Bishop Bena, Suffragan Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) will be at St. Andrew's Anglican Church on Sunday, July 1, to welcome St. Andrew's into CANA. Bishop Bena is the former Suffragan Bishop of the Diocese of Albany.
Sunday services at St. Andrew's are at 8 and 10 a.m. St. Andrew's is located at 401 Mirador Road in Vestal. The parish website is www.standrewsvestal.org
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Church of Uganda News
At the request of the Rt. Rev. Andrew (Andy) H. Fairfield, retired Bishop of North Dakota, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda voted to receive Bishop Fairfield as a member of its House at its 21st June meeting. Bishop Fairfield will assist Bishop-elect John Guernsey in providing episcopal care and oversight to the 26 congregations in America that are part of the Church of Uganda .
Bishop Fairfield has written to The Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, and resigned from their House of Bishops.
In considering his new role as a Bishop in the Church of Uganda , Fairfield said, “Now, although I am ‘retired’ (from a jurisdictional and financial point of view), I seek further Christian service, especially in the process of this transition in Anglican orthodoxy.”
The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Church of Uganda , said, “It is an honour for us to receive into our House of Bishops such a man of God. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference, he proposed the resolution on The Authority of Scripture, which we passed. We believe he will be a great support to Bishop-elect John Guernsey and all the congregations in America that are under our care.”
Bishop Robert Duncan, Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, said, “Bishop Fairfield is one of the most respected Bishops in the entire American Church, and has served the Network very well as our ordinations suffragan. I know his work has been especially valuable to congregations in our International Conference. I am delighted to know that he has found a new ecclesiastical home in the Church of Uganda , a Province which has declared a state of broken communion with The Episcopal Church’s majority, but embraces full communion with all in the Anglican Communion Network. We look forward to many years of continued fruitful ministry together.
Bishop Fairfield has written to The Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, and resigned from their House of Bishops.
In considering his new role as a Bishop in the Church of Uganda , Fairfield said, “Now, although I am ‘retired’ (from a jurisdictional and financial point of view), I seek further Christian service, especially in the process of this transition in Anglican orthodoxy.”
The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Church of Uganda , said, “It is an honour for us to receive into our House of Bishops such a man of God. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference, he proposed the resolution on The Authority of Scripture, which we passed. We believe he will be a great support to Bishop-elect John Guernsey and all the congregations in America that are under our care.”
Bishop Robert Duncan, Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, said, “Bishop Fairfield is one of the most respected Bishops in the entire American Church, and has served the Network very well as our ordinations suffragan. I know his work has been especially valuable to congregations in our International Conference. I am delighted to know that he has found a new ecclesiastical home in the Church of Uganda , a Province which has declared a state of broken communion with The Episcopal Church’s majority, but embraces full communion with all in the Anglican Communion Network. We look forward to many years of continued fruitful ministry together.
Feelings vs. Faith
By Chuck Colson
6/26/2007
An Episcopal Muslim?
On Friday nights, Ann Holmes Redding of Seattle puts on a black head scarf, heads to the Al-Islam Center, and prays with her fellow Muslims.
Nothing I just told you is remarkable. What’s remarkable is what I didn’t tell you: Redding is an Episcopal priest. Not an ex-Episcopal priest, mind you, but a priest, as far as she and her superiors are concerned, in good standing.
Her story is a vivid reminder of what’s really at stake in the various culture wars within Christian churches: orthodoxy.
Redding has been a priest for over 20 years. Until recently she was the director of “faith formation” at Seattle’s Episcopal cathedral, St. Mark’s. I am, as Dave Barry likes to say, not making this up.
Apparently, at the same time she was in charge of forming other people’s faith, her own was undergoing a transformation. Fifteen months ago, she became a Muslim, the result of an “introduction to Islamic prayers [that] left her profoundly moved.”
Actually, according to Redding, I should say that she also became a Muslim. As she told the Seattle Times, “I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I’m both an American of African descent and a woman. I’m 100 percent both.” So while on Friday nights she puts on a black head scarf, on Sunday mornings she wears a clerical collar.
Redding doesn’t deny that there are differences between the two faiths—she simply doesn’t think that they ultimately matter. As she put it, “at the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need.”
There’s so much wrong here that I scarcely know where to begin, so I’ll limit myself to the obvious: There’s no inherent contradiction between being an African-American and a woman, just as there’s none in being an American of Swedish descent and a man, as I am.
However, the same cannot be said of being a Christian and a Muslim. As Kurt Fredrickson of Fuller Seminary told the paper, “there are tenets of the faiths that are very, very different,” especially regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Mahmoud Ayoub, a professor of Islamic studies at Temple, agrees. He says that “the [respective] theological beliefs [about Jesus] are irreconcilable.”
Of course, for Redding (as for too many people today), it isn’t about logic or theology: It’s about feelings. She can call herself anything she wants, but she’s only truly a Muslim if she denies Christian doctrines such as original sin, the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ. And to deny those truths is to deny the Christian faith.
Which raises an interesting question: Why is she an Episcopal priest, never mind a director of “faith formation?”
Writing at the website Get Religion, Mollie Hemmingway says that Redding’s story illustrates that the split in the Episcopal Church isn’t about homosexuality, as the media says. The former Episcopal parishes aligning themselves with African bishops aren’t leaving a denomination with gay clergy; they are leaving a denomination with non-Christian clergy.
Redding is simply an extreme example in the Episcopal Church. But sadly she represents the widespread, politically correct belief that all religions lead to the same place—a message which is not only dead wrong as a matter of logic, but one which denies Christ. In short, it is the ultimate heresy.
6/26/2007
An Episcopal Muslim?
On Friday nights, Ann Holmes Redding of Seattle puts on a black head scarf, heads to the Al-Islam Center, and prays with her fellow Muslims.
Nothing I just told you is remarkable. What’s remarkable is what I didn’t tell you: Redding is an Episcopal priest. Not an ex-Episcopal priest, mind you, but a priest, as far as she and her superiors are concerned, in good standing.
Her story is a vivid reminder of what’s really at stake in the various culture wars within Christian churches: orthodoxy.
Redding has been a priest for over 20 years. Until recently she was the director of “faith formation” at Seattle’s Episcopal cathedral, St. Mark’s. I am, as Dave Barry likes to say, not making this up.
Apparently, at the same time she was in charge of forming other people’s faith, her own was undergoing a transformation. Fifteen months ago, she became a Muslim, the result of an “introduction to Islamic prayers [that] left her profoundly moved.”
Actually, according to Redding, I should say that she also became a Muslim. As she told the Seattle Times, “I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I’m both an American of African descent and a woman. I’m 100 percent both.” So while on Friday nights she puts on a black head scarf, on Sunday mornings she wears a clerical collar.
Redding doesn’t deny that there are differences between the two faiths—she simply doesn’t think that they ultimately matter. As she put it, “at the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need.”
There’s so much wrong here that I scarcely know where to begin, so I’ll limit myself to the obvious: There’s no inherent contradiction between being an African-American and a woman, just as there’s none in being an American of Swedish descent and a man, as I am.
However, the same cannot be said of being a Christian and a Muslim. As Kurt Fredrickson of Fuller Seminary told the paper, “there are tenets of the faiths that are very, very different,” especially regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Mahmoud Ayoub, a professor of Islamic studies at Temple, agrees. He says that “the [respective] theological beliefs [about Jesus] are irreconcilable.”
Of course, for Redding (as for too many people today), it isn’t about logic or theology: It’s about feelings. She can call herself anything she wants, but she’s only truly a Muslim if she denies Christian doctrines such as original sin, the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ. And to deny those truths is to deny the Christian faith.
Which raises an interesting question: Why is she an Episcopal priest, never mind a director of “faith formation?”
Writing at the website Get Religion, Mollie Hemmingway says that Redding’s story illustrates that the split in the Episcopal Church isn’t about homosexuality, as the media says. The former Episcopal parishes aligning themselves with African bishops aren’t leaving a denomination with gay clergy; they are leaving a denomination with non-Christian clergy.
Redding is simply an extreme example in the Episcopal Church. But sadly she represents the widespread, politically correct belief that all religions lead to the same place—a message which is not only dead wrong as a matter of logic, but one which denies Christ. In short, it is the ultimate heresy.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Progress
"If you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.” (CS Lewis: Mere Christianity)
The Rev. Chuck Collins: Shifting Authority
From The Living Church
07/08/2007
It’s popular in conservative circles to say that our identity is anchored to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bishop Jeffrey Steenson wrote a forceful apology for a Canterbury magisterium in the Anglican Theological Review (“The Unopened Gift,” Vol. 87), various Windsor bishops’ statements have said as much, and the Windsor Report itself seems to give the archbishop such a place of honor.
But with great respect for Bishop Steenson and the Windsor bishops, just to say something doesn’t make it true, and to say it often doesn’t make it less false. The Archbishop of Canterbury has never been the focal point of unity in the Anglican Communion. Instead, the focus of unity has always been a theology, what the prayer book calls “the substance of the Faith,” of which the archbishop is obligated to uphold. To give Canterbury control over our identity gives him far more power than he was ever meant to have.
