
"I think everybody is doing the best we can. We're all trying to figure life out," Robinson said.
"The thing that has sustained me through all this is God has seemed so very close that prayer has seemed almost redundant. ... Sometimes God calms the storm and sometimes God lets the storm rage, and calms the child."
Personally, "I couldn't be happier. I think that's the best revenge," he said.
He said his 15,000-member diocese was healthy, but the news he seemed most eager to relay was that immediately after the luncheon he was leaving for the Sundance Film Festival, where a documentary film, featuring his story and those of four other gay families, has been nominated for a grand jury prize.
Titled "For the Bible Tells Me So," it is about families split by their beliefs about homosexuality and Scripture. He said his own parents talked more openly to the filmmaker than they had to him after his own announcement at age 39 that he was gay and getting divorced.
At the end of the luncheon, Robinson hugged the host, Bishop John Selders of the Amistad United Church of Christ, and said, "If I miss my plane to Sundance, I'm going to hold you all responsible."
In an interview before the luncheon, sitting on the edge of the stage in the Real Art Ways cinema, Robinson said the media has exaggerated the strength and importance of the small minority of parishes at odds with the national church's liberal stance on homosexuality.
The parishes are "seeking to get themselves recognized as the true expression of Anglicanism in this country and not inconsequentially get the Episcopal Church - I don't know what the word is - unrecognized as that legitimate expression. And I think they are using more conservative churches around the globe to support that claim," he said.
"In a world facing 40 million people dying of AIDS and an increasing gap between rich and poor, this seems like a waste of our time and energy, debating the rightness and wrongness of gay and lesbian people and their relationships," he said.
"I think it breaks God's heart that we would be focusing on such an internal issue, instead of focusing upon the world which, as I understand it, Jesus called us to."
Robinson said the division over homosexuality is not much different from an earlier split over ordaining women priests.
"Let's face it, I believe God is doing a new thing in the world. I don't just see civil forces at work in terms of increasing acceptance of gay and lesbian people. I see God's hand at work there, and I believe we are joining God in that work in terms of this debate within the church," he said.
A note on numbers (from TitusOneNine): According to the 2003 Episcopal Church Annual (based on 2001 parochial reports), the diocese of New Hampshire had 16,912 baptized members, and according to the 2007 Episcopal Church Annual (based on 2005 parochial reports), the diocese of New hampshire had 14,725 baptized members. This amounts to a loss of over 12.9% in this four year period.
The U.S. Census bureau projects population growth to be over 33% from 2000-2030 in New Hampshire. The specific projected increase in the population of New Hampshire from the census on April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005, was from 1,235,786 people to 1,314,821 people, or an increase of nearly 6.4%.
The Average Sunday Attendance in the Diocese of New Hampshire went from 5,185 in 2000 to 4,671 in 2005, a decline of 9.9%.
At The Center Of The Divide
Episcopal Church's First Openly Gay Bishop Sees A Higher Purpose To The Debate
January 23, 2007
By JOEL LANG, The Hartford Courant
Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop at the center of the rift over homosexuality that has led some Virginia parishes to align themselves with the Anglican Church of Nigeria, stopped in Hartford Monday to deliver a message of reconciliation for the church and some news about himself.
"I believe with my whole heart that the Archbishop of Nigeria [Peter Akinola] and I are going to be in heaven together. And we're going to get along together, because God won't have it any other way. So we better start practicing now," Robinson said at a luncheon attended by a dozen local church leaders at Real Art Ways.
He was responding to a plea from The Very Rev. Mark Pendleton, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Hartford, who told Robinson, "You've been demonized by so many. ... How do you help me to not demonize others?"
Looking at ease in gray slacks and a blue fleece vest worn unzipped over a burgundy shirt, Robinson, 59, said he received 500 to 600 e-mails a day, both angry and supportive, after he was elected Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, the event that ignited revolts by some conservative parishes, including a group known as the Connecticut Six.
"I think everybody is doing the best we can. We're all trying to figure life out," Robinson said.
"The thing that has sustained me through all this is God has seemed so very close that prayer has seemed almost redundant. ... Sometimes God calms the storm and sometimes God lets the storm rage, and calms the child."
Personally, "I couldn't be happier. I think that's the best revenge," he said.
He said his 15,000-member diocese was healthy, but the news he seemed most eager to relay was that immediately after the luncheon he was leaving for the Sundance Film Festival, where a documentary film, featuring his story and those of four other gay families, has been nominated for a grand jury prize.
Titled "For the Bible Tells Me So," it is about families split by their beliefs about homosexuality and Scripture. He said his own parents talked more openly to the filmmaker than they had to him after his own announcement at age 39 that he was gay and getting divorced.
At the end of the luncheon, Robinson hugged the host, Bishop John Selders of the Amistad United Church of Christ, and said, "If I miss my plane to Sundance, I'm going to hold you all responsible."
In an interview before the luncheon, sitting on the edge of the stage in the Real Art Ways cinema, Robinson said the media has exaggerated the strength and importance of the small minority of parishes at odds with the national church's liberal stance on homosexuality.
The parishes are "seeking to get themselves recognized as the true expression of Anglicanism in this country and not inconsequentially get the Episcopal Church - I don't know what the word is - unrecognized as that legitimate expression. And I think they are using more conservative churches around the globe to support that claim," he said.
"In a world facing 40 million people dying of AIDS and an increasing gap between rich and poor, this seems like a waste of our time and energy, debating the rightness and wrongness of gay and lesbian people and their relationships," he said.
"I think it breaks God's heart that we would be focusing on such an internal issue, instead of focusing upon the world which, as I understand it, Jesus called us to."
Robinson said the division over homosexuality is not much different from an earlier split over ordaining women priests.
"Let's face it, I believe God is doing a new thing in the world. I don't just see civil forces at work in terms of increasing acceptance of gay and lesbian people. I see God's hand at work there, and I believe we are joining God in that work in terms of this debate within the church," he said.
A note on numbers (from TitusOneNine): According to the 2003 Episcopal Church Annual (based on 2001 parochial reports), the diocese of New Hampshire had 16,912 baptized members, and according to the 2007 Episcopal Church Annual (based on 2005 parochial reports), the diocese of New hampshire had 14,725 baptized members. This amounts to a loss of over 12.9% in this four year period.
The U.S. Census bureau projects population growth to be over 33% from 2000-2030 in New Hampshire. The specific projected increase in the population of New Hampshire from the census on April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005, was from 1,235,786 people to 1,314,821 people, or an increase of nearly 6.4%.
The Average Sunday Attendance in the Diocese of New Hampshire went from 5,185 in 2000 to 4,671 in 2005, a decline of 9.9%.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
No Word Yet
This was posted several weeks ago:
In December, a rector in the Diocese of Central NY wrote to the Senior Warden of our parish, St. Andrew's in Vestal, to invite a group of our lay leaders to meet with a group of lay leaders from his parish. The invitation came after the rector became concerned about the direction of our parish. Our Senior Warden has accepted the invitation on behalf of our parish, but the inviting parish has not yet agreed to a conversation. I will keep you posted.
Update: Our Senior Warden contacted the Senior Warden of St. Peter's in Cazenovia to accept the invitation extended by the rector in a letter dated 12/6. To date, St. Peter's has not yet contacted us about setting up the meeting that the rector proposed.
From the 12/6 letter, the rector, the Rev. Robin Flocken writes, "May I invite you to sit down with a group of cradle Episcopalians from Cazenovia and talk about things together, parishioners to parishioners.
Our folks have accepted the invitation; why haven't the good folks of Cazenovia gotten back to us with a time for this meeting?
I'll keep you posted.
In December, a rector in the Diocese of Central NY wrote to the Senior Warden of our parish, St. Andrew's in Vestal, to invite a group of our lay leaders to meet with a group of lay leaders from his parish. The invitation came after the rector became concerned about the direction of our parish. Our Senior Warden has accepted the invitation on behalf of our parish, but the inviting parish has not yet agreed to a conversation. I will keep you posted.
Update: Our Senior Warden contacted the Senior Warden of St. Peter's in Cazenovia to accept the invitation extended by the rector in a letter dated 12/6. To date, St. Peter's has not yet contacted us about setting up the meeting that the rector proposed.
From the 12/6 letter, the rector, the Rev. Robin Flocken writes, "May I invite you to sit down with a group of cradle Episcopalians from Cazenovia and talk about things together, parishioners to parishioners.
Our folks have accepted the invitation; why haven't the good folks of Cazenovia gotten back to us with a time for this meeting?
I'll keep you posted.
Inclusivity and Reconciliation in the Diocese of Virginia
From The Living Church:
Bishop Lee Inhibits 21 Priests
1/23/2007
In a letter sent Jan. 22 to 21 priests under license in the Diocese of Virginia, the bishop and standing committee informed the group they had been inhibited for the next six months.
“Your association with a group of people that has abandoned the Communion of the Episcopal Church and rejected its authority and the authority of the Diocese of Virginia constitute your abandonment of the Communion of the Episcopal Church,” states a letter signed by Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee. “If, in the next six months, you retract your actions of abandonment, this inhibition may be lifted. But at the end of six months, if you have not retracted your actions, you may be released from the obligations of priesthood in this church and removed from the ordained ministry.”
Bishop Lee concluded the brief letter by noting how deeply saddened he was by this development. He said he believed “the actions that the Standing Committee and I are taking are necessary for the discipline and unity of the church.”
All of the clergy associated with the 11 Virginia congregations which recently voted to leave the diocese and affiliate with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) have been inhibited with the exception of Bishop Martyn Minns, who serves as rector of Truro Church in Fairfax. Bishop Lee previously said that Bishop Minns was a validly consecrated Bishop of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, but he has refused to recognize either CANA or the Anglican District of Virginia, which the 11 congregations have formed.
The list includes the Rev. John A.M. Guernsey, rector of All Saints’ Church in Woodbridge. In November, the diocese and All Saints’ reached an amicable settlement on the church property, but since then Fr. Guernsey and the other leadership at the parish have voted to affiliate with CANA, something that both Bishop Lee and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori have said is antithetical to ancient church precedent.
The priests listed in the release:
• The Rev. Robin T. Adams
• The Rev. Marshall Brown
• The Rev. E. Kathleen Christopher
• The Rev. Jack W. Grubbs
• The Rev. David N. Jones
• The Rev. Herbert J. McMullan
• The Rev. Valarie A. Whitcomb
• The Rev. George R. Beaven
• The Rev. Neal H. Brown
• The Rev. Richard C. Crocker
• The Rev. John A.M. Guernsey
• The Rev. Nicholas P.N. Lebelfeld
• The Rev. Elijah B. White
• The Rev. John W. Yates II
• The Rev. Mark W. Brown
• The Rev. Jeffrey O. Cerar
• The Rev. Ramsey D. Gilchrist
• The Rev. David R. Harper
• The Rev. Marion D. Lucas, III
• The Rev. Robin Rauh
• The Rev. Frederick M. Wright
Bishop Lee Inhibits 21 Priests
1/23/2007
In a letter sent Jan. 22 to 21 priests under license in the Diocese of Virginia, the bishop and standing committee informed the group they had been inhibited for the next six months.
“Your association with a group of people that has abandoned the Communion of the Episcopal Church and rejected its authority and the authority of the Diocese of Virginia constitute your abandonment of the Communion of the Episcopal Church,” states a letter signed by Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee. “If, in the next six months, you retract your actions of abandonment, this inhibition may be lifted. But at the end of six months, if you have not retracted your actions, you may be released from the obligations of priesthood in this church and removed from the ordained ministry.”
Bishop Lee concluded the brief letter by noting how deeply saddened he was by this development. He said he believed “the actions that the Standing Committee and I are taking are necessary for the discipline and unity of the church.”
All of the clergy associated with the 11 Virginia congregations which recently voted to leave the diocese and affiliate with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) have been inhibited with the exception of Bishop Martyn Minns, who serves as rector of Truro Church in Fairfax. Bishop Lee previously said that Bishop Minns was a validly consecrated Bishop of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, but he has refused to recognize either CANA or the Anglican District of Virginia, which the 11 congregations have formed.
The list includes the Rev. John A.M. Guernsey, rector of All Saints’ Church in Woodbridge. In November, the diocese and All Saints’ reached an amicable settlement on the church property, but since then Fr. Guernsey and the other leadership at the parish have voted to affiliate with CANA, something that both Bishop Lee and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori have said is antithetical to ancient church precedent.
The priests listed in the release:
• The Rev. Robin T. Adams
• The Rev. Marshall Brown
• The Rev. E. Kathleen Christopher
• The Rev. Jack W. Grubbs
• The Rev. David N. Jones
• The Rev. Herbert J. McMullan
• The Rev. Valarie A. Whitcomb
• The Rev. George R. Beaven
• The Rev. Neal H. Brown
• The Rev. Richard C. Crocker
• The Rev. John A.M. Guernsey
• The Rev. Nicholas P.N. Lebelfeld
• The Rev. Elijah B. White
• The Rev. John W. Yates II
• The Rev. Mark W. Brown
• The Rev. Jeffrey O. Cerar
• The Rev. Ramsey D. Gilchrist
• The Rev. David R. Harper
• The Rev. Marion D. Lucas, III
• The Rev. Robin Rauh
• The Rev. Frederick M. Wright
What Would You Have the Archbishop of Canterbury Do??
By the Rt. Rev. Maurice Benitez, Bishop of Texas, Retired
Bp. Benitez responds on the House of Bishops/Deputies mailing list to the flurry of criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury, following the recent public exoriation of the ABC by +Marshall.
1/20/2007
I address this posting to the increasing number on the HOB/HOD network who lately have been exceedingly critical of the Archbishop of Canterbury and even delivered some rather severe attacks against him!
Well, what would you have him do to address this sordid mess that the Anglican Communion is now in? After all, Archbishop Rowan Williams did NOT initiate this conflict in which we in the Communion are now struggling, and which may well result in tearing the Communion apart. He did not start this brawl. He is not to blame for it. He merely has the responsibility to end it, and to preserve, to the extent he can, the unity and stability of the Anglican Communion. His primary duty to God and His Church, can be nothing less than that. His Grace certainly does not need anyone defending him, but nevertheless, to satisfy my own conscience, I am going to give it a try.
The Anglican Communion is a communion of Churches who share a common heritage. We are bound together by a common understanding of the historic Apostolic Catholic Faith, and we find our structure and content of this faith in the teachings and interpretations of the Holy Scriptures that we have received down through the ages from the Apostles and Church Fathers. We treasure the measure of diversity that we in Anglicanism enjoy in our understanding of the Christian Faith, and in our freedom to disagree and debate with one another, and to propose changes in our doctrines and practices, although not to enact unilateral and arbitrary changes until we have a clear consent and agreement from a majority of the other the members of the Communion. We enjoy what might be called a tolerable degree of diversity, even while we owe the rest of the Communion an obligation to observe the reasonable limits of that diversity in our teachings and practices, until we can convince a majority of the Communion to accept what we propose. We do this in order to preserve our unity and keep us walking together down the same road.