According to Ian Douglas (Understanding the Windsor Report, coauthored with Paul Zahl), the four “instruments of unity” described in the Windsor Report were never identified as such before 1987. The Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Singapore in 1987 considered a paper that brought the four together for the first time. Yet, in reading the Windsor Report, one would get the feeling that these four — the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council, the primates, and Lambeth Conference — have always been authoritative.
What the Windsor Report does is very subtle, but it should concern every traditional Episcopalian. Windsor shifted the authority of the church from the scriptures and Anglican theology as preserved in its formularies to four modern entities. This makes “the heritage” almost incidental to the hugely expanding role of Canterbury.
This development puts many orthodox bishops on a collision course with biblical Christianity. To put Canterbury on such a pedestal puts the church over the written word. But the Articles of Religion clearly state that the church is the servant of the word (XX), that the councils of the church may and sometimes have erred (XXI), and that the traditions and ceremonies of the church are subordinate to the authority of God’s word (XXXIV). To give Canterbury primary authority (or even the four instruments together) diminishes what Anglicans have historically believed.
What if, for example, an Archbishop of Canterbury were to say that we have outgrown the biblical understanding of marriage, sex and family? Are we obligated to go along? Or, what if Canterbury were to say that Jesus isn’t the only begotten Son of God (Nicene Creed), and that all religions equally lead to God? Is that the final word? The Archbishop of Canterbury is not infallible. By giving our loyalty to an ecclesiastical structure over God and his word is to build a house on sand.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is clearly the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, but his word is only as good as he upholds God’s word, and his authority is only as strong as he upholds the Anglican heritage. I’m a Christian first, then Episcopalian and Anglican. I don’t want to get to the end of my life and ministry and say, as the former Presiding Bishop John Allin said with regret, that I loved the church more than the Lord of the church.
“The church’s one (and only!) foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord,” states the well-known hymn. Although “instruments of unity” is a new idea, and the exaggerated role of Canterbury is novel to Anglicanism, the Windsor Report is still the best solution for healing our Communion. Its benefits far outweigh its shortcomings. It’s really the only way for The Episcopal Church to be readmitted into the wider Anglican Communion.
Although I don’t know him personally, Archbishop Rowan Williams seems like a bright and spiritual man, and I pray for him as the head of our church. But my hope and greatest comfort in the midst of the storm around us is not a report or the titular head of the church, but God who is the same yesterday, today and forever. ❏
The Rev. Chuck Collins is the rector of Christ Church, San Antonio, Texas.
We invite your response to this Viewpoint through a Letter to the Editor. Email your letter to tlc@livingchurch.org. Please include your name, city and state.
The Reader’s Viewpoint article does not necessarily represent the editorial opinion of The Living Church or its board of directors.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Call 1-800-211-2771 to start your subscription.
07/08/2007
It’s popular in conservative circles to say that our identity is anchored to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bishop Jeffrey Steenson wrote a forceful apology for a Canterbury magisterium in the Anglican Theological Review (“The Unopened Gift,” Vol. 87), various Windsor bishops’ statements have said as much, and the Windsor Report itself seems to give the archbishop such a place of honor.
But with great respect for Bishop Steenson and the Windsor bishops, just to say something doesn’t make it true, and to say it often doesn’t make it less false. The Archbishop of Canterbury has never been the focal point of unity in the Anglican Communion. Instead, the focus of unity has always been a theology, what the prayer book calls “the substance of the Faith,” of which the archbishop is obligated to uphold. To give Canterbury control over our identity gives him far more power than he was ever meant to have.
According to Ian Douglas (Understanding the Windsor Report, coauthored with Paul Zahl), the four “instruments of unity” described in the Windsor Report were never identified as such before 1987. The Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Singapore in 1987 considered a paper that brought the four together for the first time. Yet, in reading the Windsor Report, one would get the feeling that these four — the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council, the primates, and Lambeth Conference — have always been authoritative.
What the Windsor Report does is very subtle, but it should concern every traditional Episcopalian. Windsor shifted the authority of the church from the scriptures and Anglican theology as preserved in its formularies to four modern entities. This makes “the heritage” almost incidental to the hugely expanding role of Canterbury.
This development puts many orthodox bishops on a collision course with biblical Christianity. To put Canterbury on such a pedestal puts the church over the written word. But the Articles of Religion clearly state that the church is the servant of the word (XX), that the councils of the church may and sometimes have erred (XXI), and that the traditions and ceremonies of the church are subordinate to the authority of God’s word (XXXIV). To give Canterbury primary authority (or even the four instruments together) diminishes what Anglicans have historically believed.
What if, for example, an Archbishop of Canterbury were to say that we have outgrown the biblical understanding of marriage, sex and family? Are we obligated to go along? Or, what if Canterbury were to say that Jesus isn’t the only begotten Son of God (Nicene Creed), and that all religions equally lead to God? Is that the final word? The Archbishop of Canterbury is not infallible. By giving our loyalty to an ecclesiastical structure over God and his word is to build a house on sand.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is clearly the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, but his word is only as good as he upholds God’s word, and his authority is only as strong as he upholds the Anglican heritage. I’m a Christian first, then Episcopalian and Anglican. I don’t want to get to the end of my life and ministry and say, as the former Presiding Bishop John Allin said with regret, that I loved the church more than the Lord of the church.
“The church’s one (and only!) foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord,” states the well-known hymn. Although “instruments of unity” is a new idea, and the exaggerated role of Canterbury is novel to Anglicanism, the Windsor Report is still the best solution for healing our Communion. Its benefits far outweigh its shortcomings. It’s really the only way for The Episcopal Church to be readmitted into the wider Anglican Communion.
Although I don’t know him personally, Archbishop Rowan Williams seems like a bright and spiritual man, and I pray for him as the head of our church. But my hope and greatest comfort in the midst of the storm around us is not a report or the titular head of the church, but God who is the same yesterday, today and forever. ❏
The Rev. Chuck Collins is the rector of Christ Church, San Antonio, Texas.
We invite your response to this Viewpoint through a Letter to the Editor. Email your letter to tlc@livingchurch.org. Please include your name, city and state.
The Reader’s Viewpoint article does not necessarily represent the editorial opinion of The Living Church or its board of directors.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Call 1-800-211-2771 to start your subscription.
Swamps and Rivers
The difference between a river and a swamp is that one has banks and the
other has none. The swamp is very gracious and kindly, it spreads over
everything, hence it is a swamp. Some of us are moral and spiritual
swamps. We are so broad and liberal that we take in everything from the
shady to the sacred. Hence we are swamps. A river has banks - it
confines itself to its central purpose. The civilizations of the world
organize themselves not around swamps, but around rivers.
Attributed to E. Stanley Jones
other has none. The swamp is very gracious and kindly, it spreads over
everything, hence it is a swamp. Some of us are moral and spiritual
swamps. We are so broad and liberal that we take in everything from the
shady to the sacred. Hence we are swamps. A river has banks - it
confines itself to its central purpose. The civilizations of the world
organize themselves not around swamps, but around rivers.
Attributed to E. Stanley Jones
Sunday, June 24, 2007
More U.S. Episcopalians Look Abroad Amid Rift
Overseas Prelates Lead 200 to 250 Congregations
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 17, 2007
The Anglican archbishop of Rwanda was first, then his counterpart in
Nigeria. Now Kenya's Anglican archbishop is taking a group of U.S. churches
under his authority, and Uganda's archbishop may be next.
African and, to a lesser extent, Southeast Asian and Latin American prelates
are racing to appoint American bishops and to assume jurisdiction over
congregations that are leaving the Episcopal Church, particularly since its
consecration of a gay bishop in New Hampshire in 2003.
So far, the heads, or primates, of Anglican provinces overseas have taken
under their wings 200 to 250 of the more than 7,000 congregations in the
Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism. Among their gains are some
large and wealthy congregations -- including several in Northern Virginia --
that bring international prestige and a steady stream of donations.
The foreign influx is a consequence of the rift in the 2.3 million-member
U.S. church, and explanations of what it's really all about depend on what
side of that divide you're on, said the Rev. Ian T. Douglas, a professor of
world mission and global Christianity at the Episcopal Divinity School in
Cambridge, Mass.
"It can either be read as the next step in a grand plan to replace the
Episcopal Church, or it can be read as a splintering of the conservatives
and a competition for who is going to be the real leader of disaffected U.S.
congregations," he said.
Bishop Martyn Minns, former rector of Truro Church in Fairfax City, who left
the Episcopal Church and was installed last month as a Nigerian bishop,
denied that the African prelates are competing for leadership, prestige or
donations. He said they are working together to help Americans who want to
remain faithful to the church's traditional teachings.
"There's lots of work for all of us," he said. "This is not just one
province sticking its nose in. It's the Global South collectively saying
'We've got to do something' because of the crisis in the U.S. church."
But a spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, James Naughton,
said the proliferation of "offshore" churches "makes it clear how difficult
it is going to be for the conservatives to unite, because each of these
primates wants a piece of the action, and none is willing to subjugate
himself to another."
Rwanda's Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and the archbishop of Southeast Asia,
Moses Tay, were the first to establish a missionary branch in the United
States. In 2000, they jointly consecrated two former Episcopal priests as
bishops and formed the Anglican Mission in the Americas, or AMIA. It has
grown at the rate of one church every three weeks and now numbers about 120
congregations, with five bishops.
Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola followed suit last year, forming the
Convocation of Anglicans in North America, or CANA. It is led by Minns and
has about 40 congregations in 13 states.
Last week, Kenya's Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi announced plans to consecrate
a former Episcopal priest in Texas, Bill Atwood, as a suffragan, or
assistant, bishop of his Nairobi diocese. Atwood said in a telephone
interview that after the Aug. 30 installation ceremony in Kenya he will look
after about 35 U.S. churches.
In addition, three other foreign archbishops -- Henry Orombi of Uganda,
Drexel Gomes of the West Indies and Greg Venables of the Southern Cone (a
region that includes Argentina and Bolivia -- have taken small numbers of
U.S. congregations under their auspices. Orombi is "very seriously and
prayerfully" considering appointing an American bishop and setting up a
missionary church in the United States, said AMIA Bishop Chuck Murphy.
Murphy recalled that when the AMIA was formed seven years ago, it came under
strong criticism from Atwood, among others.
"Bill Atwood has always been a strong advocate for what was called an
'inside' strategy -- to work within the system of the Episcopal Church and
within the Anglican Communion's existing structures," he said. "It is now
clear to virtually everyone that the 'outside' strategy of having clergy and
bishops canonically resident offshore -- that is no longer scandalous and
irregular, it is now the right way forward."
Atwood responded that "any strategic differences have just been overwhelmed
by the state of things in the Episcopal Church and the need to move forward
together."
The difference a foreign bishop makes can vary. Some former Episcopalians
describe it as an important but largely symbolic connection with a primate
who shares their orthodox beliefs. "Fundamentally, we're worshiping the same
way we've always worshiped. It's the Episcopal Church that has embarked on a
new path," said Warren Thrasher, a longtime parishioner at Truro Church.
But Atwood said it is often more tangible. He noted that some congregations
under Nzimbi's care have adopted the Kenyan version of the Anglican Book of
Common Prayer. He said many ex-Episcopal congregations have been forced to
give up their buildings and need help finding new properties.
"Many of the congregations have developed authentic relations with bishops
overseas, and those links are very important to them," he said.
At the same time, the foreign archbishops and their newly minted American
bishops are courting the wrath of the archbishop of Canterbury. The leader
of the Anglican Communion, the 75 million-member family of churches
descended from the Church of England, registered his disapproval of Minns's
installation last month by announcing that he will not invite the CANA
leader to a global meeting of all Anglican bishops next year.
Minns said he was "not surprised." He said a steady erosion of traditional
Christian teachings in the United States and Europe, combined with the
explosive growth of former missionary churches in developing countries, has
flipped the historic pattern of missionary activity.
"And frankly," he said, "the old institutional structures are having trouble
coming to grips with those realities."
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 17, 2007
The Anglican archbishop of Rwanda was first, then his counterpart in
Nigeria. Now Kenya's Anglican archbishop is taking a group of U.S. churches
under his authority, and Uganda's archbishop may be next.
African and, to a lesser extent, Southeast Asian and Latin American prelates
are racing to appoint American bishops and to assume jurisdiction over
congregations that are leaving the Episcopal Church, particularly since its
consecration of a gay bishop in New Hampshire in 2003.
So far, the heads, or primates, of Anglican provinces overseas have taken
under their wings 200 to 250 of the more than 7,000 congregations in the
Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism. Among their gains are some
large and wealthy congregations -- including several in Northern Virginia --
that bring international prestige and a steady stream of donations.
The foreign influx is a consequence of the rift in the 2.3 million-member
U.S. church, and explanations of what it's really all about depend on what
side of that divide you're on, said the Rev. Ian T. Douglas, a professor of
world mission and global Christianity at the Episcopal Divinity School in
Cambridge, Mass.
"It can either be read as the next step in a grand plan to replace the
Episcopal Church, or it can be read as a splintering of the conservatives
and a competition for who is going to be the real leader of disaffected U.S.
congregations," he said.
Bishop Martyn Minns, former rector of Truro Church in Fairfax City, who left
the Episcopal Church and was installed last month as a Nigerian bishop,
denied that the African prelates are competing for leadership, prestige or
donations. He said they are working together to help Americans who want to
remain faithful to the church's traditional teachings.
"There's lots of work for all of us," he said. "This is not just one
province sticking its nose in. It's the Global South collectively saying
'We've got to do something' because of the crisis in the U.S. church."
But a spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, James Naughton,
said the proliferation of "offshore" churches "makes it clear how difficult
it is going to be for the conservatives to unite, because each of these
primates wants a piece of the action, and none is willing to subjugate
himself to another."
Rwanda's Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and the archbishop of Southeast Asia,
Moses Tay, were the first to establish a missionary branch in the United
States. In 2000, they jointly consecrated two former Episcopal priests as
bishops and formed the Anglican Mission in the Americas, or AMIA. It has
grown at the rate of one church every three weeks and now numbers about 120
congregations, with five bishops.
Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola followed suit last year, forming the
Convocation of Anglicans in North America, or CANA. It is led by Minns and
has about 40 congregations in 13 states.
Last week, Kenya's Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi announced plans to consecrate
a former Episcopal priest in Texas, Bill Atwood, as a suffragan, or
assistant, bishop of his Nairobi diocese. Atwood said in a telephone
interview that after the Aug. 30 installation ceremony in Kenya he will look
after about 35 U.S. churches.
In addition, three other foreign archbishops -- Henry Orombi of Uganda,
Drexel Gomes of the West Indies and Greg Venables of the Southern Cone (a
region that includes Argentina and Bolivia -- have taken small numbers of
U.S. congregations under their auspices. Orombi is "very seriously and
prayerfully" considering appointing an American bishop and setting up a
missionary church in the United States, said AMIA Bishop Chuck Murphy.
Murphy recalled that when the AMIA was formed seven years ago, it came under
strong criticism from Atwood, among others.
"Bill Atwood has always been a strong advocate for what was called an
'inside' strategy -- to work within the system of the Episcopal Church and
within the Anglican Communion's existing structures," he said. "It is now
clear to virtually everyone that the 'outside' strategy of having clergy and
bishops canonically resident offshore -- that is no longer scandalous and
irregular, it is now the right way forward."
Atwood responded that "any strategic differences have just been overwhelmed
by the state of things in the Episcopal Church and the need to move forward
together."
The difference a foreign bishop makes can vary. Some former Episcopalians
describe it as an important but largely symbolic connection with a primate
who shares their orthodox beliefs. "Fundamentally, we're worshiping the same
way we've always worshiped. It's the Episcopal Church that has embarked on a
new path," said Warren Thrasher, a longtime parishioner at Truro Church.
But Atwood said it is often more tangible. He noted that some congregations
under Nzimbi's care have adopted the Kenyan version of the Anglican Book of
Common Prayer. He said many ex-Episcopal congregations have been forced to
give up their buildings and need help finding new properties.
"Many of the congregations have developed authentic relations with bishops
overseas, and those links are very important to them," he said.
At the same time, the foreign archbishops and their newly minted American
bishops are courting the wrath of the archbishop of Canterbury. The leader
of the Anglican Communion, the 75 million-member family of churches
descended from the Church of England, registered his disapproval of Minns's
installation last month by announcing that he will not invite the CANA
leader to a global meeting of all Anglican bishops next year.
Minns said he was "not surprised." He said a steady erosion of traditional
Christian teachings in the United States and Europe, combined with the
explosive growth of former missionary churches in developing countries, has
flipped the historic pattern of missionary activity.
"And frankly," he said, "the old institutional structures are having trouble
coming to grips with those realities."
Saturday, June 23, 2007
A Personal Response to the St. Michael Report
Guest forum: J. I. Packer's Response to the St. Michael Report
Dr. J. I. Packer, world-renowned Anglican theologian and teacher, wrote this commentary on the St. Michael Report soon after it was released last spring. His insights are even more helpful in these months before General Synod 2007.
1. When the St. Michael Report reached me, I said to a group of theologians that the critical question in my mind as I read it would be, whether the biblical gospel controls the Report's thinking as it should. I now offer the following assessment of it.
2. The document is titled: “Report of the Primate's Theological Commission of the ACC on the Blessing of Same-sex Unions.” With its makeup of 12 whom the Primate appoints, the Commission's role is to provide theological input on questions referred to it. This Report concludes that “the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine” (para 1) and of “doctrinal importance” (3), yet is not “a matter of core doctrine in the sense of being creedal” (i.e., touched on and determined by the Creeds, BCP, Articles, Lambeth Quadrilateral, and Solemn Declaration) and so is not “a Communion-breaking issue” (10). The meaning of communion in the Bible is not discussed; the capitalized “Communion” in the above phrase clearly means the worldwide fellowship of Anglican churches. Implicit here is a verdict against the ACiNW, which has suspended communion with the Bishop of New Westminster and others for their line of action on blessing same-sex unions; also against the 22 Anglican primates who have led their provinces to suspend communion with New Westminster and in some cases with the ACC.
3. Within its own convictional frame the Report is temperate, thorough, reverent, respectful, calm and even-handed, marshalling many of the biblical and cultural considerations that bear on the question, whether the church may and should pronounce liturgical blessings over “committed, adult, monogamous, intended lifelong, same-sex relationships which include sexual intimacy” (p.3). The word “monogamous” points to the Commission's view that any such blessing “would be analogous to a marriage to such a degree as to require the church to understand it coherently in relation to the doctrine of marriage” (39), i.e., apparently, as a sort of marriage.