To keep us within our limits of diversity, and preserve our unity, we in the Anglican Communion require those of us who are ordained to take vows in which we promise "to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them." And where do we find the content of that "doctrine, discipline and worship", to which we are to conform our lives? The answer is obviously in the teachings of Holy Scriptures as understood by the Apostles and Church Fathers, and passed down to us through the centuries, as well as from our Anglican Prayer Books.
To keep all of us clergy in the Communion abiding by the vows we have made to uphold "the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church", and not instead to proclaim doctrinal novelties and offering our personal opinions from the pulpit as the teaching of the Church, (and in doing so to claim we are simply being "prophetic") we ordain the Order of bishops, who in their office have as a primary role, to maintain order in the life of the Church. However, it is exceedingly unfortunate that too often in recent years it has been those in Episcopal Orders who have led the way in instigating and propagating departures from the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of the Faith upheld by the rest of the Communion. And the bishops, at least of this Province, the Episcopal Church, know well the power we possess, as I will wager that more clergy have been inhibited and deposed in the last few years than in all of the previous years of our history. It is indeed sad, and ironic, that a number of our bishops, who defied the strong protest and pleadings of the majority of the rest of the Anglican Communion in choosing to walk a different path from those other members of the Communion, so quickly respond with severe disciplinary action against those clergy in their dioceses who merely would like to leave TEC, and to serve Christ under the jurisdiction of another Province of the Communion.
Furthermore, if those bishops in the Communion, chosen to maintain order in the Church, continue to lead the way in acting contrary to the order of the Church, the situation in our Province, and in the Communion as a whole, will become even more complicated than it is right now, and be accompanied by an increasingly intolerable amount of doctrinal diversity.
And we have already come to that stage where a diocese, (the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada), and even a Province of the Communion, TEC, have chosen to defy, and act contrary to "the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church", and the clear teaching of Holy Scripture as understood and upheld by an overwhelming majority of the Communion. (However, it does need to be said that there are several other provinces of the Communion who are sympathetic to the positions that TEC and New Westminster have taken, but these several provinces have exercised restraint for the sake of order, and will not act and make changes as TEC has, until some clear majority in the Anglican Communion has emerged voting for these changes.)
And these actions by TEC and New Westminster have incited others around the Communion, including bishops and Archbishops from almost all parts of the world, to take counteractions, offering pastoral care and jurisdiction to orthodox congregations within TEC, which feel they cannot any longer tolerate their diocesan and provincial leadership within our province, and welcome the opportunity to serve under Anglican jurisdictional leadership from elsewhere. And the number of these congregations choosing to depart from the dioceses of TEC, and serve under other Anglican jurisdictions, is continuing to increase month by month.
In addition, increasing numbers of primates and bishops from the rest of the Communion, countering the actions that TEC has taken, are traveling all over North America, crossing our provincial and diocesan boundaries at will, all of which is proof of the adage, that "anarchy will inevitably breed more anarchy." The bishops from Global South did not precipitate this series of anarchical acts, and begin these intrusions into our boundaries, until we in TEC first chose to make some radical changes in our faith and practice, from standards that have been upheld in our Communion, since its establishment, and has been the norm in the Apostolic Church for 2,000 years. The rest of the Communion begged us not to take this step, and we chose not to listen to them. Well, we in TEC have sown the wind, and we are now reaping the whirlwind!!
And now we come to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The man has little power outside the Church of England, although he does have the responsibility for keeping the Communion from coming apart. Given the current chaotic state of the Communion, what should he do? What would you do to restore order? What would you have him do? Frankly, I think he has proposed and is seeking to implement, a very reasonable plan . He is offering the entire Communion the opportunity to draft a Covenant, and calling all of the members of the Communion to agree to it, with the provision that those who do not agree with it, cannot be constituent voting members, but instead will be relegated to the role of associate members in the Communion.
No one knows exactly how the plan will work out in the future, but how can anyone argue with the logic and fairness of the proposal. After all, it is based on majority rule, and those of us who have repeatedly argued against the actions of TEC in recent years, have received the response that the actions of General Convention are based on the majority rule of the Bishops and Deputies, and therefore are fair. Obviously, the same principle must apply to actions of the Anglican Communion!
And I repeat, that the mess we are now in, is not the fault of the Archbishop Rowan Williams. He is merely caught in the job of having to juggle a host of balls, and somehow keep them in the air. He is a gifted and Godly man, and rather than criticize and excoriate the man, we all need to be praying fervently for him. May God bless him, as well as bless all of the rest of us in the Anglican Communion.
Maurice M. Benitez
Bishop of Texas, Retired
Bp. Benitez responds on the House of Bishops/Deputies mailing list to the flurry of criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury, following the recent public exoriation of the ABC by +Marshall.
1/20/2007
I address this posting to the increasing number on the HOB/HOD network who lately have been exceedingly critical of the Archbishop of Canterbury and even delivered some rather severe attacks against him!
Well, what would you have him do to address this sordid mess that the Anglican Communion is now in? After all, Archbishop Rowan Williams did NOT initiate this conflict in which we in the Communion are now struggling, and which may well result in tearing the Communion apart. He did not start this brawl. He is not to blame for it. He merely has the responsibility to end it, and to preserve, to the extent he can, the unity and stability of the Anglican Communion. His primary duty to God and His Church, can be nothing less than that. His Grace certainly does not need anyone defending him, but nevertheless, to satisfy my own conscience, I am going to give it a try.
The Anglican Communion is a communion of Churches who share a common heritage. We are bound together by a common understanding of the historic Apostolic Catholic Faith, and we find our structure and content of this faith in the teachings and interpretations of the Holy Scriptures that we have received down through the ages from the Apostles and Church Fathers. We treasure the measure of diversity that we in Anglicanism enjoy in our understanding of the Christian Faith, and in our freedom to disagree and debate with one another, and to propose changes in our doctrines and practices, although not to enact unilateral and arbitrary changes until we have a clear consent and agreement from a majority of the other the members of the Communion. We enjoy what might be called a tolerable degree of diversity, even while we owe the rest of the Communion an obligation to observe the reasonable limits of that diversity in our teachings and practices, until we can convince a majority of the Communion to accept what we propose. We do this in order to preserve our unity and keep us walking together down the same road.
To keep us within our limits of diversity, and preserve our unity, we in the Anglican Communion require those of us who are ordained to take vows in which we promise "to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them." And where do we find the content of that "doctrine, discipline and worship", to which we are to conform our lives? The answer is obviously in the teachings of Holy Scriptures as understood by the Apostles and Church Fathers, and passed down to us through the centuries, as well as from our Anglican Prayer Books.
To keep all of us clergy in the Communion abiding by the vows we have made to uphold "the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church", and not instead to proclaim doctrinal novelties and offering our personal opinions from the pulpit as the teaching of the Church, (and in doing so to claim we are simply being "prophetic") we ordain the Order of bishops, who in their office have as a primary role, to maintain order in the life of the Church. However, it is exceedingly unfortunate that too often in recent years it has been those in Episcopal Orders who have led the way in instigating and propagating departures from the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of the Faith upheld by the rest of the Communion. And the bishops, at least of this Province, the Episcopal Church, know well the power we possess, as I will wager that more clergy have been inhibited and deposed in the last few years than in all of the previous years of our history. It is indeed sad, and ironic, that a number of our bishops, who defied the strong protest and pleadings of the majority of the rest of the Anglican Communion in choosing to walk a different path from those other members of the Communion, so quickly respond with severe disciplinary action against those clergy in their dioceses who merely would like to leave TEC, and to serve Christ under the jurisdiction of another Province of the Communion.
Furthermore, if those bishops in the Communion, chosen to maintain order in the Church, continue to lead the way in acting contrary to the order of the Church, the situation in our Province, and in the Communion as a whole, will become even more complicated than it is right now, and be accompanied by an increasingly intolerable amount of doctrinal diversity.
And we have already come to that stage where a diocese, (the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada), and even a Province of the Communion, TEC, have chosen to defy, and act contrary to "the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church", and the clear teaching of Holy Scripture as understood and upheld by an overwhelming majority of the Communion. (However, it does need to be said that there are several other provinces of the Communion who are sympathetic to the positions that TEC and New Westminster have taken, but these several provinces have exercised restraint for the sake of order, and will not act and make changes as TEC has, until some clear majority in the Anglican Communion has emerged voting for these changes.)
And these actions by TEC and New Westminster have incited others around the Communion, including bishops and Archbishops from almost all parts of the world, to take counteractions, offering pastoral care and jurisdiction to orthodox congregations within TEC, which feel they cannot any longer tolerate their diocesan and provincial leadership within our province, and welcome the opportunity to serve under Anglican jurisdictional leadership from elsewhere. And the number of these congregations choosing to depart from the dioceses of TEC, and serve under other Anglican jurisdictions, is continuing to increase month by month.
In addition, increasing numbers of primates and bishops from the rest of the Communion, countering the actions that TEC has taken, are traveling all over North America, crossing our provincial and diocesan boundaries at will, all of which is proof of the adage, that "anarchy will inevitably breed more anarchy." The bishops from Global South did not precipitate this series of anarchical acts, and begin these intrusions into our boundaries, until we in TEC first chose to make some radical changes in our faith and practice, from standards that have been upheld in our Communion, since its establishment, and has been the norm in the Apostolic Church for 2,000 years. The rest of the Communion begged us not to take this step, and we chose not to listen to them. Well, we in TEC have sown the wind, and we are now reaping the whirlwind!!
And now we come to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The man has little power outside the Church of England, although he does have the responsibility for keeping the Communion from coming apart. Given the current chaotic state of the Communion, what should he do? What would you do to restore order? What would you have him do? Frankly, I think he has proposed and is seeking to implement, a very reasonable plan . He is offering the entire Communion the opportunity to draft a Covenant, and calling all of the members of the Communion to agree to it, with the provision that those who do not agree with it, cannot be constituent voting members, but instead will be relegated to the role of associate members in the Communion.
No one knows exactly how the plan will work out in the future, but how can anyone argue with the logic and fairness of the proposal. After all, it is based on majority rule, and those of us who have repeatedly argued against the actions of TEC in recent years, have received the response that the actions of General Convention are based on the majority rule of the Bishops and Deputies, and therefore are fair. Obviously, the same principle must apply to actions of the Anglican Communion!
And I repeat, that the mess we are now in, is not the fault of the Archbishop Rowan Williams. He is merely caught in the job of having to juggle a host of balls, and somehow keep them in the air. He is a gifted and Godly man, and rather than criticize and excoriate the man, we all need to be praying fervently for him. May God bless him, as well as bless all of the rest of us in the Anglican Communion.
Maurice M. Benitez
Bishop of Texas, Retired
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Suits as Punishment?:
Truro, Others Stand on Solid Legal Ground
JIM OAKES
TIMES-DISPATCH GUEST COLUMNIST
Jan 21, 2007
Fairfax. Just before Christmas, my parish joined 14 others in Virginia that have voted this past year to separate from the Episcopal Church (TEC). This action was the result of a serious division building within the denomination over the past half-century concerning the role of Jesus in salvation and the interpretation and use of Scripture. The culmination for many was the refusal of TEC's General Convention this past summer to express regret for the consecration in 2003 of an openly gay partnered bishop, an action that defied explicit pleas from the leaders of the Anglican Communion and, we believe, the teaching of Scripture.
At the conclusion of the General Convention, the recently elected presiding bishop, the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, spoke of TEC as a church with two minds, and used the metaphor of conjoined twins. She expressed concern that the two bodies could not yet be separated and live. But we and others had come to realize that we would die unless we separated.
For three years prior to our votes we met with Bishop Peter Lee of the Diocese of Virginia to explore ways that we might move forward together. Throughout that time he was clear in his position that if we did not remain within TEC the diocese would claim title to our property. Despite that stance, as it became apparent that separation was likely, he organized a committee to design an orderly process for parish votes and for subsequent negotiation over property. After our votes, the diocese appointed a property committee to negotiate with us, and this committee met with our representatives late last month.
Non-Litigation Agreement Ends
While there was no guarantee that these talks would be successful, both parties had stated repeatedly in public and private that they did not want to resort to litigation. The previous presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, had treated property disputes as a diocesan -- not national -- concern. So it came as a surprise when after an all-day meeting with David Booth Beers, the lead lawyer for TEC, the diocese reversed itself and announced last week that it was ending a non-litigation agreement (a "standstill agreement") designed to allow time for negotiation.
Why does the national Episcopal Church want our buildings? It certainly does not need them. In an undated report quietly released last year -- "Average Sunday Attendance 1995-2005 by Domestic Diocese" -- it was reported that Sunday attendance in Episcopal parishes across the country has dropped 8.1 percent since 2000, from 856,579 in 2000 to 787,271 in 2005. (During that period the U.S. population rose 5 percent.) The story in Virginia is similar: Average Sunday attendance in the Diocese of Virginia dropped 2.9 percent in that time, while the state's population grew 6.5 percent. Incidentally, although TEC has tried to portray us as an insignificant minority within the church, the 15 parishes that separated in Virginia accounted for 17 percent of the diocese's average Sunday attendance. Even more startling, our average Sunday attendance is greater that that of 45 of the 100 dioceses in TEC.
Our parishes are vibrant and lively. Not only are our buildings fully used on Sundays, they are bustling with activity throughout the week as well. We need the buildings to carry out ministry. Truro hosts almost 70 ministries that use our facilities, ranging from Scout troops to TESL classes to AIDS orphan support to prayer groups. Nevertheless, TEC refuses to negotiate and instead will bring a lawsuit to force us to move. Litigation will be costly for both sides. It is likely to breed or deepen hostility. It is something the Bible says should not happen within the church. So why has TEC chosen this path?
The explanation given by Beers is that the national church has an ownership interest in all property of parishes under a canonical rule it adopted less than 30 years ago. We, on the other hand, believe that the laws of Virginia support local parish ownership. Furthermore, we believe we have a moral obligation to our predecessors whose contributions purchased and built our facilities, and who would be shocked and dismayed to hear the theological positions espoused by the new presiding bishop in numerous interviews since her election.
Why Is Church So Aggressive?
But the legal argument of TEC is similar to that of the Diocese of Virginia, which until last week was willing to negotiate a settlement. So what is really going on to cause TEC to take this aggressive stance?
The only conclusion we can draw is that these lawsuits are intended to punish parishes that have voted to leave TEC and to intimidate any others that might be so inclined. This retributive approach is concerned primarily with creating homeless parishes, even if by doing so it increases its supply of empty Episcopal buildings.
Isn't that a shame.
Jim Oakes is the senior warden at Truro Church.
JIM OAKES
TIMES-DISPATCH GUEST COLUMNIST
Jan 21, 2007
Fairfax. Just before Christmas, my parish joined 14 others in Virginia that have voted this past year to separate from the Episcopal Church (TEC). This action was the result of a serious division building within the denomination over the past half-century concerning the role of Jesus in salvation and the interpretation and use of Scripture. The culmination for many was the refusal of TEC's General Convention this past summer to express regret for the consecration in 2003 of an openly gay partnered bishop, an action that defied explicit pleas from the leaders of the Anglican Communion and, we believe, the teaching of Scripture.