Three limitations make the Report's reasoning less than compelling.
4. The first limitation is an inadequate concept of what in the past has been called heresy (a word not used here), that is, a denial of core doctrine that breaks the church's prior unity in faith. The Report equates core doctrine with what is affirmed in Anglican foundation documents and argues that blessing same-sex unions, whatever else it is, is not a violation of core doctrine, but is an adiaphoron, a secondary matter, which does not warrant any breach of church communion. But the reasoning on which this conclusion is based is not the whole story, though it is indeed part of it. However, a sounder, profounder concept of what in the past has been called heresy is: any belief or practice that negates any part of the New Testament gospel of Jesus Christ, understood as the divinely revealed truth that shows our sinful race the way of salvation from sin and sin's consequences. This concept covers not only doctrines of the Creeds and Anglican foundation documents, but also the practice of faith in Christ, repentance, obedience, life in the Spirit, and personal holiness, according to the Scriptures.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 lists behavioral habits that, if not repented of and forsaken, keep people out of God's kingdom, and male homosexuality is explicitly included in the list (vss. 9-11). Paul goes on to celebrate the power of the Holy Spirit sanctifying persons at Corinth who had previously lived in the ways he has mentioned. It seems undeniable that he would have viewed blessing same-sex unions as sanctifying sin, and thus as a denial of an essential ingredient in the gospel, namely repentance of all one's sins and forsaking of them. And the gospel as such is surely the church's core doctrine.
The gravity of the homosexual lifestyle as Paul views it warrants the description of it when found in the church as practical heresy; which raises the question, whether the suspending of full communion pro tem is not warranted and indeed needed as a disciplinary measure, aimed at bringing offenders to repentance. The Report fails to face this issue of conscience and wisdom, which arises from straightforward biblical exegesis and for some is very real and pressing.
5. The second limitation is that the Commission's discussion of theological anthropology overlooks the question, whether God has revealed in nature and Scripture an order of creation in sexual matters: whether, that is, the physical makeup of each sex and the divine purpose of procreation do not point to what a string of biblical passages seem to say explicitly, namely that sexual powers are for exclusive use within heterosexual marriage and that homosexual use of them is always off limits, since it violates God's order and can never please him. The theology here is that since the work of grace is the restoring of ruined nature, the creational parameters of right and wrong still apply, and for the church to bless liturgically what God says he cannot approve is near to blasphemy. Unhappily the Report quite fails to face this issue.
6. The third limitation is that in urging continued discussion the Report does not consider how theological closure can be achieved. If legislation on blessing same-sex unions is presented to General Synod in 2007, there is every reason to think that whether it passes or fails, division will be exacerbated and deepened by the result. “The Commission acknowledges” (without doing more) “that for some on all sides of the issue it has taken on an urgency that approaches the 'confessional' status, in that they believe that the Church is being called absolutely by the Spirit to take a stand” (10). “Some” in that sentence should be “many,” and it would seem that their numbers are increasing. One wishes the Commission had faced the question of closure.
J. I. Packer
Dr. J. I. Packer, world-renowned Anglican theologian and teacher, wrote this commentary on the St. Michael Report soon after it was released last spring. His insights are even more helpful in these months before General Synod 2007.
1. When the St. Michael Report reached me, I said to a group of theologians that the critical question in my mind as I read it would be, whether the biblical gospel controls the Report's thinking as it should. I now offer the following assessment of it.
2. The document is titled: “Report of the Primate's Theological Commission of the ACC on the Blessing of Same-sex Unions.” With its makeup of 12 whom the Primate appoints, the Commission's role is to provide theological input on questions referred to it. This Report concludes that “the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine” (para 1) and of “doctrinal importance” (3), yet is not “a matter of core doctrine in the sense of being creedal” (i.e., touched on and determined by the Creeds, BCP, Articles, Lambeth Quadrilateral, and Solemn Declaration) and so is not “a Communion-breaking issue” (10). The meaning of communion in the Bible is not discussed; the capitalized “Communion” in the above phrase clearly means the worldwide fellowship of Anglican churches. Implicit here is a verdict against the ACiNW, which has suspended communion with the Bishop of New Westminster and others for their line of action on blessing same-sex unions; also against the 22 Anglican primates who have led their provinces to suspend communion with New Westminster and in some cases with the ACC.
3. Within its own convictional frame the Report is temperate, thorough, reverent, respectful, calm and even-handed, marshalling many of the biblical and cultural considerations that bear on the question, whether the church may and should pronounce liturgical blessings over “committed, adult, monogamous, intended lifelong, same-sex relationships which include sexual intimacy” (p.3). The word “monogamous” points to the Commission's view that any such blessing “would be analogous to a marriage to such a degree as to require the church to understand it coherently in relation to the doctrine of marriage” (39), i.e., apparently, as a sort of marriage.
Three limitations make the Report's reasoning less than compelling.
4. The first limitation is an inadequate concept of what in the past has been called heresy (a word not used here), that is, a denial of core doctrine that breaks the church's prior unity in faith. The Report equates core doctrine with what is affirmed in Anglican foundation documents and argues that blessing same-sex unions, whatever else it is, is not a violation of core doctrine, but is an adiaphoron, a secondary matter, which does not warrant any breach of church communion. But the reasoning on which this conclusion is based is not the whole story, though it is indeed part of it. However, a sounder, profounder concept of what in the past has been called heresy is: any belief or practice that negates any part of the New Testament gospel of Jesus Christ, understood as the divinely revealed truth that shows our sinful race the way of salvation from sin and sin's consequences. This concept covers not only doctrines of the Creeds and Anglican foundation documents, but also the practice of faith in Christ, repentance, obedience, life in the Spirit, and personal holiness, according to the Scriptures.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 lists behavioral habits that, if not repented of and forsaken, keep people out of God's kingdom, and male homosexuality is explicitly included in the list (vss. 9-11). Paul goes on to celebrate the power of the Holy Spirit sanctifying persons at Corinth who had previously lived in the ways he has mentioned. It seems undeniable that he would have viewed blessing same-sex unions as sanctifying sin, and thus as a denial of an essential ingredient in the gospel, namely repentance of all one's sins and forsaking of them. And the gospel as such is surely the church's core doctrine.
The gravity of the homosexual lifestyle as Paul views it warrants the description of it when found in the church as practical heresy; which raises the question, whether the suspending of full communion pro tem is not warranted and indeed needed as a disciplinary measure, aimed at bringing offenders to repentance. The Report fails to face this issue of conscience and wisdom, which arises from straightforward biblical exegesis and for some is very real and pressing.
5. The second limitation is that the Commission's discussion of theological anthropology overlooks the question, whether God has revealed in nature and Scripture an order of creation in sexual matters: whether, that is, the physical makeup of each sex and the divine purpose of procreation do not point to what a string of biblical passages seem to say explicitly, namely that sexual powers are for exclusive use within heterosexual marriage and that homosexual use of them is always off limits, since it violates God's order and can never please him. The theology here is that since the work of grace is the restoring of ruined nature, the creational parameters of right and wrong still apply, and for the church to bless liturgically what God says he cannot approve is near to blasphemy. Unhappily the Report quite fails to face this issue.
6. The third limitation is that in urging continued discussion the Report does not consider how theological closure can be achieved. If legislation on blessing same-sex unions is presented to General Synod in 2007, there is every reason to think that whether it passes or fails, division will be exacerbated and deepened by the result. “The Commission acknowledges” (without doing more) “that for some on all sides of the issue it has taken on an urgency that approaches the 'confessional' status, in that they believe that the Church is being called absolutely by the Spirit to take a stand” (10). “Some” in that sentence should be “many,” and it would seem that their numbers are increasing. One wishes the Commission had faced the question of closure.
J. I. Packer
Friday, June 22, 2007
Vestal church to sever ties to Episcopal organization
By William Moyer
Press & Sun-Bulletin
VESTAL -- After months of discussion, a Vestal church vestry voted this week
to withdraw from the Episcopal Church and join an orthodox province that
believes homosexuality is incompatible with biblical teaching.
"We're doing what we believe," said the Rev. Anthony Seel, pastor of what is
now St. Andrew Anglican Church. "We're not in the same place as the
Episcopal Church."
Seel said the vestry's 8-0 decision Monday came after years of discussions
and a recently completed congregational survey that showed 88 percent of St.
Andrew's adherents -- between 250 and 275 members -- favored leaving the
Central New York Diocese and the Episcopal denomination.
Central New York's bishop expressed regret Thursday at the local church's
decision.
"It's very sad to me that we've come to this day," said Bishop Gladstone
"Skip" Adams from diocesan headquarters in Syracuse. "Let's stay at the
table (and talk). Separation is not necessary. It's possible to disagree."
Another local Episcopal church, the Church of the Good Shepherd in
Binghamton, and the diocese continue negotiations about property issues
before the church withdraws from the regional jurisdiction.
The church voted last year to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate
itself with another Anglican province, Good Shepherd's pastor, the Rev.
Matthew Kennedy, said Thursday.
Among the theological points of disagreement that triggered the two
decisions to leave the Episcopal denomination are the national church's
stance on homosexuality and blessings of same-sex unions. The churches also
are at odds with the election and consecration of a practicing homosexual,
V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
Seel said St. Andrew did not see any pending changes at the national level,
even after international Anglican primates gave the Episcopal Church a Sept.
30 deadline to change its ways and comply with traditional law. At a
conference in February, the primates threatened to invoke unspecified
"sanctions" if the Episcopal Church refuses to comply.
"Our beliefs have not changed," Seel said.
"They believe that's what it means to be faithful," Adams said. "I hope to
receive the same Christian charity that I'm seeking to be faithful. It's a
matter of how we interpret the Bible."
Adams, who wrote a letter earlier this year to clergy saying he would not
ask gays and lesbians to go to the back of the bus, said the national church
is unlikely to change its position because only a General Convention can
change church policy. The convention is not scheduled to meet until 2009.
St. Andrew has aligned itself with the Convocation of Anglicans in North
America. CANA describes itself as a convocation of the Church of Nigeria and
has provided sanctuary for former Episcopalians who want oversight from a
governing province that affirms orthodox teachings.
Bishop David Bena, headquartered in Fairfax, Va., is scheduled to worship
July 1 at St. Andrew to welcome the congregation to CANA, which claims 50
clergy and 30 congregations as members.
A major issue remains to be resolved before St. Andrew completely cuts its
ties with the Central New York Diocese and it is a significant question: Who
gets the church building and community center at LaGrange Street and Mirador
Drive?
Seel said congregants will vacate the buildings and move elsewhere if the
diocese demands the properties, which, by New York law, it could do. Adams
said both sides need to discuss the issue in depth before reaching a
decision about the buildings. For now, he said, St. Andrew will be allowed
to worship in the church and use the community center.
The only other church in central New York to withdraw from the regional
diocese is St. Andrew's in Syracuse. Officials announced in April the
congregation would leave its facility on South Salina Street and move to an
undetermined site. Church leaders said litigation with the diocese to keep
its facility had become "a diversion of time, energy and resources."
Central New York has 22,500 members in 100 Episcopal churches from
Alexandria Bay south to the New York-Pennsylvania border, east to Utica and
west to Waterloo.
The national Episcopal Church has 2.2 million members in roughly 7,680
congregations, mostly in the United State s. The worldwide Anglican
Communion, which stems from the Church of England, has 77 million adherents
in 38 self-governing provinces.
Press & Sun-Bulletin
VESTAL -- After months of discussion, a Vestal church vestry voted this week
to withdraw from the Episcopal Church and join an orthodox province that
believes homosexuality is incompatible with biblical teaching.
"We're doing what we believe," said the Rev. Anthony Seel, pastor of what is
now St. Andrew Anglican Church. "We're not in the same place as the
Episcopal Church."
Seel said the vestry's 8-0 decision Monday came after years of discussions
and a recently completed congregational survey that showed 88 percent of St.
Andrew's adherents -- between 250 and 275 members -- favored leaving the
Central New York Diocese and the Episcopal denomination.
Central New York's bishop expressed regret Thursday at the local church's
decision.
"It's very sad to me that we've come to this day," said Bishop Gladstone
"Skip" Adams from diocesan headquarters in Syracuse. "Let's stay at the
table (and talk). Separation is not necessary. It's possible to disagree."
Another local Episcopal church, the Church of the Good Shepherd in
Binghamton, and the diocese continue negotiations about property issues
before the church withdraws from the regional jurisdiction.
The church voted last year to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate
itself with another Anglican province, Good Shepherd's pastor, the Rev.
Matthew Kennedy, said Thursday.
Among the theological points of disagreement that triggered the two
decisions to leave the Episcopal denomination are the national church's
stance on homosexuality and blessings of same-sex unions. The churches also
are at odds with the election and consecration of a practicing homosexual,
V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
Seel said St. Andrew did not see any pending changes at the national level,
even after international Anglican primates gave the Episcopal Church a Sept.
30 deadline to change its ways and comply with traditional law. At a
conference in February, the primates threatened to invoke unspecified
"sanctions" if the Episcopal Church refuses to comply.
"Our beliefs have not changed," Seel said.
"They believe that's what it means to be faithful," Adams said. "I hope to
receive the same Christian charity that I'm seeking to be faithful. It's a
matter of how we interpret the Bible."
Adams, who wrote a letter earlier this year to clergy saying he would not
ask gays and lesbians to go to the back of the bus, said the national church
is unlikely to change its position because only a General Convention can
change church policy. The convention is not scheduled to meet until 2009.
St. Andrew has aligned itself with the Convocation of Anglicans in North
America. CANA describes itself as a convocation of the Church of Nigeria and
has provided sanctuary for former Episcopalians who want oversight from a
governing province that affirms orthodox teachings.
Bishop David Bena, headquartered in Fairfax, Va., is scheduled to worship
July 1 at St. Andrew to welcome the congregation to CANA, which claims 50
clergy and 30 congregations as members.
A major issue remains to be resolved before St. Andrew completely cuts its
ties with the Central New York Diocese and it is a significant question: Who
gets the church building and community center at LaGrange Street and Mirador
Drive?
Seel said congregants will vacate the buildings and move elsewhere if the
diocese demands the properties, which, by New York law, it could do. Adams
said both sides need to discuss the issue in depth before reaching a
decision about the buildings. For now, he said, St. Andrew will be allowed
to worship in the church and use the community center.
The only other church in central New York to withdraw from the regional
diocese is St. Andrew's in Syracuse. Officials announced in April the
congregation would leave its facility on South Salina Street and move to an
undetermined site. Church leaders said litigation with the diocese to keep
its facility had become "a diversion of time, energy and resources."
Central New York has 22,500 members in 100 Episcopal churches from
Alexandria Bay south to the New York-Pennsylvania border, east to Utica and
west to Waterloo.
The national Episcopal Church has 2.2 million members in roughly 7,680
congregations, mostly in the United State s. The worldwide Anglican
Communion, which stems from the Church of England, has 77 million adherents
in 38 self-governing provinces.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
From Stand Firm in Faith
Greg Griffith
Under the Radar...and Over the Cliff
The champions of tolerance want to bury a story about an Episcopal priest who also claims to be a Muslim. Here are the reasons why, along with some ways you can help make sure they can't do it.
By now, most readers in the Anglican blogosphere are familiar with the story of The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding. She is an Episcopal priest in Washington State who also claims to be a practicing Muslim. Her story first appeared in the Diocese of Olympia's newsletter.
In the article, titled "On being Christian and Muslim," Redding made statements about Jesus Christ that are nothing short of astonishing for anyone who claims to be a Christian, but even more so for someone ordained as a Christian priest:
"I fell in love with Jesus a long time ago and I’m still in love with Jesus but I’d like to think my relationship with Jesus has matured."
She added that what Islam does is take Jesus out of the way of her relationship with God, "but it doesn’t drop Jesus. I was following Jesus and he led me into Islam, and he didn’t drop me off at the door. He’s there, too."
...
Redding says if you take your shahaddah (official entrance into Islam), saying "there is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God," with the intention of becoming a Muslim, accurately and before at least one witness, you’re a Muslim. That does not contradict anything in Christianity. She says the reverse is true for her; the renunciations and affirmations Christians make at their baptism do not contradict anything in Islam. "The renunciations [of Satan, evil powers and sinful desires] any Muslim can say," Redding says. "The affirmations are tough for any Christian who is at all progressive because there are certain of us [Christians] who have taken these and made them in to something like fraternity hazing - you have to say these words in order to be part of the club. I see them as taking Jesus as the human example to follow toward God. Most Muslims see Mohammed rather than Jesus as the pattern of life to follow, and I do not see him as the only example. I just am not willing to put ‘onlys’ in front of all those affirmations about Jesus.
Many readers of this site know what a "listserv" is; a sizable percentage of them probably participate in one or more of them. Those who don't know may wish to take a moment and read this explanation at Wikipedia.
There is a listserv hosted at episcopalcommunicators.org. It's a forum for webmasters, communications directors, and the like. Yesterday the following post to the list was made by Chuck Morello. Morello is a member of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Virginia, Minnesota:
From: iris1@speravi.com [mailto:iris1@speravi.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Morello
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:24 AM
To: talk@episcopalcommunicators.org
Subject: [talk]: "I am both Muslim and Christian"
Friends-
You may have seen this headline (or similar) in your local press. I got it from an unusual blog:
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=21424 [for the "faint of heart", It is NOT a Christian forum (it is military, so it is decidedly salty), so enter at your own risk.]
The full article is online at:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=redding17m&date=20070617&
The Seattle Times Homepage
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/home/) has a note "In a live online Q & A at noon today, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding will answer reader questions about being both Christian and Muslim."
It may make for some interesting scramblings for some of us in the following days.
Peace
Chuck
Interesting scramblings, indeed. Here is a list of mainstream and blog coverage of the "Muslim priest" story to date, and here is a link to the ongoing blog coverage of the story.
Thirty-four minutes later, Jim Naughton, Director of Communications for the Diocese of Washington, and editor-in-chief of the Episcopal Cafe, replied:
From: Jim Naughton [mailto:jnaughton@edow.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:58 AM
To: talk@episcopalcommunicators.org
Subject: RE: [talk]: "I am both Muslim and Christian"
I fervently hope that it will be possible to ignore this story until it slips back beneath the radar.