At the conclusion of the General Convention, the recently elected presiding bishop, the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, spoke of TEC as a church with two minds, and used the metaphor of conjoined twins. She expressed concern that the two bodies could not yet be separated and live. But we and others had come to realize that we would die unless we separated.
For three years prior to our votes we met with Bishop Peter Lee of the Diocese of Virginia to explore ways that we might move forward together. Throughout that time he was clear in his position that if we did not remain within TEC the diocese would claim title to our property. Despite that stance, as it became apparent that separation was likely, he organized a committee to design an orderly process for parish votes and for subsequent negotiation over property. After our votes, the diocese appointed a property committee to negotiate with us, and this committee met with our representatives late last month.
Non-Litigation Agreement Ends
While there was no guarantee that these talks would be successful, both parties had stated repeatedly in public and private that they did not want to resort to litigation. The previous presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, had treated property disputes as a diocesan -- not national -- concern. So it came as a surprise when after an all-day meeting with David Booth Beers, the lead lawyer for TEC, the diocese reversed itself and announced last week that it was ending a non-litigation agreement (a "standstill agreement") designed to allow time for negotiation.
Why does the national Episcopal Church want our buildings? It certainly does not need them. In an undated report quietly released last year -- "Average Sunday Attendance 1995-2005 by Domestic Diocese" -- it was reported that Sunday attendance in Episcopal parishes across the country has dropped 8.1 percent since 2000, from 856,579 in 2000 to 787,271 in 2005. (During that period the U.S. population rose 5 percent.) The story in Virginia is similar: Average Sunday attendance in the Diocese of Virginia dropped 2.9 percent in that time, while the state's population grew 6.5 percent. Incidentally, although TEC has tried to portray us as an insignificant minority within the church, the 15 parishes that separated in Virginia accounted for 17 percent of the diocese's average Sunday attendance. Even more startling, our average Sunday attendance is greater that that of 45 of the 100 dioceses in TEC.
Our parishes are vibrant and lively. Not only are our buildings fully used on Sundays, they are bustling with activity throughout the week as well. We need the buildings to carry out ministry. Truro hosts almost 70 ministries that use our facilities, ranging from Scout troops to TESL classes to AIDS orphan support to prayer groups. Nevertheless, TEC refuses to negotiate and instead will bring a lawsuit to force us to move. Litigation will be costly for both sides. It is likely to breed or deepen hostility. It is something the Bible says should not happen within the church. So why has TEC chosen this path?
The explanation given by Beers is that the national church has an ownership interest in all property of parishes under a canonical rule it adopted less than 30 years ago. We, on the other hand, believe that the laws of Virginia support local parish ownership. Furthermore, we believe we have a moral obligation to our predecessors whose contributions purchased and built our facilities, and who would be shocked and dismayed to hear the theological positions espoused by the new presiding bishop in numerous interviews since her election.
Why Is Church So Aggressive?
But the legal argument of TEC is similar to that of the Diocese of Virginia, which until last week was willing to negotiate a settlement. So what is really going on to cause TEC to take this aggressive stance?
The only conclusion we can draw is that these lawsuits are intended to punish parishes that have voted to leave TEC and to intimidate any others that might be so inclined. This retributive approach is concerned primarily with creating homeless parishes, even if by doing so it increases its supply of empty Episcopal buildings.
Isn't that a shame.
Jim Oakes is the senior warden at Truro Church.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Hate in a story about embracing diversity
From GetReligion.org:
By: dpulliam
university of marylandThe best thing a reporter can hear from his editor is that they can have as much space as they need to tell the story. In an era of online publishing, this should be the case each and every time, but sadly, I don’t see reporters or their editors using that opportunity all that often.
In a world where column inches do not matter, reporters face a different challenge of knowing when to stop reporting and writing. In my own experience, a good editor acts as a good stop. A fast approaching deadline also acts as a fairly reliable stopper.
In an excellent example of how to use the Internet to enhance a reporter’s ability to tell a story, the Washington Post’s Michelle Boorstein filed two versions of his Jan. 15 article titled “A Mission of Understanding: At U-Md., Evangelical Christian Teen Breaks Into the Mainstream, Out of His Comfort Zone.” One went into the morning newspaper, which I enjoyed over eggs and toast and the other went online which I also enjoyed (sans the food).
Why aren’t newspapers doing this more often? The print version of the article, which I cannot find online, was more concise and more readable. And the online version seemed to read like the version that existed before the Post’s inch-guardians got their grubby hands on it. The online version rambled a little bit, but it told us a more complete story.
The story is about Danny Leydorf who attended a Christian school in Annapolis since he was in kindergarten. For college he selected the University of Maryland, a secular state school in an effort to “test his faith in a more diverse world.” This, as the article nicely outlines, is a growing trend among kids raised in Christian educational environments. For the last 30 years, kids coming out of Christian high schools were directed towards Christian colleges or the mission field and even today there remains hesitancy.
After reading the through the first five paragraphs of the article, one does not have to wonder why Christians are hesitating or are nervous:
“I feel like I exist to be interacting,” the lanky, towheaded 19-year-old said eagerly one day last summer, shortly after his graduation, “and part of that is just getting out there.”
So he’d deliberately picked a large, secular college: the University of Maryland. But the week before he was to leave, the wider world dealt him a blow.
“I hate evangelical Christians,” read the Facebook.com profile of his roommate-to-be, who had seemed so perfect on the phone. He loved politics and “The Simpsons,” like Leydorf, and they even had the same views about how to set up the room. Could it still work?
We later learn that Leydorf decided to ignore the Facebook comment, concluding that the unnamed roommate was using “evangelical” to describe people like “Jerry Falwell whom Leydorf considers intolerant.”
facebook
College kids are not exactly known for their discretion and this is true especially for freshmen. And saying that you “hate” something on Facebook is not generally taken very seriously. For instance, there is a group on Facebook called “Abortion: Because I Hate Babies” that has 72 members and another titled “ACME employees who hate ACME” has 11 members. The “Adam Sandler Hate Club” has 46 members. You get the idea.
But that doesn’t mean that the Post should simply ignore the irony that Leydorf, raised in a Christian school and is seeking to learn to live in “a more diverse world,” is facing the hate of the real world before he even steps on campus. Perhaps Leydorf’s roommate will learn a thing or two from his new Christian evangelical friend who seems as willing as anyone to embrace diverse environments.
Go to the Maryland University home page and you’ll immediately see a link titled “Diversity.” On that page you’re told that this is “your road map to the plethora of equity and diversity undertakings on our campus.”
A huge part of the story is devoted to telling the story of why evangelicals withdrew from secular institutions and perhaps this lack of interaction has allowed people like Leydorf’s roommate to develop a hate for Christians largely because they did not know any. Or at least any like Leydorf, who is someone that one would find it hard to hate.
Colleges and universities are burdened with the unenviable task for sorting through the competing values of free speech and protecting diversity and individual rights. Was this a comment that should have changed the direction of the story? I would say no because I think the writer had a better story to tell. But it’s certainly worth looking into in the future. And as I said earlier, time is the big constraint for reporters these days, not column inches.
By: dpulliam
university of marylandThe best thing a reporter can hear from his editor is that they can have as much space as they need to tell the story. In an era of online publishing, this should be the case each and every time, but sadly, I don’t see reporters or their editors using that opportunity all that often.
In a world where column inches do not matter, reporters face a different challenge of knowing when to stop reporting and writing. In my own experience, a good editor acts as a good stop. A fast approaching deadline also acts as a fairly reliable stopper.
In an excellent example of how to use the Internet to enhance a reporter’s ability to tell a story, the Washington Post’s Michelle Boorstein filed two versions of his Jan. 15 article titled “A Mission of Understanding: At U-Md., Evangelical Christian Teen Breaks Into the Mainstream, Out of His Comfort Zone.” One went into the morning newspaper, which I enjoyed over eggs and toast and the other went online which I also enjoyed (sans the food).
Why aren’t newspapers doing this more often? The print version of the article, which I cannot find online, was more concise and more readable. And the online version seemed to read like the version that existed before the Post’s inch-guardians got their grubby hands on it. The online version rambled a little bit, but it told us a more complete story.
The story is about Danny Leydorf who attended a Christian school in Annapolis since he was in kindergarten. For college he selected the University of Maryland, a secular state school in an effort to “test his faith in a more diverse world.” This, as the article nicely outlines, is a growing trend among kids raised in Christian educational environments. For the last 30 years, kids coming out of Christian high schools were directed towards Christian colleges or the mission field and even today there remains hesitancy.
After reading the through the first five paragraphs of the article, one does not have to wonder why Christians are hesitating or are nervous:
“I feel like I exist to be interacting,” the lanky, towheaded 19-year-old said eagerly one day last summer, shortly after his graduation, “and part of that is just getting out there.”
So he’d deliberately picked a large, secular college: the University of Maryland. But the week before he was to leave, the wider world dealt him a blow.
“I hate evangelical Christians,” read the Facebook.com profile of his roommate-to-be, who had seemed so perfect on the phone. He loved politics and “The Simpsons,” like Leydorf, and they even had the same views about how to set up the room. Could it still work?
We later learn that Leydorf decided to ignore the Facebook comment, concluding that the unnamed roommate was using “evangelical” to describe people like “Jerry Falwell whom Leydorf considers intolerant.”
College kids are not exactly known for their discretion and this is true especially for freshmen. And saying that you “hate” something on Facebook is not generally taken very seriously. For instance, there is a group on Facebook called “Abortion: Because I Hate Babies” that has 72 members and another titled “ACME employees who hate ACME” has 11 members. The “Adam Sandler Hate Club” has 46 members. You get the idea.
But that doesn’t mean that the Post should simply ignore the irony that Leydorf, raised in a Christian school and is seeking to learn to live in “a more diverse world,” is facing the hate of the real world before he even steps on campus. Perhaps Leydorf’s roommate will learn a thing or two from his new Christian evangelical friend who seems as willing as anyone to embrace diverse environments.
Go to the Maryland University home page and you’ll immediately see a link titled “Diversity.” On that page you’re told that this is “your road map to the plethora of equity and diversity undertakings on our campus.”
A huge part of the story is devoted to telling the story of why evangelicals withdrew from secular institutions and perhaps this lack of interaction has allowed people like Leydorf’s roommate to develop a hate for Christians largely because they did not know any. Or at least any like Leydorf, who is someone that one would find it hard to hate.
Colleges and universities are burdened with the unenviable task for sorting through the competing values of free speech and protecting diversity and individual rights. Was this a comment that should have changed the direction of the story? I would say no because I think the writer had a better story to tell. But it’s certainly worth looking into in the future. And as I said earlier, time is the big constraint for reporters these days, not column inches.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
EX-GAY LEADER IN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS WITH NIGERIAN ARCHBISHOP
The following is an exchange of letters between Rev Mario Bergner of Redeemed Lives Ministries and Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria
Saturday January 13th 2007, 9:30 pm
Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has claimed that "As a biologist I look at the natural world where same-sex behaviour is present in many, many species. Today we can look at sexual development happening very early in a person's life. As a person of faith I would look at that and say, it happens before the age of reason; it's a matter of creation, not a matter of choice." This is being discussed on Ruth Gledhill's blog here In this context, this exchange of letters from four years ago, published with permission, is illuminating.
January 2003
Dear Archbishop Akinola,
Greetings in the Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. My name is Mario Bergner and I am an Anglican Priest serving under the leadership of Bishop Keith Ackerman of the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy in Illinois.
Nearly twenty years ago, Jesus delivered me from a life of homosexual immorality through the Good News of Jesus Christ. It was a long and hard road, but eventually by His grace and mercy He changed me. Then, the Lord brought to me a wonderful wife, Nancy. Today, I devote my time to being a father to our four children and proclaiming the message of sexual redemption in Jesus Christ.
There has been much debate in our beloved Anglican Communion about homosexuality in the last thirty years. In the midst of this debate, the redemptive message of the Gospel to deliver people from homosexual attraction has been largely ignored. Much of the current debate assumes that "homosexual orientation" is a predetermined internal map that dictates same-sex attraction. But there has been absolutely no evidence that proves this.
There is plenty of evidence that homosexual attraction can be changed. To better equip you in understanding this, I have included in this package two resources: Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." This book is perhaps the definitive resource that addresses homosexuality from a scientific viewpoint and provides the scientific evidence that shows homosexuality can be changed. I would draw your attention to pages 186-187.
My book, "Setting Love In Order," shows how the Gospel of Jesus Christ and effective pastoral care can deliver someone from homosexuality. Most importantly, the Holy Scriptures tells us there were people in the early Church who were redeemed from homosexuality. This is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. There, St. Paul lists various expressions of sexual immorality and concludes with the redemption exclamation, "...and such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Thank you for reading this letter and for your godly leadership in the Anglican Communion.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rev. Mario Bergner
February 2003
Dear Rev. Bergner,
I can never thank you enough for the precious gifts of your most timely letter and books. The message is as revealing as it is liberating. I shall endeavor not only to read the books but also pass them on to my colleagues.
The position of the Church of Nigeria on the sexuality agenda of the "West" is well known. Your message to us at this time has further reinforced our position that the society does not have to pull the Church by the nose. We have a duty to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to all.
The most interesting phenomenon of the Gospel is that it has power to liberate any situation and any condition. It has indeed transformed cultures, it has transformed governments; it has certainly transformed millions and billions of people in God's world.
So once again, please accept my grateful thanks for your invaluable gifts to us and to humanity.
The Lord be with you.
Sincerely,
The Most Revd. Peter J. Akinola DD
------------------------------
Saturday January 13th 2007, 9:30 pm
Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has claimed that "As a biologist I look at the natural world where same-sex behaviour is present in many, many species. Today we can look at sexual development happening very early in a person's life. As a person of faith I would look at that and say, it happens before the age of reason; it's a matter of creation, not a matter of choice." This is being discussed on Ruth Gledhill's blog here In this context, this exchange of letters from four years ago, published with permission, is illuminating.
January 2003
Dear Archbishop Akinola,
Greetings in the Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. My name is Mario Bergner and I am an Anglican Priest serving under the leadership of Bishop Keith Ackerman of the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy in Illinois.
Nearly twenty years ago, Jesus delivered me from a life of homosexual immorality through the Good News of Jesus Christ. It was a long and hard road, but eventually by His grace and mercy He changed me. Then, the Lord brought to me a wonderful wife, Nancy. Today, I devote my time to being a father to our four children and proclaiming the message of sexual redemption in Jesus Christ.
There has been much debate in our beloved Anglican Communion about homosexuality in the last thirty years. In the midst of this debate, the redemptive message of the Gospel to deliver people from homosexual attraction has been largely ignored. Much of the current debate assumes that "homosexual orientation" is a predetermined internal map that dictates same-sex attraction. But there has been absolutely no evidence that proves this.
There is plenty of evidence that homosexual attraction can be changed. To better equip you in understanding this, I have included in this package two resources: Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." This book is perhaps the definitive resource that addresses homosexuality from a scientific viewpoint and provides the scientific evidence that shows homosexuality can be changed. I would draw your attention to pages 186-187.