Jim Naughton
Canon for Communications and Advancement Episcopal Diocese of Washington/202-537-7162 Episcopal Church House / Mount Saint Alban / Washington, D. C. 20016
For those of us who have participated in this debate for the last few years, and especially for those of us who have run the blogs which have helped change the nature of this debate, it is obvious why Mr. Naughton wants to "ignore this story until it slips back beneath the radar."
It's because our Worthy Opponents figured out long ago how to sneak the nose of the gay agenda's camel under the tent of mainstream Episcopalianism: Frame it in terms of civil rights and post-modern notions of tolerance and inclusion, while playing the soft but insistent background music of oppression and marginalization. But what they haven't figured out is how to sell to that same mainstream the fact that their agenda - gutting 2,000 years of Christian teaching on sexual morality in order to devise a "Gospel" that bestows the blessings of the church on same-sex unions - at best allows, and at worst requires, a profound alteration of the lordship of Jesus Christ. There are complex reasons why this is so, but stated simply, it is because it is extremely difficult to assert on the one hand that the Scriptures don't mean what they say about sexual morality, and on the other insist that they do mean what they say about who Jesus Christ is. Leaving open all manner of possibilities for the former requires that one also leave open all manner of possibilities for the latter. This is why the orthodox side of this debate continually insists that the real debate is not about homosexuality, but Christology - who Christ is, why He came to earth, and the nature of His revelation to us.
Mr. Naughton's dilemma is illustrated by the complete radio silence on reappraiser blogs about this story (three weeks later, and nary a jot or tittle by Susan Russell, Elizabeth Kaeton, Louie Crew, Mark Harris, Episcopal Cafe, Simon Sarmiento, Fr. Jake...) but more clearly and succinctly by a comment on this very site, by someone posting under the name "OpenMindedAnglican":
As someone who most likely be considered and labeled a "revisionist" by my fellow bloggers, I feel compelled to comment on this. It is appalling to me that someone who identifies themselves as a Muslim could even keep in their brain the thought of being a Christian, much less a priest. I cannot imagine any bishop allowing it either. Please do not lump me into the group of people who find this acceptable despite our different conclusions on other subjects.
OpenMindedAnglican, don't worry: Your comment is duly noted and appreciated.
And therein lies the explanation of Mr. Naughton's fear that this story might gain wider exposure: For what I suspect is a fairly large number of Anglicans who consider themselves open minded - folks who readily admit that they are "revisionists" - the denial of Jesus Christ as the only son of God is where they get off the bus... where they part ways with the Jim Naughtons and Ann Holmes Reddings of the church.
Mr. Naughton is a smart fellow, and he no doubt understands that if stories like Redding's get too much press, it may cause many more open minded Anglicans to notice the startling similarities between what The Rev. Redding thinks about Christ, and what the Presiding Bishop thinks about Him. And, by extension, what Integrity, Oasis, Via Media, Claiming the Blessing, and the rest of the drivers of the left's agenda either believe about Christ and wish to promote themselves, or are willing to tolerate in the name of sanctifying homosexuality.
In my three-plus years of doing this - running this site, corresponding with lay people, giving presentations to small groups - I have found that there are plenty of people who are none too keen on attempts to have the church bless same-sex unions, or ordain partnered homosexuals. However, there are far more who don't get worked about that, but begin climbing the walls whenever they hear of attempts to deny the divinity or uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Of all the stories we have posted on this site - just over 4,000 since March 2004 - none have gotten more attention, generated more traffic, or left our Worthy Opponents so flummoxed, than the ones in which Episcopal priests or dioceses have been caught red-handed tolerating and even actively promoting some form of paganism or virulent universalism.
Here's a quick recap of just some of the more notable incidents:
* May 2004 - The Diocese of Michigan co-sponsors "Together in Faith," a seminar featuring workshops by a witch and a trans-gendered pagan.
* October 2004 - In the Diocese of Pennsylvania, ordained Episcopal husband-and-wife priests Bill and Glyn Melnyk (who for years had moonlighted as Druid priests) ran into trouble when 815's Office for Women's Ministry published one of the couple's pagan liturgies. Bill Melnyk, known in Druid circles as "Oakwyse" (and occasionally, though inexplicably, "Bran"), left the Episcopal priesthood soon afterward, to become a full-time Druid priest.
* April 2006 - Maury Johnston, an Episcopal lay leader whose articles had been published by a number of prominent blogs on the Episcopal left, turned out to be a very active pagan whose nom de coven was "Shadwynn."
* May 2006 - The Episcopal Church Center Bookstore in New York was found to be offering a book titled "Love Spells," which contained "...a host of tried and tested spells, potions, and rituals that will help you find out just how to bring love into your life."
The question of whether those in the Episcopal Church who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will, under daily and intense pressure to tolerate anything but orthodox Christianity, tolerate much longer such assaults on Christ's lordship, is also the question now before the Anglican Communion: How much heresy is it willing tolerate in the name of peace and collegiality?
In my blueprint for the future of the Episcopal Church - which, I am convinced, will predict the future of the Anglican Communion - before Katharine Jefferts Schori and David Booth Beers can run off the remaining orthodox through lawsuits and intimidation... before the "moderate" bishops' Berlin Wall around the Unengaged Middle can be completed... before all of that, everyone from the far right to the institutionalist left will wake up and realize that the real core of this crisis is not about homosexuality, but about Jesus Christ Himself; that they understand that in rejecting the divinity and uniqueness of Christ they destroy their church; and that they lock arms at the foot of His cross to become the defenders of the faith Christ calls us to be.
Whether that will happen, of course, remains to be seen. The possibility that it will is what drives some of us here to do what we do.
So... what more can we do?
Whatever we do, we must remember that we are first and foremost Christians, and all of our words and actions must reflect that.
* Do you teach a Sunday School class? Print out page 9 of Olympia's newsletter and spend one class discussing the implications not just of an Episcopal priest who considers herself a Muslim, but of a bishop (sworn to defend the faith) who views her beliefs not as problematic, but "exciting."
* Are you on the vestry at your church? Print out the same article and pass it around. If you discuss it in your meeting, great; but if not, at least 11 other members of your church's leadership are aware of what's going.
* Schedule a meeting with your rector and give him or her a copy of the newsletter article. Ask for comments.
* Schedule a meeting with your bishop. Take along a copy of the newsletter article, and question him carefully and thoroughly about his views on this story, and his policy should something similar happen in your own diocese.
* Do you have any input on what's published in your parish or diocesan newsletter? See about inserting a brief "news item"-type piece on The Rev. Redding and her bishop's approval.
* Do you run a listserv, or sometimes send out emails to a large list of recipients? Copy the text of the Olympia newsletter article, and send it to your list. Include a link to this article here at Stand Firm.
* Write a letter to the editor of your diocesan newsletter, mentioning the story in Olympia.
* Do you work for a mainstream newspaper, television station, or radio station? See about getting this story featured there.
* And obviously, if you run your own blog, feature this story!
Finally, please check in on this thread and let us know what you've done. There is a reason Jim Naughton wants to "ignore this story until it slips back beneath the radar"... and we need to do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen for a long, long time.
Under the Radar...and Over the Cliff
The champions of tolerance want to bury a story about an Episcopal priest who also claims to be a Muslim. Here are the reasons why, along with some ways you can help make sure they can't do it.
By now, most readers in the Anglican blogosphere are familiar with the story of The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding. She is an Episcopal priest in Washington State who also claims to be a practicing Muslim. Her story first appeared in the Diocese of Olympia's newsletter.
In the article, titled "On being Christian and Muslim," Redding made statements about Jesus Christ that are nothing short of astonishing for anyone who claims to be a Christian, but even more so for someone ordained as a Christian priest:
"I fell in love with Jesus a long time ago and I’m still in love with Jesus but I’d like to think my relationship with Jesus has matured."
She added that what Islam does is take Jesus out of the way of her relationship with God, "but it doesn’t drop Jesus. I was following Jesus and he led me into Islam, and he didn’t drop me off at the door. He’s there, too."
...
Redding says if you take your shahaddah (official entrance into Islam), saying "there is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God," with the intention of becoming a Muslim, accurately and before at least one witness, you’re a Muslim. That does not contradict anything in Christianity. She says the reverse is true for her; the renunciations and affirmations Christians make at their baptism do not contradict anything in Islam. "The renunciations [of Satan, evil powers and sinful desires] any Muslim can say," Redding says. "The affirmations are tough for any Christian who is at all progressive because there are certain of us [Christians] who have taken these and made them in to something like fraternity hazing - you have to say these words in order to be part of the club. I see them as taking Jesus as the human example to follow toward God. Most Muslims see Mohammed rather than Jesus as the pattern of life to follow, and I do not see him as the only example. I just am not willing to put ‘onlys’ in front of all those affirmations about Jesus.
Many readers of this site know what a "listserv" is; a sizable percentage of them probably participate in one or more of them. Those who don't know may wish to take a moment and read this explanation at Wikipedia.
There is a listserv hosted at episcopalcommunicators.org. It's a forum for webmasters, communications directors, and the like. Yesterday the following post to the list was made by Chuck Morello. Morello is a member of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Virginia, Minnesota:
From: iris1@speravi.com [mailto:iris1@speravi.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Morello
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:24 AM
To: talk@episcopalcommunicators.org
Subject: [talk]: "I am both Muslim and Christian"
Friends-
You may have seen this headline (or similar) in your local press. I got it from an unusual blog:
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=21424 [for the "faint of heart", It is NOT a Christian forum (it is military, so it is decidedly salty), so enter at your own risk.]
The full article is online at:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=redding17m&date=20070617&
The Seattle Times Homepage
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/home/) has a note "In a live online Q & A at noon today, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding will answer reader questions about being both Christian and Muslim."
It may make for some interesting scramblings for some of us in the following days.
Peace
Chuck
Interesting scramblings, indeed. Here is a list of mainstream and blog coverage of the "Muslim priest" story to date, and here is a link to the ongoing blog coverage of the story.
Thirty-four minutes later, Jim Naughton, Director of Communications for the Diocese of Washington, and editor-in-chief of the Episcopal Cafe, replied:
From: Jim Naughton [mailto:jnaughton@edow.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:58 AM
To: talk@episcopalcommunicators.org
Subject: RE: [talk]: "I am both Muslim and Christian"
I fervently hope that it will be possible to ignore this story until it slips back beneath the radar.
Jim Naughton
Canon for Communications and Advancement Episcopal Diocese of Washington/202-537-7162 Episcopal Church House / Mount Saint Alban / Washington, D. C. 20016
For those of us who have participated in this debate for the last few years, and especially for those of us who have run the blogs which have helped change the nature of this debate, it is obvious why Mr. Naughton wants to "ignore this story until it slips back beneath the radar."
It's because our Worthy Opponents figured out long ago how to sneak the nose of the gay agenda's camel under the tent of mainstream Episcopalianism: Frame it in terms of civil rights and post-modern notions of tolerance and inclusion, while playing the soft but insistent background music of oppression and marginalization. But what they haven't figured out is how to sell to that same mainstream the fact that their agenda - gutting 2,000 years of Christian teaching on sexual morality in order to devise a "Gospel" that bestows the blessings of the church on same-sex unions - at best allows, and at worst requires, a profound alteration of the lordship of Jesus Christ. There are complex reasons why this is so, but stated simply, it is because it is extremely difficult to assert on the one hand that the Scriptures don't mean what they say about sexual morality, and on the other insist that they do mean what they say about who Jesus Christ is. Leaving open all manner of possibilities for the former requires that one also leave open all manner of possibilities for the latter. This is why the orthodox side of this debate continually insists that the real debate is not about homosexuality, but Christology - who Christ is, why He came to earth, and the nature of His revelation to us.
Mr. Naughton's dilemma is illustrated by the complete radio silence on reappraiser blogs about this story (three weeks later, and nary a jot or tittle by Susan Russell, Elizabeth Kaeton, Louie Crew, Mark Harris, Episcopal Cafe, Simon Sarmiento, Fr. Jake...) but more clearly and succinctly by a comment on this very site, by someone posting under the name "OpenMindedAnglican":
As someone who most likely be considered and labeled a "revisionist" by my fellow bloggers, I feel compelled to comment on this. It is appalling to me that someone who identifies themselves as a Muslim could even keep in their brain the thought of being a Christian, much less a priest. I cannot imagine any bishop allowing it either. Please do not lump me into the group of people who find this acceptable despite our different conclusions on other subjects.
OpenMindedAnglican, don't worry: Your comment is duly noted and appreciated.
And therein lies the explanation of Mr. Naughton's fear that this story might gain wider exposure: For what I suspect is a fairly large number of Anglicans who consider themselves open minded - folks who readily admit that they are "revisionists" - the denial of Jesus Christ as the only son of God is where they get off the bus... where they part ways with the Jim Naughtons and Ann Holmes Reddings of the church.
Mr. Naughton is a smart fellow, and he no doubt understands that if stories like Redding's get too much press, it may cause many more open minded Anglicans to notice the startling similarities between what The Rev. Redding thinks about Christ, and what the Presiding Bishop thinks about Him. And, by extension, what Integrity, Oasis, Via Media, Claiming the Blessing, and the rest of the drivers of the left's agenda either believe about Christ and wish to promote themselves, or are willing to tolerate in the name of sanctifying homosexuality.
In my three-plus years of doing this - running this site, corresponding with lay people, giving presentations to small groups - I have found that there are plenty of people who are none too keen on attempts to have the church bless same-sex unions, or ordain partnered homosexuals. However, there are far more who don't get worked about that, but begin climbing the walls whenever they hear of attempts to deny the divinity or uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Of all the stories we have posted on this site - just over 4,000 since March 2004 - none have gotten more attention, generated more traffic, or left our Worthy Opponents so flummoxed, than the ones in which Episcopal priests or dioceses have been caught red-handed tolerating and even actively promoting some form of paganism or virulent universalism.
Here's a quick recap of just some of the more notable incidents:
* May 2004 - The Diocese of Michigan co-sponsors "Together in Faith," a seminar featuring workshops by a witch and a trans-gendered pagan.
* October 2004 - In the Diocese of Pennsylvania, ordained Episcopal husband-and-wife priests Bill and Glyn Melnyk (who for years had moonlighted as Druid priests) ran into trouble when 815's Office for Women's Ministry published one of the couple's pagan liturgies. Bill Melnyk, known in Druid circles as "Oakwyse" (and occasionally, though inexplicably, "Bran"), left the Episcopal priesthood soon afterward, to become a full-time Druid priest.
* April 2006 - Maury Johnston, an Episcopal lay leader whose articles had been published by a number of prominent blogs on the Episcopal left, turned out to be a very active pagan whose nom de coven was "Shadwynn."
* May 2006 - The Episcopal Church Center Bookstore in New York was found to be offering a book titled "Love Spells," which contained "...a host of tried and tested spells, potions, and rituals that will help you find out just how to bring love into your life."
The question of whether those in the Episcopal Church who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will, under daily and intense pressure to tolerate anything but orthodox Christianity, tolerate much longer such assaults on Christ's lordship, is also the question now before the Anglican Communion: How much heresy is it willing tolerate in the name of peace and collegiality?
In my blueprint for the future of the Episcopal Church - which, I am convinced, will predict the future of the Anglican Communion - before Katharine Jefferts Schori and David Booth Beers can run off the remaining orthodox through lawsuits and intimidation... before the "moderate" bishops' Berlin Wall around the Unengaged Middle can be completed... before all of that, everyone from the far right to the institutionalist left will wake up and realize that the real core of this crisis is not about homosexuality, but about Jesus Christ Himself; that they understand that in rejecting the divinity and uniqueness of Christ they destroy their church; and that they lock arms at the foot of His cross to become the defenders of the faith Christ calls us to be.
Whether that will happen, of course, remains to be seen. The possibility that it will is what drives some of us here to do what we do.
So... what more can we do?
Whatever we do, we must remember that we are first and foremost Christians, and all of our words and actions must reflect that.
* Do you teach a Sunday School class? Print out page 9 of Olympia's newsletter and spend one class discussing the implications not just of an Episcopal priest who considers herself a Muslim, but of a bishop (sworn to defend the faith) who views her beliefs not as problematic, but "exciting."
* Are you on the vestry at your church? Print out the same article and pass it around. If you discuss it in your meeting, great; but if not, at least 11 other members of your church's leadership are aware of what's going.
* Schedule a meeting with your rector and give him or her a copy of the newsletter article. Ask for comments.
* Schedule a meeting with your bishop. Take along a copy of the newsletter article, and question him carefully and thoroughly about his views on this story, and his policy should something similar happen in your own diocese.
* Do you have any input on what's published in your parish or diocesan newsletter? See about inserting a brief "news item"-type piece on The Rev. Redding and her bishop's approval.
* Do you run a listserv, or sometimes send out emails to a large list of recipients? Copy the text of the Olympia newsletter article, and send it to your list. Include a link to this article here at Stand Firm.
* Write a letter to the editor of your diocesan newsletter, mentioning the story in Olympia.
* Do you work for a mainstream newspaper, television station, or radio station? See about getting this story featured there.
* And obviously, if you run your own blog, feature this story!
Finally, please check in on this thread and let us know what you've done. There is a reason Jim Naughton wants to "ignore this story until it slips back beneath the radar"... and we need to do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen for a long, long time.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Clueless in Seattle -- Can You Be Both a Christian and a Muslim?
An Albert Mohler commentary
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 3:43 am ET
Members of the Episcopal Church must brace themselves these days when they pick up the newspaper. The church is currently roiled by controversies over homosexuality and a host of other issues. Indeed, the Episcopal Church, US [ECUSA] is in danger of losing its relationship with the larger Anglican Communion over the issue of homosexuality alone.
As if that were not sufficient to fret the faithful, along comes the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding of Seattle. Sunday's edition of The Seattle Times featured a major article on Rev. Redding and her claim to be both an Episcopal priest and a practicing Muslim. She is serious, of course, which is what makes the story so interesting.
Janet I. Tu, the paper's religion reporter sets out the story:
Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.
On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.
She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.
Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim -- drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.
Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?
Well, at least the question is right -- How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim. The simple and profoundly obvious answer is that one cannot be both a Christian and a Muslim, at least not until you completely redefine what it means to be both Christian and Muslim.