My book, "Setting Love In Order," shows how the Gospel of Jesus Christ and effective pastoral care can deliver someone from homosexuality. Most importantly, the Holy Scriptures tells us there were people in the early Church who were redeemed from homosexuality. This is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. There, St. Paul lists various expressions of sexual immorality and concludes with the redemption exclamation, "...and such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Thank you for reading this letter and for your godly leadership in the Anglican Communion.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rev. Mario Bergner
February 2003
Dear Rev. Bergner,
I can never thank you enough for the precious gifts of your most timely letter and books. The message is as revealing as it is liberating. I shall endeavor not only to read the books but also pass them on to my colleagues.
The position of the Church of Nigeria on the sexuality agenda of the "West" is well known. Your message to us at this time has further reinforced our position that the society does not have to pull the Church by the nose. We have a duty to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to all.
The most interesting phenomenon of the Gospel is that it has power to liberate any situation and any condition. It has indeed transformed cultures, it has transformed governments; it has certainly transformed millions and billions of people in God's world.
So once again, please accept my grateful thanks for your invaluable gifts to us and to humanity.
The Lord be with you.
Sincerely,
The Most Revd. Peter J. Akinola DD
------------------------------
Is it Anglican well-being or willful amnesia?
By the Rt. Rev. C, FitzSimons Allison and the Very Rev. William N. McKeachie
Early in the last century, the philosopher Edmund Husserl led the way
in exposing how forgetful Western civilization had become about its
own roots and therefore its true well-being. A few years later, that
century's greatest Anglican poet, T. S. Eliot, asked: "Do you need to
be told that even such modest attainments as you can boast in the way
of polite society will hardly survive the Faith to which they owe
their significance?"
Now, however unwittingly, Adam Parker's articles ("A House Divided" on
Jan. 7) have exposed the extent to which those Episcopalians who
attack the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina are willfully
forgetful of the roots of the Faith, and therefore the true well-being
of the Episcopal Church.
Willful amnesia, to say the least, is what the quoted views of Barbara
Mann, Steve Skardon and others represent concerning what it means to
be an Anglican. They have themselves forgotten, or do not wish other
Episcopalians to remember, both the Catholic tradition and (in the
phrase of the Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl, one-time rector of St. James Church
in Charleston) the "Protestant face" of Anglicanism.
They have forgotten, for instance, that the Reformation of the Church
of England dates not from King Henry VIII but from Queen Elizabeth I a
quarter century later. Her predecessor, Queen Mary, had tried to
restore England to a medieval and papal form of Catholicism from 1553
to 1558. It was only under Queen Elizabeth that the Church of England
laid claim to Protestant freedom while at the same time maintaining
Catholic order.
Today's re-appraisers (in academic circles they would be called
revisionists of history) as quoted by Adam Parker have willfully
forgotten that the ecclesiastical formularies of the Elizabethan
Settlement - the traditional Book of Common Prayer, the confessional
Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, and the series of sermons known as
the Homilies - are the very bedrock of Anglican identity, unity and
well-being. They cannot be ignored or replaced by sentimental "bonds
of affection" devoid of theological doctrine.
Such willful amnesia leads these revisionists to misappropriate Henry
VIII as the "founder" (an old canard repeated twice in "A House
Divided") while ignoring the biblical Reformation that did not begin
until the reign of Henry's son Edward VI and was not secured until
Elizabeth's reign.
Henry VIII may, for his own sinful ends, have separated the Church of
England from the Papacy, but late-medieval Roman Catholicism required
longer, indeed required the blood of the Protestant martyrs, to be
reformed.
When biblical doctrine is forgotten as being essential to true unity,
the alleged diversity celebrated by today's revisionists quickly
exposes itself as tyranny against biblical Christians. Richard John
Neuhaus has identified this sleight of hand in his dictum: "When
orthodoxy becomes optional, it soon becomes proscribed."
Dozens of Episcopal Church dioceses today, in which biblically
faithful Christians are marginalized, manifest this tragic irony.
Dozens of Episcopal bishops in such dioceses have willfully forgotten
that the original Episcopal consecration vows administered until the
late 20th century included explicit assent to the following questions:
Will you then faithfully exercise yourself in the Holy Scriptures, and
call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same: so
that you may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome
Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers?
Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away
from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's
Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others
to the same?
The forgetfulness, indeed total disappearance, of such commitment
since the new Episcopal Prayer Book was adopted in 1979 has caused
many Episcopalians to seek the cover of overseas Anglican bishops in
order to remain faithfully rooted in the Catholic order and Protestant
freedom of the Anglican Reformation.
Kevin Wilson's claim that under Queen Elizabeth "no one agreed on
theology" is nothing but another example of forgetfulness and denial.
The disagreements in that era were minuscule compared with those of
Episcopal bishops today who have turned their backs on the theological
content of the very vows they swore at their consecration.
For her part, Barbara Mann has forgotten, in her claim that we are not
a confessional church, the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion as
integral to the well-being of Prayer Book Anglicanism and
"established" by the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Protestant
Episcopal Church of the United States of America in 1801. Her false
claim allows her and others like her to accommodate the church to the
world, rather than the world to Christ, against which St. Paul
strongly warned in his Epistle to the Romans.
Such amnesia leads Barbara Mann to reduce matters of theological
substance to a "power struggle." As George Marsden has observed:
"Without theism ... the only effective arbiter of contested moral
claims is power." Thus these revisionists ironically expose their own
motivation: they have taken power and have proscribed orthodoxy!
But nothing more clearly exposes forgetfulness of the biblical
substance of the Christian Faith than Steve Skardon's "willingness to
reconcile scripture with contemporary society" or Barbara Mann's
assertion that the Holy Spirit and its influence change as people
change. This willful amnesia about the Christian faith divorces such
revisionists from the biblical assurance that the Word of God, Jesus
Christ, is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
To forget, or rather suppress, the indisputable fact that the
Episcopal Church has lost a third of its membership in little more
than 30 years (the period of its lemming-like dash to accommodate
itself to a post-Christian world), while attacking the leadership of
one of the very few dioceses in the Episcopal Church to have grown
dramatically in the same period, is bad enough.
But what is not merely forgetful but simply false - and implicitly but
also falsely attributed in "A House Divided" to the Rev. Jan Nunley,
who has denied it - is the assertion that "African primates were
instrumental in getting a resolution passed at the 1988 Lambeth
Conference condoning polygamy."
Though polygamy is a fact on the ground among some tribes in Africa,
its active practice by converts to Christianity has never been
condoned.
Thus the condescending dismissal of some of the most faithful,
thoughtful, and evangelically successful bishops in the Anglican
Communion, as though they are intellectually and culturally primitive
simply because they happen to live in Africa and Asia, is based not on
forgetfulness but falsehood. So much by way of dismissal also, no
doubt, of Jesus' own original disciples.
The Diocese of South Carolina, as represented by our retired bishops
and our bishop-elect, has not and will not forget or compromise our
heritage and well-being - Episcopalian, Anglican and biblically
Christian.
The Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison is the 12th Bishop of South
Carolina (retired). The Very Rev. William N. McKeachie is dean of the
Diocese of South Carolina and rector of the Cathedral Church of St.
Luke and St. Paul.
--
Early in the last century, the philosopher Edmund Husserl led the way
in exposing how forgetful Western civilization had become about its
own roots and therefore its true well-being. A few years later, that
century's greatest Anglican poet, T. S. Eliot, asked: "Do you need to
be told that even such modest attainments as you can boast in the way
of polite society will hardly survive the Faith to which they owe
their significance?"
Now, however unwittingly, Adam Parker's articles ("A House Divided" on
Jan. 7) have exposed the extent to which those Episcopalians who
attack the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina are willfully
forgetful of the roots of the Faith, and therefore the true well-being
of the Episcopal Church.
Willful amnesia, to say the least, is what the quoted views of Barbara
Mann, Steve Skardon and others represent concerning what it means to
be an Anglican. They have themselves forgotten, or do not wish other
Episcopalians to remember, both the Catholic tradition and (in the
phrase of the Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl, one-time rector of St. James Church
in Charleston) the "Protestant face" of Anglicanism.
They have forgotten, for instance, that the Reformation of the Church
of England dates not from King Henry VIII but from Queen Elizabeth I a
quarter century later. Her predecessor, Queen Mary, had tried to
restore England to a medieval and papal form of Catholicism from 1553
to 1558. It was only under Queen Elizabeth that the Church of England
laid claim to Protestant freedom while at the same time maintaining
Catholic order.
Today's re-appraisers (in academic circles they would be called
revisionists of history) as quoted by Adam Parker have willfully
forgotten that the ecclesiastical formularies of the Elizabethan
Settlement - the traditional Book of Common Prayer, the confessional
Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, and the series of sermons known as
the Homilies - are the very bedrock of Anglican identity, unity and
well-being. They cannot be ignored or replaced by sentimental "bonds
of affection" devoid of theological doctrine.
Such willful amnesia leads these revisionists to misappropriate Henry
VIII as the "founder" (an old canard repeated twice in "A House
Divided") while ignoring the biblical Reformation that did not begin
until the reign of Henry's son Edward VI and was not secured until
Elizabeth's reign.
Henry VIII may, for his own sinful ends, have separated the Church of
England from the Papacy, but late-medieval Roman Catholicism required
longer, indeed required the blood of the Protestant martyrs, to be
reformed.
When biblical doctrine is forgotten as being essential to true unity,
the alleged diversity celebrated by today's revisionists quickly
exposes itself as tyranny against biblical Christians. Richard John
Neuhaus has identified this sleight of hand in his dictum: "When
orthodoxy becomes optional, it soon becomes proscribed."
Dozens of Episcopal Church dioceses today, in which biblically
faithful Christians are marginalized, manifest this tragic irony.
Dozens of Episcopal bishops in such dioceses have willfully forgotten
that the original Episcopal consecration vows administered until the
late 20th century included explicit assent to the following questions:
Will you then faithfully exercise yourself in the Holy Scriptures, and
call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same: so
that you may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome
Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers?
Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away
from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's
Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others
to the same?
The forgetfulness, indeed total disappearance, of such commitment
since the new Episcopal Prayer Book was adopted in 1979 has caused
many Episcopalians to seek the cover of overseas Anglican bishops in
order to remain faithfully rooted in the Catholic order and Protestant
freedom of the Anglican Reformation.
Kevin Wilson's claim that under Queen Elizabeth "no one agreed on
theology" is nothing but another example of forgetfulness and denial.
The disagreements in that era were minuscule compared with those of
Episcopal bishops today who have turned their backs on the theological
content of the very vows they swore at their consecration.
For her part, Barbara Mann has forgotten, in her claim that we are not
a confessional church, the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion as
integral to the well-being of Prayer Book Anglicanism and
"established" by the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Protestant
Episcopal Church of the United States of America in 1801. Her false
claim allows her and others like her to accommodate the church to the
world, rather than the world to Christ, against which St. Paul
strongly warned in his Epistle to the Romans.
Such amnesia leads Barbara Mann to reduce matters of theological
substance to a "power struggle." As George Marsden has observed:
"Without theism ... the only effective arbiter of contested moral
claims is power." Thus these revisionists ironically expose their own
motivation: they have taken power and have proscribed orthodoxy!
But nothing more clearly exposes forgetfulness of the biblical
substance of the Christian Faith than Steve Skardon's "willingness to
reconcile scripture with contemporary society" or Barbara Mann's
assertion that the Holy Spirit and its influence change as people
change. This willful amnesia about the Christian faith divorces such
revisionists from the biblical assurance that the Word of God, Jesus
Christ, is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
To forget, or rather suppress, the indisputable fact that the
Episcopal Church has lost a third of its membership in little more
than 30 years (the period of its lemming-like dash to accommodate
itself to a post-Christian world), while attacking the leadership of
one of the very few dioceses in the Episcopal Church to have grown
dramatically in the same period, is bad enough.
But what is not merely forgetful but simply false - and implicitly but
also falsely attributed in "A House Divided" to the Rev. Jan Nunley,
who has denied it - is the assertion that "African primates were
instrumental in getting a resolution passed at the 1988 Lambeth
Conference condoning polygamy."
Though polygamy is a fact on the ground among some tribes in Africa,
its active practice by converts to Christianity has never been
condoned.
Thus the condescending dismissal of some of the most faithful,
thoughtful, and evangelically successful bishops in the Anglican
Communion, as though they are intellectually and culturally primitive
simply because they happen to live in Africa and Asia, is based not on
forgetfulness but falsehood. So much by way of dismissal also, no
doubt, of Jesus' own original disciples.
The Diocese of South Carolina, as represented by our retired bishops
and our bishop-elect, has not and will not forget or compromise our
heritage and well-being - Episcopalian, Anglican and biblically
Christian.
The Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison is the 12th Bishop of South
Carolina (retired). The Very Rev. William N. McKeachie is dean of the
Diocese of South Carolina and rector of the Cathedral Church of St.
Luke and St. Paul.
--
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Roll the Jefferts Schori tape, once again
From Terry Mattingly at GetReligion.org:
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Posted by tmatt
Changing times are threatening for people who are directly affected by the changes. Thus, more than a few journalists are afraid of the World Wide Web and the digital era — with good reason. I mean, the entire news industry is shaking in its boots waiting for somebody, somewhere to create a form of digital advertising more winsome than the pop-up ad. Please.
However, one of the best things about the emerging world of “multi-platform journalism” is that it allows journalists to use, well, more than one “platform” or media form.
So it’s a tight news day and your story can only run 400 words. Perhaps your editor will let you run the full, uncut text of your article online (more from young master Daniel Pulliam on that subject in a few hours). Or perhaps the brilliant leader of the Episcopal Church insists that her complex, nuanced theology must be represented in a form in which readers can read each and every word that she says, so that she will not get in trouble when her critics are handed a blunt quote in a shallow forum such as the New York Times?
Remember the blunt quote in question, when the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori said the following?
Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children. . . . We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.
I predict that this was the quote that loomed over the advance team during presiding bishop’s recent visit to Arkansas to preside over the consecration of the new bishop of that state.
(Time out: If a female bishop consecrates a male as a bishop, does that mean that the male she consecrated is really not a valid bishop in the eyes of the millions of Anglicans around the world who do not accept the validity of the ordination of women? Or did the Episcopal Church make sure that there were enough male bishops involved in the Arkansas rite so that this objection could not be raised? Or did Jefferts Schori “preside” instead of “consecrate”? Just asking. It could be an interesting news story.)
However, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette did a good thing during the Jefferts Schori visit. They had her sit down, with a recorder running, and had her grace answer all kinds of questions. Then, religion writer Frank Lockwood — i.e. The Bible Belt Blogger — ran the transcript online. Three cheers for more information!
Also, I think it’s good to note that the section of the interview that is getting the most attention online has nothing to do birth rates or with news reports about sexuality, in general. It has to do with another very controversial topic in the global Anglican wars — salvation and the nature of Jesus.
ADG: I want to ask you about a couple of other things you’ve said in interviews. One of those was in the 10 questions in TIME magazine about the small box that people put God in. Could you elaborate a little bit on your take on “Jesus is the way, the truth and the life” [a paraphrase of John 14:16]?
KJS: I certainly don’t disagree with that statement that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. But the way it’s used is as a truth serum, or a touchstone: If you cannot repeat this statement, then you’re not a faithful Christian or person of faith. I think Jesus as way — that’s certainly what it means to be on a spiritual journey. It means to be in search of relationship with God. We understand Jesus as truth in the sense of being the wholeness of human expression. What does it mean to be wholly and fully and completely a human being? Jesus as life, again, an example of abundant life. We understand him as bringer of abundant life but also as exemplar. What does it mean to be both fully human and fully divine? Here we have the evidence in human form. So I’m impatient with the narrow understanding, but certainly welcoming of the broader understanding.
ADG: What about the rest of that statement —
KJS: The small box?
ADG: Well, the rest of the verse, that no one comes to the Father except by the son.
KJS: Again in its narrow construction, it tends to eliminate other possibilities. In its broader construction, yes, human beings come to relationship with God largely through their experience of holiness in other human beings. Through seeing God at work in other people’s lives. In that sense, yes, I will affirm that statement. But not in the narrow sense, that people can only come to relationship with God through consciously believing in Jesus.
Well, that will certainly give the Anglican archbishops something to discuss during their upcoming meetings in Africa. I mean, something to talk about other than sexuality.
Again, three cheers for transcripts. Let’s hope that journalists get to post more interviews of this type in this multi-platform age.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Posted by tmatt
Changing times are threatening for people who are directly affected by the changes. Thus, more than a few journalists are afraid of the World Wide Web and the digital era — with good reason. I mean, the entire news industry is shaking in its boots waiting for somebody, somewhere to create a form of digital advertising more winsome than the pop-up ad. Please.
However, one of the best things about the emerging world of “multi-platform journalism” is that it allows journalists to use, well, more than one “platform” or media form.
So it’s a tight news day and your story can only run 400 words. Perhaps your editor will let you run the full, uncut text of your article online (more from young master Daniel Pulliam on that subject in a few hours). Or perhaps the brilliant leader of the Episcopal Church insists that her complex, nuanced theology must be represented in a form in which readers can read each and every word that she says, so that she will not get in trouble when her critics are handed a blunt quote in a shallow forum such as the New York Times?
Remember the blunt quote in question, when the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori said the following?
Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children. . . . We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.
I predict that this was the quote that loomed over the advance team during presiding bishop’s recent visit to Arkansas to preside over the consecration of the new bishop of that state.
(Time out: If a female bishop consecrates a male as a bishop, does that mean that the male she consecrated is really not a valid bishop in the eyes of the millions of Anglicans around the world who do not accept the validity of the ordination of women? Or did the Episcopal Church make sure that there were enough male bishops involved in the Arkansas rite so that this objection could not be raised? Or did Jefferts Schori “preside” instead of “consecrate”? Just asking. It could be an interesting news story.)
However, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette did a good thing during the Jefferts Schori visit. They had her sit down, with a recorder running, and had her grace answer all kinds of questions. Then, religion writer Frank Lockwood — i.e. The Bible Belt Blogger — ran the transcript online. Three cheers for more information!
Also, I think it’s good to note that the section of the interview that is getting the most attention online has nothing to do birth rates or with news reports about sexuality, in general. It has to do with another very controversial topic in the global Anglican wars — salvation and the nature of Jesus.
ADG: I want to ask you about a couple of other things you’ve said in interviews. One of those was in the 10 questions in TIME magazine about the small box that people put God in. Could you elaborate a little bit on your take on “Jesus is the way, the truth and the life” [a paraphrase of John 14:16]?
KJS: I certainly don’t disagree with that statement that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. But the way it’s used is as a truth serum, or a touchstone: If you cannot repeat this statement, then you’re not a faithful Christian or person of faith. I think Jesus as way — that’s certainly what it means to be on a spiritual journey. It means to be in search of relationship with God. We understand Jesus as truth in the sense of being the wholeness of human expression. What does it mean to be wholly and fully and completely a human being? Jesus as life, again, an example of abundant life. We understand him as bringer of abundant life but also as exemplar. What does it mean to be both fully human and fully divine? Here we have the evidence in human form. So I’m impatient with the narrow understanding, but certainly welcoming of the broader understanding.
ADG: What about the rest of that statement —
KJS: The small box?
ADG: Well, the rest of the verse, that no one comes to the Father except by the son.
KJS: Again in its narrow construction, it tends to eliminate other possibilities. In its broader construction, yes, human beings come to relationship with God largely through their experience of holiness in other human beings. Through seeing God at work in other people’s lives. In that sense, yes, I will affirm that statement. But not in the narrow sense, that people can only come to relationship with God through consciously believing in Jesus.
Well, that will certainly give the Anglican archbishops something to discuss during their upcoming meetings in Africa. I mean, something to talk about other than sexuality.
Again, three cheers for transcripts. Let’s hope that journalists get to post more interviews of this type in this multi-platform age.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
From a Reporter Who Gets It
Splinters of faith bind together as foundation for new church
By MILLETE BIRHANEMASKEL, birhanemaskelm@knews.com
January 13, 2007
A Rwandan coffee aroma wafting through the halls at Middlebrook Christian Ministries in Knoxville is the product of a peace effort in the East African country.
In the United States, the sweet smells are an unpleasant reminder of turbulence among brethren in the Episcopal Church.
The worldwide Anglican Communion's American branch is fighting an internal battle, which so far has cost more than one-third of its membership -- dropping from 3.5 million to 2.2 million -- in 30 years and caused some leaders to cry heresy at practices such as the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.
But to reduce the problem to one of homosexuality is wrong, said the Rev. Christopher Cairns, who leads a Knoxville congregation that recently broke away from Church of the Ascension Episcopal Church. After being "inhibited" -- or prevented from ministering in an Episcopal Church -- by the Diocese of East Tennessee, Cairns now operates under the authority of the archbishop of Rwanda.
The Anglican Mission in America has been an answer to Cairns and other conservative Episcopal parishes throughout the country that feel the American church has deviated from Scripture.
Cairns' decision to accept a pastoral role at the Anglican Mission of Knoxville was grueling and one not reached with any flippancy.
"Leaving the historic faith of my fathers and mothers is tragic to me," Cairns said.
Anglican Mission in Knoxville
Cairns is not being facetious when he ties his lineage and the Episcopal Church to the first European boats to land on American shores.
The Episcopal Church descends from the Church of England. And his great-great-uncle was the architect of St. Mary's Cathedral in Memphis; his great-great-grandfather's brother was founding rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in Columbus, Ohio; his great-great-great-aunt founded St. Mary's Convent at Sewanee University.
Cairns' father was in the military, and both of his parents were a shining example of their faith, he said. Cairns recalls when he was a small child and his family took in an immigrant Vietnamese family.
"Before I ever read it in Scripture -- Take care of the stranger in your land -- it was something my parents did," Cairns said.
It was during Cairns' last year at Sewanee, majoring in Third World studies, that, as he describes it, his intellectual life and spiritual life met. The Episcopal Church and its history of fighting injustice was a natural fit for Cairns, who was concerned with hunger in the Third World.
He went on to Virginia Theological Seminary but felt he was met with injustice. He said he discovered a hostile groupthink mentality whereby it was difficult to raise objections or ask questions from a conservative standpoint without feeling like a pariah.
Cairns' dissidence with the groupthink mentality was only strengthened as he worked in a variety of churches that swung from conservative to liberal. He spent some time at The Falls Church in Fairfax, which also recently realigned with an African province.
In May 2006, he was ordained an Episcopal deacon and served on staff at Church of the Ascension in Knoxville -- known for having a congregation that represented all views. But the dynamics were changing as more-conservative congregants left the church, upset with being fed a scriptural interpretation they didn't agree with.
A few months after a large split this past summer, Cairns began the process to join under the archbishop of Rwanda, the Rev. Emmanuel Kolini.
But the bishop of East Tennessee, the Rev. Charles vonRosenberg, refused to write Cairns a letter saying he was a deacon in good standing. Instead, vonRosenberg inhibited Cairns, forbidding him from ministering in an Episcopal Church.
Kolini would still accept Cairns and later ordain him a priest.
"What made it much more difficult for me and the bishop of East Tennessee is we like each other. I love and respect the man," Cairns said.
Cairns is the first clergy to be inhibited by the diocese in vonRosenberg's tenure of eight years but not the first to feel shut out by it. A group in Chattanooga asked to set up a church for more traditionalists but said vonRosenberg refused to recognize them. The group -- the Anglican Church of the Redeemer -- also now affiliates under Rwanda.
VonRosenberg acknowledges the diocese has lost membership in recent years, but he also says the church has gained membership as well.
The diversity of the church has always been one of its biggest draws. A variety of viewpoints are represented, vonRosenberg said.
Any decisions the church has made were in line with its canons and followed historic procedures that have governed the church from its origins, vonRosenberg said.
"I am sad about what has caused people to leave the Episcopal Church, but we continue as the Episcopal Church inclusively and (with) respect for a people of a variety of points of view, and that's something we are not going to give up. Those who are uncomfortable with that sense of freedom or whatever has made them uncomfortable, I wish them well with their spiritual journey," he said.
African archbishops 'primitive'
The break-offs in East Tennessee are not out of line with what is happening with the Episcopal Church, USA.
The Anglican Mission in America was formed in 2000 after bishops of the American Anglican Council made a direct appeal for intervention, according to the Anglican Mission Web site.
The concerns were a declining membership and a battle of "competing visions, which are in conflict over the very essence of the Gospel itself."
Kolini, among others, answered the call, focusing on reaching 130 million unchurched Americans and creating a means for churches to be "fully Anglican."
So far, more than 100 churches nationwide have joined the Anglican Mission under Rwanda and four American bishops. That number doesn't include churches such as the Truro and The Falls in Virginia, which are under the Anglican Province of Nigeria. Nine provinces, including Rwanda and Nigeria, have missions in America.
VonRosenberg said the archbishops of these provinces are working outside of their jurisdictions.
The archbishop of Canterbury "does not recognize these crossings of jurisdictions," vonRosenberg said. "The ones making these decisions and separating, claiming to be Anglican, are not actually recognized by the one who is head of the Anglican Communion."
Bishop T.J. Johnston, an American who oversees 38 churches under Rwanda, including Knoxville's church, argues the opposite.
"There is a massive realignment taking place with the Anglican Communion at large," Johnston said. "They (the Episcopal Church) have moved so far away, if any group is not recognized it's the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is on probation with the Communion."
Another criticism of the mostly African archbishops is that they come from primitive cultures and primitive thinking.
Johnston, who has heard this criticism before, said he knows African bishops who speak eight languages and who have given more authority to Scripture than leaders from countries who brought Christianity to them.
Cairns said, "I would rather stand with Africans and Latin Americans and Asians who represent the content of the historic faith that we have all vowed in our ordination vows to continue with."
Beyond homosexuality
The consecration of the Rev. Gene Robinson in 2003 opened Pandora's box. But it only escalated a detachment that had begun years prior, Cairns said.
In the 1960s, James Pike, an American bishop, Walter Righter, denied the virginity of Mary and the resurrection of Christ. Later, Bishop John Selby Spong did the same.
Other disputes were about the ordination of women and using Elizabethan language in the Book of Common Prayer.
Sometimes, the discord was inappropriate, Cairns said, such as that which stemmed from the church's involvement in the civil-rights movement.
Other times, people lost faith because their leadership lost faith in the gospel, Johnston said. With the exception of a few, "Seminaries have taken the approach that Scripture is one voice among many in defining truth."
So as pleas from throughout the Anglican world -- most recently for the Episcopal Church to slow down on issues surrounding homosexuality -- continued to fall on deaf ears, people such as Johnston and Cairns took heed.
"Suddenly the church I was expecting to serve was not the one I signed up to serve," Cairns said. "I can't share this trajectory."
So Cairns now sits in his office with a dry-erase board marked with notes on church planting. Membership has grown enough -- to about 100 -- to warrant a permanent structure and name.
Until that happens, he shares a building at Middlebrook Christian Ministries with three other faith groups -- a pot of coffee brewing. The tribes of Rwanda who once engaged in genocide against one another now work side by side like brothers in the coffee fields.
Cairns is convinced he made the right choice but remains conflicted because of the relationships severed with people he still considers brothers such as vonRosenberg.
"I don't put myself in the category of prophets or martyrs and saints," Cairns said. "But at the same time, show me Christian discipleship without a cost."
Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
By MILLETE BIRHANEMASKEL, birhanemaskelm@knews.com
January 13, 2007
A Rwandan coffee aroma wafting through the halls at Middlebrook Christian Ministries in Knoxville is the product of a peace effort in the East African country.
In the United States, the sweet smells are an unpleasant reminder of turbulence among brethren in the Episcopal Church.
The worldwide Anglican Communion's American branch is fighting an internal battle, which so far has cost more than one-third of its membership -- dropping from 3.5 million to 2.2 million -- in 30 years and caused some leaders to cry heresy at practices such as the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.
But to reduce the problem to one of homosexuality is wrong, said the Rev. Christopher Cairns, who leads a Knoxville congregation that recently broke away from Church of the Ascension Episcopal Church. After being "inhibited" -- or prevented from ministering in an Episcopal Church -- by the Diocese of East Tennessee, Cairns now operates under the authority of the archbishop of Rwanda.
The Anglican Mission in America has been an answer to Cairns and other conservative Episcopal parishes throughout the country that feel the American church has deviated from Scripture.
Cairns' decision to accept a pastoral role at the Anglican Mission of Knoxville was grueling and one not reached with any flippancy.
"Leaving the historic faith of my fathers and mothers is tragic to me," Cairns said.
Anglican Mission in Knoxville
Cairns is not being facetious when he ties his lineage and the Episcopal Church to the first European boats to land on American shores.
The Episcopal Church descends from the Church of England. And his great-great-uncle was the architect of St. Mary's Cathedral in Memphis; his great-great-grandfather's brother was founding rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in Columbus, Ohio; his great-great-great-aunt founded St. Mary's Convent at Sewanee University.
Cairns' father was in the military, and both of his parents were a shining example of their faith, he said. Cairns recalls when he was a small child and his family took in an immigrant Vietnamese family.
"Before I ever read it in Scripture -- Take care of the stranger in your land -- it was something my parents did," Cairns said.
It was during Cairns' last year at Sewanee, majoring in Third World studies, that, as he describes it, his intellectual life and spiritual life met. The Episcopal Church and its history of fighting injustice was a natural fit for Cairns, who was concerned with hunger in the Third World.
He went on to Virginia Theological Seminary but felt he was met with injustice. He said he discovered a hostile groupthink mentality whereby it was difficult to raise objections or ask questions from a conservative standpoint without feeling like a pariah.
Cairns' dissidence with the groupthink mentality was only strengthened as he worked in a variety of churches that swung from conservative to liberal. He spent some time at The Falls Church in Fairfax, which also recently realigned with an African province.
In May 2006, he was ordained an Episcopal deacon and served on staff at Church of the Ascension in Knoxville -- known for having a congregation that represented all views. But the dynamics were changing as more-conservative congregants left the church, upset with being fed a scriptural interpretation they didn't agree with.
A few months after a large split this past summer, Cairns began the process to join under the archbishop of Rwanda, the Rev. Emmanuel Kolini.
But the bishop of East Tennessee, the Rev. Charles vonRosenberg, refused to write Cairns a letter saying he was a deacon in good standing. Instead, vonRosenberg inhibited Cairns, forbidding him from ministering in an Episcopal Church.
Kolini would still accept Cairns and later ordain him a priest.
"What made it much more difficult for me and the bishop of East Tennessee is we like each other. I love and respect the man," Cairns said.
Cairns is the first clergy to be inhibited by the diocese in vonRosenberg's tenure of eight years but not the first to feel shut out by it. A group in Chattanooga asked to set up a church for more traditionalists but said vonRosenberg refused to recognize them. The group -- the Anglican Church of the Redeemer -- also now affiliates under Rwanda.
VonRosenberg acknowledges the diocese has lost membership in recent years, but he also says the church has gained membership as well.
The diversity of the church has always been one of its biggest draws. A variety of viewpoints are represented, vonRosenberg said.
Any decisions the church has made were in line with its canons and followed historic procedures that have governed the church from its origins, vonRosenberg said.
"I am sad about what has caused people to leave the Episcopal Church, but we continue as the Episcopal Church inclusively and (with) respect for a people of a variety of points of view, and that's something we are not going to give up. Those who are uncomfortable with that sense of freedom or whatever has made them uncomfortable, I wish them well with their spiritual journey," he said.
African archbishops 'primitive'
The break-offs in East Tennessee are not out of line with what is happening with the Episcopal Church, USA.
The Anglican Mission in America was formed in 2000 after bishops of the American Anglican Council made a direct appeal for intervention, according to the Anglican Mission Web site.
The concerns were a declining membership and a battle of "competing visions, which are in conflict over the very essence of the Gospel itself."
Kolini, among others, answered the call, focusing on reaching 130 million unchurched Americans and creating a means for churches to be "fully Anglican."
So far, more than 100 churches nationwide have joined the Anglican Mission under Rwanda and four American bishops. That number doesn't include churches such as the Truro and The Falls in Virginia, which are under the Anglican Province of Nigeria. Nine provinces, including Rwanda and Nigeria, have missions in America.
VonRosenberg said the archbishops of these provinces are working outside of their jurisdictions.
The archbishop of Canterbury "does not recognize these crossings of jurisdictions," vonRosenberg said. "The ones making these decisions and separating, claiming to be Anglican, are not actually recognized by the one who is head of the Anglican Communion."
Bishop T.J. Johnston, an American who oversees 38 churches under Rwanda, including Knoxville's church, argues the opposite.
"There is a massive realignment taking place with the Anglican Communion at large," Johnston said. "They (the Episcopal Church) have moved so far away, if any group is not recognized it's the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is on probation with the Communion."
Another criticism of the mostly African archbishops is that they come from primitive cultures and primitive thinking.
Johnston, who has heard this criticism before, said he knows African bishops who speak eight languages and who have given more authority to Scripture than leaders from countries who brought Christianity to them.
Cairns said, "I would rather stand with Africans and Latin Americans and Asians who represent the content of the historic faith that we have all vowed in our ordination vows to continue with."
Beyond homosexuality
The consecration of the Rev. Gene Robinson in 2003 opened Pandora's box. But it only escalated a detachment that had begun years prior, Cairns said.
In the 1960s, James Pike, an American bishop, Walter Righter, denied the virginity of Mary and the resurrection of Christ. Later, Bishop John Selby Spong did the same.
Other disputes were about the ordination of women and using Elizabethan language in the Book of Common Prayer.
Sometimes, the discord was inappropriate, Cairns said, such as that which stemmed from the church's involvement in the civil-rights movement.
Other times, people lost faith because their leadership lost faith in the gospel, Johnston said. With the exception of a few, "Seminaries have taken the approach that Scripture is one voice among many in defining truth."
So as pleas from throughout the Anglican world -- most recently for the Episcopal Church to slow down on issues surrounding homosexuality -- continued to fall on deaf ears, people such as Johnston and Cairns took heed.
"Suddenly the church I was expecting to serve was not the one I signed up to serve," Cairns said. "I can't share this trajectory."
So Cairns now sits in his office with a dry-erase board marked with notes on church planting. Membership has grown enough -- to about 100 -- to warrant a permanent structure and name.
Until that happens, he shares a building at Middlebrook Christian Ministries with three other faith groups -- a pot of coffee brewing. The tribes of Rwanda who once engaged in genocide against one another now work side by side like brothers in the coffee fields.
Cairns is convinced he made the right choice but remains conflicted because of the relationships severed with people he still considers brothers such as vonRosenberg.
"I don't put myself in the category of prophets or martyrs and saints," Cairns said. "But at the same time, show me Christian discipleship without a cost."
Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
ECUSA Inclusivity
Bishop elect (SC) Mark Lawrence writes to his congregation
Since a bishop is elected not only for a diocese, but also for the larger Church, there is a national consent process which is guided by the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (TEC).
From the website of St. Paul's, Bakersfield, CA
Dear Friends at St. Paul's
January 12, 2007
Since our move to Charleston has been twice postponed, and most recently, postponed without a departure date in mind, many parishioners may wonder what is happening with my election as Bishop of South Carolina. It is clear at this point that I will not be consecrated on February 24th. I know this will cause problems for many of you who have scheduled flights and lodging. It saddens me that your plans have been disrupted. This delay has also affected the vestry's ability to plan for the future. But since you are in a parish whose rector has been thrust into the center of a national and, even, international debate within the Anglican Communion, this is a difficult path we shall share for a season. In a way it is an honor to walk this way with our Lord, if, indeed, it proves to issue in the common good of the Church. We know our Lord desires good to come from this. So let me try to explain in an evenhanded manner what is unfolding.
When someone is elected as a bishop in The Episcopal Church, he is elected by and for a diocese. While this process may differ slightly from one diocese to another, it usually consists of a procedure made up of clergy and laypersons. Every parish in the diocese has delegates that are sent as representatives to the electing convention. The clergy in the diocese also participate in the election. Various candidates are put forward by the diocese. Usually a candidate must get a majority of votes from both the lay delegates and the resident clergy in order to be elected. It often takes several ballots before a candidate gets a majority in both the lay and clerical orders. When it is noted that South Carolina elected me as their bishop on the first ballot, it means that I got at least a majority in both orders on the first vote. The process of election however does not end with this vote.
Since a bishop is elected not only for a diocese, but also for the larger Church, there is a national consent process which is guided by the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (TEC). A majority of diocesan bishops and diocesan Standing Committees throughout the Church must therefore grant consent to any election held by a diocese. This is usually given without much fanfare or controversy. In fact many have argued in the past that this is merely a matter of certifying that proper canonical procedures were followed. (This was a mantra heard often during the General Convention process when Gene Robinson's election was confirmed.) Frankly, I didn't accept this argument then, nor do I believe it should be applicable in my case. I do suspect, however, that some have changed their position regarding this matter as it applies to me—holding one opinion when it applied to a bishop-elect who held their position on issues, and quite another now. I shall leave that, however, to their consciences. They must live with themselves as I must live with myself. As it has been said, there's no pillow so soft as a clear conscience.
It may help you to understand the present situation by knowing that shortly after my election an advocacy group in the Church sent a mailing to every bishop and diocesan Standing Committee. This group misrepresented several of my written statements and attributed intentions to me that I did not have. Once this group's mailing muddied the water it has been difficult to settle the pond. Certainly I have advocated rethinking how we do business in The Episcopal Church and the broader Anglican Communion as we step more completely into the 21st Century. This very thing is implicit in the Windsor Report. Along with this, I have held uncompromisingly to the position that TEC acted inappropriately towards historic Christianity and the worldwide Anglican Communion, as well as the teaching of The Episcopal Church, when the Presiding Bishop and others consecrated Canon Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. This also isn't anything the Archbishop of Canterbury and the collective gathering of primates in the Communion haven't suggested. Yet even without this group's political interference there may still have been problems. This is because some Standing Committees have objected to South Carolina's request for Alternative Primatial Oversight (APO). I defended this request because, after the General Convention in 2006, I thought many within the Church needed both pastoral space and theological differentiation if we were to remain Anglicans, as well as Episcopalians. Others fear I will lead the diocese out of TEC, or will not work hard enough to keep the diocese from leaving the "national" Church or "denomination." My nuanced statements distancing myself from these fears have not been sufficiently calming for some.
Why haven't I assured the disconcerted more categorically? We are in a profound time of transition within the Anglican Communion—a time when important questions regarding the nature of the Church are being asked and need answers sufficient for this era in which we find ourselves—the Windsor Report is the ultimate validation of this position. I want to be a part of answering these questions in a responsible manner that doesn't truncate the discussion by taking refuge in narrow approaches. The ecclesial questions prompted by the present crisis will clearly not be resolved by disregarding the "bonds of affection" within the worldwide Communion. My adherence to this has caused some to question my loyalty to the Church, even though I have neither taught nor acted contrary to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church for the past 26 years. Then, there is the fact that some dislike my traditional theological convictions regarding the Scriptures, Creeds, and liturgy, especially in that I hold these traditional beliefs with a willingness to rethink the way The Episcopal Church has functioned ecclesiastically within the larger Anglican Communion. This too is nothing more than is requested by the Windsor Report. I am conservative towards the essential doctrine and discipline of the Faith, yet progressive in regard to how the Church needs to change if it is to live out its calling in this age of globalism.
Frankly, I find it ironic that those of my generation who were so quick to trumpet the need for non-conformity when they were opposed to the "establishment" are most ungracious towards those whom they think do not conform now that they are holding the reigns of power. It gets harder not to come to the sad conclusion that inclusivity in this "faith community" is becoming more narrowly defined by an exclusivistic agenda. Towards this agenda I am now cast in the role of protesting against the rising tide of dubious conformity—a conformity which, at least in the mind of some, will not be brooked. All of this is to say I will be with you here at St. Paul's until this controversy is resolved. (Dare we hope for an Easter resolution?) I trust it will be resolved in God's time and in a way our Lord Jesus Christ will be honored and his church strengthened. I ask you all to pray for the Diocese of South Carolina. I am assured almost daily that they are praying for us.
Yours in Christ,
The Rev. Mark J. Lawrence (Rector)
Since a bishop is elected not only for a diocese, but also for the larger Church, there is a national consent process which is guided by the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (TEC).
From the website of St. Paul's, Bakersfield, CA
Dear Friends at St. Paul's
January 12, 2007
Since our move to Charleston has been twice postponed, and most recently, postponed without a departure date in mind, many parishioners may wonder what is happening with my election as Bishop of South Carolina. It is clear at this point that I will not be consecrated on February 24th. I know this will cause problems for many of you who have scheduled flights and lodging. It saddens me that your plans have been disrupted. This delay has also affected the vestry's ability to plan for the future. But since you are in a parish whose rector has been thrust into the center of a national and, even, international debate within the Anglican Communion, this is a difficult path we shall share for a season. In a way it is an honor to walk this way with our Lord, if, indeed, it proves to issue in the common good of the Church. We know our Lord desires good to come from this. So let me try to explain in an evenhanded manner what is unfolding.
When someone is elected as a bishop in The Episcopal Church, he is elected by and for a diocese. While this process may differ slightly from one diocese to another, it usually consists of a procedure made up of clergy and laypersons. Every parish in the diocese has delegates that are sent as representatives to the electing convention. The clergy in the diocese also participate in the election. Various candidates are put forward by the diocese. Usually a candidate must get a majority of votes from both the lay delegates and the resident clergy in order to be elected. It often takes several ballots before a candidate gets a majority in both the lay and clerical orders. When it is noted that South Carolina elected me as their bishop on the first ballot, it means that I got at least a majority in both orders on the first vote. The process of election however does not end with this vote.
Since a bishop is elected not only for a diocese, but also for the larger Church, there is a national consent process which is guided by the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (TEC). A majority of diocesan bishops and diocesan Standing Committees throughout the Church must therefore grant consent to any election held by a diocese. This is usually given without much fanfare or controversy. In fact many have argued in the past that this is merely a matter of certifying that proper canonical procedures were followed. (This was a mantra heard often during the General Convention process when Gene Robinson's election was confirmed.) Frankly, I didn't accept this argument then, nor do I believe it should be applicable in my case. I do suspect, however, that some have changed their position regarding this matter as it applies to me—holding one opinion when it applied to a bishop-elect who held their position on issues, and quite another now. I shall leave that, however, to their consciences. They must live with themselves as I must live with myself. As it has been said, there's no pillow so soft as a clear conscience.
It may help you to understand the present situation by knowing that shortly after my election an advocacy group in the Church sent a mailing to every bishop and diocesan Standing Committee. This group misrepresented several of my written statements and attributed intentions to me that I did not have. Once this group's mailing muddied the water it has been difficult to settle the pond. Certainly I have advocated rethinking how we do business in The Episcopal Church and the broader Anglican Communion as we step more completely into the 21st Century. This very thing is implicit in the Windsor Report. Along with this, I have held uncompromisingly to the position that TEC acted inappropriately towards historic Christianity and the worldwide Anglican Communion, as well as the teaching of The Episcopal Church, when the Presiding Bishop and others consecrated Canon Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. This also isn't anything the Archbishop of Canterbury and the collective gathering of primates in the Communion haven't suggested. Yet even without this group's political interference there may still have been problems. This is because some Standing Committees have objected to South Carolina's request for Alternative Primatial Oversight (APO). I defended this request because, after the General Convention in 2006, I thought many within the Church needed both pastoral space and theological differentiation if we were to remain Anglicans, as well as Episcopalians. Others fear I will lead the diocese out of TEC, or will not work hard enough to keep the diocese from leaving the "national" Church or "denomination." My nuanced statements distancing myself from these fears have not been sufficiently calming for some.
Why haven't I assured the disconcerted more categorically? We are in a profound time of transition within the Anglican Communion—a time when important questions regarding the nature of the Church are being asked and need answers sufficient for this era in which we find ourselves—the Windsor Report is the ultimate validation of this position. I want to be a part of answering these questions in a responsible manner that doesn't truncate the discussion by taking refuge in narrow approaches. The ecclesial questions prompted by the present crisis will clearly not be resolved by disregarding the "bonds of affection" within the worldwide Communion. My adherence to this has caused some to question my loyalty to the Church, even though I have neither taught nor acted contrary to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church for the past 26 years. Then, there is the fact that some dislike my traditional theological convictions regarding the Scriptures, Creeds, and liturgy, especially in that I hold these traditional beliefs with a willingness to rethink the way The Episcopal Church has functioned ecclesiastically within the larger Anglican Communion. This too is nothing more than is requested by the Windsor Report. I am conservative towards the essential doctrine and discipline of the Faith, yet progressive in regard to how the Church needs to change if it is to live out its calling in this age of globalism.
Frankly, I find it ironic that those of my generation who were so quick to trumpet the need for non-conformity when they were opposed to the "establishment" are most ungracious towards those whom they think do not conform now that they are holding the reigns of power. It gets harder not to come to the sad conclusion that inclusivity in this "faith community" is becoming more narrowly defined by an exclusivistic agenda. Towards this agenda I am now cast in the role of protesting against the rising tide of dubious conformity—a conformity which, at least in the mind of some, will not be brooked. All of this is to say I will be with you here at St. Paul's until this controversy is resolved. (Dare we hope for an Easter resolution?) I trust it will be resolved in God's time and in a way our Lord Jesus Christ will be honored and his church strengthened. I ask you all to pray for the Diocese of South Carolina. I am assured almost daily that they are praying for us.
Yours in Christ,
The Rev. Mark J. Lawrence (Rector)
AAC President Transfers Canonical Residency to Anglican Church of Nigeria
January 12, 2007
The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, President and CEO of the American Anglican Council, recently announced that he has transferred his canonical residency from The Episcopal Church (TEC) of the United States to the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), the U.S. missionary branch of the Anglican Church of Nigeria. The switch, which places Canon Anderson under the oversight of Bishop Martyn Minns, was made Nov. 1, 2006.
A lifelong Episcopalian, Canon Anderson served approximately 35 years in ordained ministry in TEC, including service in the dioceses of Washington, D.C.; Montana; Wyoming; South Dakota; Los Angeles; and Springfield. He retired in 2002 from St. James Church, Newport Beach, Calif., where he served for 16 years as the parish’s rector.
Canon Anderson’s decision to move to CANA stems from the growing severity of the theological crisis in The Episcopal Church nationally, which has become, in many places, hostile toward biblical orthodoxy and apostate in belief and practice. In addition to orthodox clergy, hundreds of churches and more than a third of the denomination’s members have been driven from the church over the past four decades as the church has persisted in its refusal to repent and return to the faith once delivered.
“For nearly 20 years, I worked to reform and renew the Episcopal Church,” Canon Anderson said. “Since my retirement from active parish ministry and during my work over the past six years with the AAC, I have watched with sadness as the orthodox church of my childhood has disappeared from the landscape.
“Over the past year, I came to realize that TEC was not turning back and that it was time for me to chart my course with the majority of the Anglican Communion,” he continued. “The hope of the future of North American Anglicanism lies with the global Anglican Communion and, more specifically, the Global South primates, who robustly live out the Christian faith in the Anglican model. I am blessed and honored to become part of a church that is excited about sharing the truth of Jesus Christ with others and seeing the church grow, and that is guided by the godly and courageous leadership of Archbishop Peter Akinola.”
In speaking of his departure from TEC, Canon Anderson said, “I give thanks for the faithfulness of the Network bishops still in The Episcopal Church, and especially for Bishops Peter Beckwith and Robert Duncan, but it was time for me to move.”
The AAC’s work with churches both within and outside of TEC, including those in the midst of departing TEC, will continue despite his move to CANA, Canon Anderson said. He emphasized the AAC’s vision and hope for a “soon-to-be-united orthodox Anglican entity in North America,” as well as the organization’s ongoing desire to join together with other orthodox Christians to “defend the uncorrupted truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” END
The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, President and CEO of the American Anglican Council, recently announced that he has transferred his canonical residency from The Episcopal Church (TEC) of the United States to the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), the U.S. missionary branch of the Anglican Church of Nigeria. The switch, which places Canon Anderson under the oversight of Bishop Martyn Minns, was made Nov. 1, 2006.
A lifelong Episcopalian, Canon Anderson served approximately 35 years in ordained ministry in TEC, including service in the dioceses of Washington, D.C.; Montana; Wyoming; South Dakota; Los Angeles; and Springfield. He retired in 2002 from St. James Church, Newport Beach, Calif., where he served for 16 years as the parish’s rector.
Canon Anderson’s decision to move to CANA stems from the growing severity of the theological crisis in The Episcopal Church nationally, which has become, in many places, hostile toward biblical orthodoxy and apostate in belief and practice. In addition to orthodox clergy, hundreds of churches and more than a third of the denomination’s members have been driven from the church over the past four decades as the church has persisted in its refusal to repent and return to the faith once delivered.
“For nearly 20 years, I worked to reform and renew the Episcopal Church,” Canon Anderson said. “Since my retirement from active parish ministry and during my work over the past six years with the AAC, I have watched with sadness as the orthodox church of my childhood has disappeared from the landscape.
“Over the past year, I came to realize that TEC was not turning back and that it was time for me to chart my course with the majority of the Anglican Communion,” he continued. “The hope of the future of North American Anglicanism lies with the global Anglican Communion and, more specifically, the Global South primates, who robustly live out the Christian faith in the Anglican model. I am blessed and honored to become part of a church that is excited about sharing the truth of Jesus Christ with others and seeing the church grow, and that is guided by the godly and courageous leadership of Archbishop Peter Akinola.”
In speaking of his departure from TEC, Canon Anderson said, “I give thanks for the faithfulness of the Network bishops still in The Episcopal Church, and especially for Bishops Peter Beckwith and Robert Duncan, but it was time for me to move.”
The AAC’s work with churches both within and outside of TEC, including those in the midst of departing TEC, will continue despite his move to CANA, Canon Anderson said. He emphasized the AAC’s vision and hope for a “soon-to-be-united orthodox Anglican entity in North America,” as well as the organization’s ongoing desire to join together with other orthodox Christians to “defend the uncorrupted truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” END
Friday, January 12, 2007
THE MISSING PAGES
By Roland Morant
In one of the memorable phrases to be uttered recently by a Christian, an African archbishop said that Western churches were "tearing pages out of the Bible" in pursuit of their liberal agenda. What this means in practice is that large swathes of Holy Scripture have become consistently ignored or deliberately rejected. Selectivity has become the order of the day. You pick what you like and ignore or reject the rest. You may even seize on individual words or phrases and construct a new system of belief or religious practice
With some honourable exceptions many of the mainstream churches are guilty of tearing pages from the Bible. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have for a very long time taken stances on the matters discussed below which are in accordance with accepted and traditional belief and interpretation. They seem to be the only churches (at least in the West) that take the whole of scriptural authority seriously. It is difficult to avoid concluding that our own church the C. of E.(as with other members of the Anglican communion) is quite possibly among the worst of the offenders.
If any supporting evidence is needed for an assertion of this kind, we only have to remind ourselves of the findings of the Cost of Conscience surveys on the beliefs of priests and lay people. These findings showed that in many areas of belief, there were found to be disturbing retreats from traditional beliefs among sizeable minorities of respondents, male and even, more so, female.
It goes almost without saying that the pages are not actual ones, except in a few cases where individual topics have been considered within a single chapter. Most topics however have been dealt with in a thematic way by a succession of writers and therefore are dealt with in many books of the Old ands New Testaments.
So what 'pages' have been torn out of the Bible? On reflection the full list of topics is actually quite long. All readers will no doubt have decided on topics they would include in their own personal list. The items identified here constitute a list which cannot be claimed as exhaustive, but which probably includes most of the more obvious ones. The order in which these topics is presented has some significance, but should not be taken as hard and fast.
For convenience we have categorised the 'pages' into four groups: doctrinal beliefs, sexual morality, personal behaviour & appearance, and church order. We start with 'pages' involving doctrinal beliefs.
1. THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Taken as a whole the Bible is unambiguously patriarchal, both in its description and treatment of relationships between members of families and communities, and in its references to God the Father. The notion of patriarchy is reinforced from the book of Genesis onwards where woman was formed out of a rib of Adam to be his companion and helpmate (Gen. 2. 20-23). In the New Testament in particular, God has revealed Himself as Father not mother. To start calling Him mother - as leading members of some Western churches have been doing - is to change the very nature of the Christian religion. Let those who wish to worship a mother-god start their own religion, but not confuse it with Christianity!
2. THE PERSON OF CHRIST
The Cost of Conscience survey mentioned earlier touched on the uniqueness of Christ as our Saviour, the Virgin Birth and His Bodily Resurrection, all of which beliefs are "the essence of what historically sets Christianity apart as the world's major faith and the only sure foundation of its claims to offer Salvation to Man". The beliefs are enshrined in unambiguously worded writings in the New Testament and have been shown by the survey to have been disregarded by many clergy and lay people to the detriment of their souls.
3. SIN
The Bible teaches us that from the time of Adam's downfall sin is disobedience to the laws of God. It is a topic that is returned to time and time again in Holy Scripture. Today, a recognition of sin is frequently downplayed in the churches. Older readers will perhaps remember the funny little men of years ago who used to carry billboards proclaiming the biblical injunction "The Wages of Sin is Death" (Rom. 6.23). How many churches take sin and the consequences of sin as the major cause of the world's problems? In many churches surely, sin is downplayed as the outcome of social and material deprivation, a matter requiring counselling and guidance rather than repentance.
4. JUDGMENT
We are told in the Bible that "the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then he shall reward every man according to his works" (Matt. 16.27). Like sin, this is a matter that is frequently downgraded in many churches today. Either its importance in Christian theology is regarded as significantly less than in previous times, or the prevalent attitude is that everyone whether they strive or not will make it to the pearly gates. Judgment and all its unpleasant outcomes will be avoided as a loving God will see everyone into Heaven. The Christian religion is not cosy and never has been. Jesus himself said, "The gate to life is narrow and the way that leads to it is hard, and there are few people that find it" (Matt. 7.14 NEB).
5. SATAN
Quite a lot is written about Satan in the Bible. Jesus undoubtedly saw him, not as a vague wishy-washy disembodied spirit, but as a hard-and-fast solid figure who tempted him (Matt. 4.1), the personification of evil. Much of modern criticism directed against the Bible however seems to suggest either that he does not exist or that he is a mental construct in the mind of the biblical reader. The Old and New Testaments are peppered with references to Satan, describing how he originated, what caused his downfall and what happened to him subsequently. Sin and the Devil go together. You cannot abolish one without abolishing the other.
We now consider the missing 'pages' involving sexual morality:-
1. FORNICATION
There is a wide scattering of references in the Bible to this subject in both Testaments. Cruden's Concordance, for instance, provides twenty seven direct references to it - as well as many other, indirect ones too. A serious charge which might be levelled at the churches of the West is that they have all but given up the battle to convince people that sexual immorality is sinful. Living with an unmarried heterosexual partner and begetting children is not now regarded as contrary to what the Bible teaches.
2. HOMOSEXUALITY
This sexual practice is explicitly spoken against in the Bible - especially in Leviticus (No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that. 18.22 NEB) and by St. Paul (e.g. I Tim. 1.8-10). It is referred to much less often than heterosexual immorality (fornication and adultery). Yet if news reports are accurate, the current outcry of evangelicals appears to be more strident than against heterosexual misbehaviour. The reason for this disproportionate response is not obvious.
3. MARRIAGE
The clear message of the Bible from beginning to end is that marriage represents the normal condition between adults of the opposite sex who are not closely related by blood. The only other permitted lifestyle is single celibacy. So the question has to be asked why the churches have not been shouting from the housetops that a lifelong relationship entered into through marriage is the only one that can sustain a strong and stable family life.
4. ADULTERY
The Bible has plenty to say about this. Cruden records forty nine references to the words: adulterer, adulteress, adulterous and adultery, these references being quite distinct from those to fornication. In the modern western world, as we have only too readily seen, attitudes have changed dramatically towards the notion of stable partnership in marriage. Wife swaps are now regarded as a new form of entertainment (as is sexual intercourse itself), and the pursuit of happily married spouses by third parties is not seen as particularly detrimental to family stability. Is it saying too much that churches seem to wish to avoid the accusation of being "moralistic" if they speak up about adultery?
5. DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
Jesus put a great restraint on divorce, saying that it was only permitted for unfaithfulness i.e. fornication (Matt. 5.31-32, 19.3-9). The remarkable increase in divorce in the West which is now permitted for many reasons besides adultery, has led to what is now belatedly being recognised as a very real breakdown in society. It is a sad fact that some of the mainstream churches - including the Church of England and Methodists - have actively colluded in widening the grounds for divorce. There is little evidence that they have tried to stem this scourge of society.
In our third group of missing 'pages' we turn to matters involving personal behaviour and appearance:-
1. PARENTS
We are enjoined by the fifth of the Ten Commandments to respect our father and mother (Ex. 20.12 NEB), a precept that is strongly endorsed in three of the Gospel accounts and in St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. In the past this respect was observed in a practical manner by children taking responsibility for their parents' wellbeing in old age. But with many women out at work and many families living at a distance from their parents, this biblical precept no longer commands the response that it once did. We have to ask whether the churches have been as diligent as they might have been in emphasising the importance of caring for our parents.
2. HUSBANDS AND WIVES
St. Paul stresses that husbands and wives should submit themselves to each other. He also goes on to instruct wives to submit themselves to the ultimate authority of their husbands, as the Church submits to the ultimate authority of Christ (Eph. 5.21-24 NEB). St. Peter writes in similar vein (I Pet. 3.1). These remarks are tempered by the further observation that men must love and take care of their wives as they love and take care of their own bodies. Husbands are to love their wives and not be harsh with them (Col. 3.18 The Bible teaches that from the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden absolute equality is an illusion, and that when differences occur or final decisions have to be made, husbands should have the last word.
Today customs are very different from what they were in the past, and women are far better educated and therefore in a much stronger position to take important family decisions. What St. Paul was preaching was that there has to be mutual respect, concord and love between husbands and wives. It therefore follows that where initial decisions are made by a wife or children, as the husband is head of the family, action on such decisions should be taken in his name and with his concurrence. Such instructions might sit uneasily when placed side by side with demands of the feminist lobby concerning absolute equality between the sexes in and out of marriage. Readers here may have to decide for themselves whether they think that the churches have adopted a too neutral position on feminism.
3. PERSONAL APPEARANCE
St. Peter wants wives to present a modest outward appearance, not trying to be beautiful by the use of outward aids such as the way one does one's hair, the use of jewellery or by putting on special dresses. He says that true beauty comes from the inner self, the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit (I Pet. 3.4). All this of course is at variance with modern life where women, married or not, are encouraged to do their own thing, to get out of the home and compete actively with men in order to get to the top of the greasy pole.
4. BEHAVIOUR DURING PUBLIC WORSHIP
It is stated by St. Paul that a man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And conversely every woman who does the same with her head uncovered also dishonours her head (I Cor. 11.4-7 NIB). Thirty or forty years ago nearly all women wore hats when they came to church. How many do so now, except at weddings? St. Paul also says that women should be silent in church; it is not permitted for them to speak. If they wish to learn anything, they are to ask their husbands at home (I Cor. 14.34-38 NIB). This injunction appears to be totally ignored at the present time.
All this is strong stuff, given that it is counter to modern attitudes. We must concede however that customs may change over the years, a trend which is quite different from that of conforming to the world which St. Paul condemns. In his writing he distinguishes between the Lord's ruling and his own preferences. We must therefore be careful to give appropriate weight to all his utterances, noting that all he writes is still the word of God and must not be disregarded.
Our last group of missing 'pages' is concerned with orders in the church:-
CHURCH ORDERS
The first epistle of St. Paul to Timothy lays down the qualities that a bishop should possess (3.1-7). It is axiomatic that the bishop or overseer should be a man, the husband of one wife. He should be able to rule his house well, and his children should be well behaved. There is no suggestion that a bishop should be female. Were there however such a requirement, it would be negated by the Pauline injunction that a woman should not teach nor usurp authority over a man but to keep quiet (I Tim. 2.12). Moreover, within the context of marriage, a female bishop would have to defer to the headship of her husband.
Similar instructions by St. Paul in I Timothy apply to the appointment of deacons who are also assumed to be married men (3. 8-13). His epistle to Titus also gives similar instructions for the ordination and appointment of elders (probably presbyters) in every town (Tit. 1.5).
POSTSCRIPT
It is undoubtedly true that Christians are increasingly coming to understand that what might be called the dismantling of the Bible, has gone far too far in recent years. This dismantling process is one for which the agents of higher biblical criticism who have been active for most of the last century, must share a large part of the blame. The other negative influence has been the unparalleled drive by Western secularists to attack many of the ethical and moral standards in ordinary life that Christians had thought would be secure for all time. Christians are now finding belatedly that in many walks of life the Christian view no longer predominates and is under attack. They now find that they have speak up to defend what they believe to be right.
This Christian view has to be squarely based on what the Bible says, not on what a half or a quarter of the Bible says is true. People who regularly read the holy scriptures whether at home or at church, want to know that that the words they read mean what they say, and not something different or even opposite. The Bible is a package that has to be taken and understood as a whole. Given this, certain sections - especially of the Gospel narratives which record the words and actions of Jesus - carry greater weight. They provide the focal point of the whole biblical revelation. One could add that the purpose of the remainder of the Bible is to help readers understand the Saviour's words and actions.
It may also be said that the different church traditions - Evangelical and Catholic - each have their teachings based on this biblical revelation, and where they disagree they should be able to listen to each other's emphases and be willing to talk. Sometimes they arrive at similar conclusions by different routes, for example over opposition to the ordination of women. Sometimes they remain pro tem far apart for instance over aspects of sacramental worship.
On one of the blogs an unknown writer is quoted to say, "There is no hope or future for a liberal church. Basically it strips more and more of the fundamental beliefs of the faith away until there is nothing left. No one is interested and its flock will eventually decline and completely disappear". We may be certain that this process is well advanced in many of the mainstream churches, a progression which is accentuated and speeded by disregarding more and more of the Bible.
---Roland W. Morant is a cradle Anglican who has spent his professional life as a teacher, and latterly as a principal lecturer in education in a college of higher education, training students as teachers and running in-service degree courses. He is based in Canterbury, England.
------------------------------
In one of the memorable phrases to be uttered recently by a Christian, an African archbishop said that Western churches were "tearing pages out of the Bible" in pursuit of their liberal agenda. What this means in practice is that large swathes of Holy Scripture have become consistently ignored or deliberately rejected. Selectivity has become the order of the day. You pick what you like and ignore or reject the rest. You may even seize on individual words or phrases and construct a new system of belief or religious practice
With some honourable exceptions many of the mainstream churches are guilty of tearing pages from the Bible. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have for a very long time taken stances on the matters discussed below which are in accordance with accepted and traditional belief and interpretation. They seem to be the only churches (at least in the West) that take the whole of scriptural authority seriously. It is difficult to avoid concluding that our own church the C. of E.(as with other members of the Anglican communion) is quite possibly among the worst of the offenders.
If any supporting evidence is needed for an assertion of this kind, we only have to remind ourselves of the findings of the Cost of Conscience surveys on the beliefs of priests and lay people. These findings showed that in many areas of belief, there were found to be disturbing retreats from traditional beliefs among sizeable minorities of respondents, male and even, more so, female.
It goes almost without saying that the pages are not actual ones, except in a few cases where individual topics have been considered within a single chapter. Most topics however have been dealt with in a thematic way by a succession of writers and therefore are dealt with in many books of the Old ands New Testaments.
So what 'pages' have been torn out of the Bible? On reflection the full list of topics is actually quite long. All readers will no doubt have decided on topics they would include in their own personal list. The items identified here constitute a list which cannot be claimed as exhaustive, but which probably includes most of the more obvious ones. The order in which these topics is presented has some significance, but should not be taken as hard and fast.
For convenience we have categorised the 'pages' into four groups: doctrinal beliefs, sexual morality, personal behaviour & appearance, and church order. We start with 'pages' involving doctrinal beliefs.
1. THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD
Taken as a whole the Bible is unambiguously patriarchal, both in its description and treatment of relationships between members of families and communities, and in its references to God the Father. The notion of patriarchy is reinforced from the book of Genesis onwards where woman was formed out of a rib of Adam to be his companion and helpmate (Gen. 2. 20-23). In the New Testament in particular, God has revealed Himself as Father not mother. To start calling Him mother - as leading members of some Western churches have been doing - is to change the very nature of the Christian religion. Let those who wish to worship a mother-god start their own religion, but not confuse it with Christianity!
2. THE PERSON OF CHRIST
The Cost of Conscience survey mentioned earlier touched on the uniqueness of Christ as our Saviour, the Virgin Birth and His Bodily Resurrection, all of which beliefs are "the essence of what historically sets Christianity apart as the world's major faith and the only sure foundation of its claims to offer Salvation to Man". The beliefs are enshrined in unambiguously worded writings in the New Testament and have been shown by the survey to have been disregarded by many clergy and lay people to the detriment of their souls.
3. SIN
The Bible teaches us that from the time of Adam's downfall sin is disobedience to the laws of God. It is a topic that is returned to time and time again in Holy Scripture. Today, a recognition of sin is frequently downplayed in the churches. Older readers will perhaps remember the funny little men of years ago who used to carry billboards proclaiming the biblical injunction "The Wages of Sin is Death" (Rom. 6.23). How many churches take sin and the consequences of sin as the major cause of the world's problems? In many churches surely, sin is downplayed as the outcome of social and material deprivation, a matter requiring counselling and guidance rather than repentance.
4. JUDGMENT
We are told in the Bible that "the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then he shall reward every man according to his works" (Matt. 16.27). Like sin, this is a matter that is frequently downgraded in many churches today. Either its importance in Christian theology is regarded as significantly less than in previous times, or the prevalent attitude is that everyone whether they strive or not will make it to the pearly gates. Judgment and all its unpleasant outcomes will be avoided as a loving God will see everyone into Heaven. The Christian religion is not cosy and never has been. Jesus himself said, "The gate to life is narrow and the way that leads to it is hard, and there are few people that find it" (Matt. 7.14 NEB).
5. SATAN
Quite a lot is written about Satan in the Bible. Jesus undoubtedly saw him, not as a vague wishy-washy disembodied spirit, but as a hard-and-fast solid figure who tempted him (Matt. 4.1), the personification of evil. Much of modern criticism directed against the Bible however seems to suggest either that he does not exist or that he is a mental construct in the mind of the biblical reader. The Old and New Testaments are peppered with references to Satan, describing how he originated, what caused his downfall and what happened to him subsequently. Sin and the Devil go together. You cannot abolish one without abolishing the other.
We now consider the missing 'pages' involving sexual morality:-
1. FORNICATION
There is a wide scattering of references in the Bible to this subject in both Testaments. Cruden's Concordance, for instance, provides twenty seven direct references to it - as well as many other, indirect ones too. A serious charge which might be levelled at the churches of the West is that they have all but given up the battle to convince people that sexual immorality is sinful. Living with an unmarried heterosexual partner and begetting children is not now regarded as contrary to what the Bible teaches.
2. HOMOSEXUALITY
This sexual practice is explicitly spoken against in the Bible - especially in Leviticus (No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that. 18.22 NEB) and by St. Paul (e.g. I Tim. 1.8-10). It is referred to much less often than heterosexual immorality (fornication and adultery). Yet if news reports are accurate, the current outcry of evangelicals appears to be more strident than against heterosexual misbehaviour. The reason for this disproportionate response is not obvious.
3. MARRIAGE
The clear message of the Bible from beginning to end is that marriage represents the normal condition between adults of the opposite sex who are not closely related by blood. The only other permitted lifestyle is single celibacy. So the question has to be asked why the churches have not been shouting from the housetops that a lifelong relationship entered into through marriage is the only one that can sustain a strong and stable family life.
4. ADULTERY
The Bible has plenty to say about this. Cruden records forty nine references to the words: adulterer, adulteress, adulterous and adultery, these references being quite distinct from those to fornication. In the modern western world, as we have only too readily seen, attitudes have changed dramatically towards the notion of stable partnership in marriage. Wife swaps are now regarded as a new form of entertainment (as is sexual intercourse itself), and the pursuit of happily married spouses by third parties is not seen as particularly detrimental to family stability. Is it saying too much that churches seem to wish to avoid the accusation of being "moralistic" if they speak up about adultery?
5. DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
Jesus put a great restraint on divorce, saying that it was only permitted for unfaithfulness i.e. fornication (Matt. 5.31-32, 19.3-9). The remarkable increase in divorce in the West which is now permitted for many reasons besides adultery, has led to what is now belatedly being recognised as a very real breakdown in society. It is a sad fact that some of the mainstream churches - including the Church of England and Methodists - have actively colluded in widening the grounds for divorce. There is little evidence that they have tried to stem this scourge of society.
In our third group of missing 'pages' we turn to matters involving personal behaviour and appearance:-
1. PARENTS
We are enjoined by the fifth of the Ten Commandments to respect our father and mother (Ex. 20.12 NEB), a precept that is strongly endorsed in three of the Gospel accounts and in St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. In the past this respect was observed in a practical manner by children taking responsibility for their parents' wellbeing in old age. But with many women out at work and many families living at a distance from their parents, this biblical precept no longer commands the response that it once did. We have to ask whether the churches have been as diligent as they might have been in emphasising the importance of caring for our parents.
2. HUSBANDS AND WIVES
St. Paul stresses that husbands and wives should submit themselves to each other. He also goes on to instruct wives to submit themselves to the ultimate authority of their husbands, as the Church submits to the ultimate authority of Christ (Eph. 5.21-24 NEB). St. Peter writes in similar vein (I Pet. 3.1). These remarks are tempered by the further observation that men must love and take care of their wives as they love and take care of their own bodies. Husbands are to love their wives and not be harsh with them (Col. 3.18 The Bible teaches that from the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden absolute equality is an illusion, and that when differences occur or final decisions have to be made, husbands should have the last word.
Today customs are very different from what they were in the past, and women are far better educated and therefore in a much stronger position to take important family decisions. What St. Paul was preaching was that there has to be mutual respect, concord and love between husbands and wives. It therefore follows that where initial decisions are made by a wife or children, as the husband is head of the family, action on such decisions should be taken in his name and with his concurrence. Such instructions might sit uneasily when placed side by side with demands of the feminist lobby concerning absolute equality between the sexes in and out of marriage. Readers here may have to decide for themselves whether they think that the churches have adopted a too neutral position on feminism.
3. PERSONAL APPEARANCE
St. Peter wants wives to present a modest outward appearance, not trying to be beautiful by the use of outward aids such as the way one does one's hair, the use of jewellery or by putting on special dresses. He says that true beauty comes from the inner self, the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit (I Pet. 3.4). All this of course is at variance with modern life where women, married or not, are encouraged to do their own thing, to get out of the home and compete actively with men in order to get to the top of the greasy pole.
4. BEHAVIOUR DURING PUBLIC WORSHIP
It is stated by St. Paul that a man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And conversely every woman who does the same with her head uncovered also dishonours her head (I Cor. 11.4-7 NIB). Thirty or forty years ago nearly all women wore hats when they came to church. How many do so now, except at weddings? St. Paul also says that women should be silent in church; it is not permitted for them to speak. If they wish to learn anything, they are to ask their husbands at home (I Cor. 14.34-38 NIB). This injunction appears to be totally ignored at the present time.
All this is strong stuff, given that it is counter to modern attitudes. We must concede however that customs may change over the years, a trend which is quite different from that of conforming to the world which St. Paul condemns. In his writing he distinguishes between the Lord's ruling and his own preferences. We must therefore be careful to give appropriate weight to all his utterances, noting that all he writes is still the word of God and must not be disregarded.
Our last group of missing 'pages' is concerned with orders in the church:-
CHURCH ORDERS
The first epistle of St. Paul to Timothy lays down the qualities that a bishop should possess (3.1-7). It is axiomatic that the bishop or overseer should be a man, the husband of one wife. He should be able to rule his house well, and his children should be well behaved. There is no suggestion that a bishop should be female. Were there however such a requirement, it would be negated by the Pauline injunction that a woman should not teach nor usurp authority over a man but to keep quiet (I Tim. 2.12). Moreover, within the context of marriage, a female bishop would have to defer to the headship of her husband.
Similar instructions by St. Paul in I Timothy apply to the appointment of deacons who are also assumed to be married men (3. 8-13). His epistle to Titus also gives similar instructions for the ordination and appointment of elders (probably presbyters) in every town (Tit. 1.5).
POSTSCRIPT
It is undoubtedly true that Christians are increasingly coming to understand that what might be called the dismantling of the Bible, has gone far too far in recent years. This dismantling process is one for which the agents of higher biblical criticism who have been active for most of the last century, must share a large part of the blame. The other negative influence has been the unparalleled drive by Western secularists to attack many of the ethical and moral standards in ordinary life that Christians had thought would be secure for all time. Christians are now finding belatedly that in many walks of life the Christian view no longer predominates and is under attack. They now find that they have speak up to defend what they believe to be right.
This Christian view has to be squarely based on what the Bible says, not on what a half or a quarter of the Bible says is true. People who regularly read the holy scriptures whether at home or at church, want to know that that the words they read mean what they say, and not something different or even opposite. The Bible is a package that has to be taken and understood as a whole. Given this, certain sections - especially of the Gospel narratives which record the words and actions of Jesus - carry greater weight. They provide the focal point of the whole biblical revelation. One could add that the purpose of the remainder of the Bible is to help readers understand the Saviour's words and actions.
It may also be said that the different church traditions - Evangelical and Catholic - each have their teachings based on this biblical revelation, and where they disagree they should be able to listen to each other's emphases and be willing to talk. Sometimes they arrive at similar conclusions by different routes, for example over opposition to the ordination of women. Sometimes they remain pro tem far apart for instance over aspects of sacramental worship.
On one of the blogs an unknown writer is quoted to say, "There is no hope or future for a liberal church. Basically it strips more and more of the fundamental beliefs of the faith away until there is nothing left. No one is interested and its flock will eventually decline and completely disappear". We may be certain that this process is well advanced in many of the mainstream churches, a progression which is accentuated and speeded by disregarding more and more of the Bible.
---Roland W. Morant is a cradle Anglican who has spent his professional life as a teacher, and latterly as a principal lecturer in education in a college of higher education, training students as teachers and running in-service degree courses. He is based in Canterbury, England.
------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)