The case of the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding makes any sane person long for Aristotle and his law of non-contradiction. As Aristotle famously argued, two contradictory propositions cannot be simultaneously true. Nevertheless, the outright denial of the principle of non-contradiction is one of the hallmarks of the postmodern age. Postmoderns gladly embrace contradictions and refuse any responsibility to resolve them. This tactic, we might observe, works better on some issues than on others. Their denial of non-contradiction abruptly ends when it no longer serves their purposes.
Rev. Redding wants to claim to be both a faithful Christian and a faithful Muslim. The problem with this is immediately clear to anyone who understands the most basic teachings of Christianity and Islam.
Christianity stands or falls on doctrines such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ. The heart of the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ is that He is the only begotten Son of the Father, fully human and fully divine. Christianity also points to Jesus death on the cross as the means of our salvation and to Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead as the Father's vindication of the Son and the promise of the resurrection of believers yet to come.
Islam acknowledges Jesus as a historical figure and a great prophet, affirms the virgin birth, and points to a future role of Christ in judgment. Nevertheless, Islam explicitly denies that Jesus Christ is in any way begotten of the Father, that He died on the cross, and that He was raised from the dead.
These are merely the most obvious foundational contradictions between Christianity and Islam. Furthermore, these most obvious contradictions are affirmed by all major Christian denominations and both historic branches of Islam.
That doesn't deter Rev. Redding one bit. "At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need," she says. The important point here is that "the most basic level" to which she points is a figment of her own fertile and heretical imagination.
But, then again, Rev. Redding is clear about her basic doubts about basic Christian doctrines. She denies original sin and admits she has long doubted the deity of Christ.
From the paper's report:
She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.
She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.
She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine -- because God dwells in all humans.
What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God's will.
She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.
She considers Jesus her savior. At times of despair, because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, "he has connected me with God," she said.
So Rev. Redding denies the historic doctrines of the church and then declares herself a Muslim. In March 2006 she said her shahada or profession of faith, declaring that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his messenger.
At a Web site published by The Seattle Times, Redding later reponded to questions from the paper's readers. In one answer she offered this:
I believe that Jesus is divine in the same way in which all humans are related to God as children of God. Jesus is different in degree, not kind; that means that he shows me most fully what it means to be in total submission to and identification with God. The significance of his crucifixion is that it is the ultimate surrender, and the resurrection--both his and as it is revealed in the lives of his disciples--shows us that God makes life out of death. That is the good news to me and it is salvation. I don't think God said, "Let me send this special person so that I can kill him for the benefit of the rest of humanity." That's not the kind of sacrifice I think that God desires.
Yet again, Rev. Redding denies the central teachings of Christianity and explicity denies what the Bible undeniably teaches.
This is yet another reminder of the basic principle that religious liberals can negotiate themselves to any position they desire. Once you commit yourself to a methodology of denying Scripture and orthodox Christian doctrine, you can delcare yourself to be a Christian and a Muslim, a Christian and a Druid, or a Christian and an Atheist for that matter.
The real shame in all this is that Rev. Redding is getting away with this while continuing to be an Episcopal priest in good standing. Adding insult to injury, her bishop, the Rt. Reverend Vincent Warner of Seattle, says that Rev. Redding's declaration that she is both a Christian and a Muslim to be exciting in terms of interfaith understanding. Is there any hope for a church whose bishop considers heresy to be exciting?
Once again, we are driven to pray for Christ's church to be rescued from such heresies and preserved in the truth in the midst of such confusion. We must also pray for the faithful Christians in the Episcopal Church and other denominations who are, in effect, paying the bills that sustain these heresies.
In the meantime, they had better brace themselves for whatever atrocity will come next.
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 3:43 am ET
Members of the Episcopal Church must brace themselves these days when they pick up the newspaper. The church is currently roiled by controversies over homosexuality and a host of other issues. Indeed, the Episcopal Church, US [ECUSA] is in danger of losing its relationship with the larger Anglican Communion over the issue of homosexuality alone.
As if that were not sufficient to fret the faithful, along comes the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding of Seattle. Sunday's edition of The Seattle Times featured a major article on Rev. Redding and her claim to be both an Episcopal priest and a practicing Muslim. She is serious, of course, which is what makes the story so interesting.
Janet I. Tu, the paper's religion reporter sets out the story:
Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.
On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.
She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.
Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim -- drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.
Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?
Well, at least the question is right -- How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim. The simple and profoundly obvious answer is that one cannot be both a Christian and a Muslim, at least not until you completely redefine what it means to be both Christian and Muslim.
The case of the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding makes any sane person long for Aristotle and his law of non-contradiction. As Aristotle famously argued, two contradictory propositions cannot be simultaneously true. Nevertheless, the outright denial of the principle of non-contradiction is one of the hallmarks of the postmodern age. Postmoderns gladly embrace contradictions and refuse any responsibility to resolve them. This tactic, we might observe, works better on some issues than on others. Their denial of non-contradiction abruptly ends when it no longer serves their purposes.
Rev. Redding wants to claim to be both a faithful Christian and a faithful Muslim. The problem with this is immediately clear to anyone who understands the most basic teachings of Christianity and Islam.
Christianity stands or falls on doctrines such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ. The heart of the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ is that He is the only begotten Son of the Father, fully human and fully divine. Christianity also points to Jesus death on the cross as the means of our salvation and to Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead as the Father's vindication of the Son and the promise of the resurrection of believers yet to come.
Islam acknowledges Jesus as a historical figure and a great prophet, affirms the virgin birth, and points to a future role of Christ in judgment. Nevertheless, Islam explicitly denies that Jesus Christ is in any way begotten of the Father, that He died on the cross, and that He was raised from the dead.
These are merely the most obvious foundational contradictions between Christianity and Islam. Furthermore, these most obvious contradictions are affirmed by all major Christian denominations and both historic branches of Islam.
That doesn't deter Rev. Redding one bit. "At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need," she says. The important point here is that "the most basic level" to which she points is a figment of her own fertile and heretical imagination.
But, then again, Rev. Redding is clear about her basic doubts about basic Christian doctrines. She denies original sin and admits she has long doubted the deity of Christ.
From the paper's report:
She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.
She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.
She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine -- because God dwells in all humans.
What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God's will.
She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.
She considers Jesus her savior. At times of despair, because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, "he has connected me with God," she said.
So Rev. Redding denies the historic doctrines of the church and then declares herself a Muslim. In March 2006 she said her shahada or profession of faith, declaring that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his messenger.
At a Web site published by The Seattle Times, Redding later reponded to questions from the paper's readers. In one answer she offered this:
I believe that Jesus is divine in the same way in which all humans are related to God as children of God. Jesus is different in degree, not kind; that means that he shows me most fully what it means to be in total submission to and identification with God. The significance of his crucifixion is that it is the ultimate surrender, and the resurrection--both his and as it is revealed in the lives of his disciples--shows us that God makes life out of death. That is the good news to me and it is salvation. I don't think God said, "Let me send this special person so that I can kill him for the benefit of the rest of humanity." That's not the kind of sacrifice I think that God desires.
Yet again, Rev. Redding denies the central teachings of Christianity and explicity denies what the Bible undeniably teaches.
This is yet another reminder of the basic principle that religious liberals can negotiate themselves to any position they desire. Once you commit yourself to a methodology of denying Scripture and orthodox Christian doctrine, you can delcare yourself to be a Christian and a Muslim, a Christian and a Druid, or a Christian and an Atheist for that matter.
The real shame in all this is that Rev. Redding is getting away with this while continuing to be an Episcopal priest in good standing. Adding insult to injury, her bishop, the Rt. Reverend Vincent Warner of Seattle, says that Rev. Redding's declaration that she is both a Christian and a Muslim to be exciting in terms of interfaith understanding. Is there any hope for a church whose bishop considers heresy to be exciting?
Once again, we are driven to pray for Christ's church to be rescued from such heresies and preserved in the truth in the midst of such confusion. We must also pray for the faithful Christians in the Episcopal Church and other denominations who are, in effect, paying the bills that sustain these heresies.
In the meantime, they had better brace themselves for whatever atrocity will come next.
"I am both Muslim and Christian"
By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times religion reporter
Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.
On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.
She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.
Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.
Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?
But it has drawn other reactions too. Friends generally say they support her, while religious scholars are mixed: Some say that, depending on how one interprets the tenets of the two faiths, it is, indeed, possible to be both. Others consider the two faiths mutually exclusive.
"There are tenets of the faiths that are very, very different," said Kurt Fredrickson, director of the doctor of ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. "The most basic would be: What do you do with Jesus?"
Christianity has historically regarded Jesus as the son of God and God incarnate, both fully human and fully divine. Muslims, though they regard Jesus as a great prophet, do not see him as divine and do not consider him the son of God.
"I don't think it's possible" to be both, Fredrickson said, just like "you can't be a Republican and a Democrat."
Redding, who will begin teaching the New Testament as a visiting assistant professor at Seattle University this fall, has a different analogy: "I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I'm both an American of African descent and a woman. I'm 100 percent both."
Redding doesn't feel she has to resolve all the contradictions. People within one religion can't even agree on all the details, she said. "So why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam?
"At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need."
She says she felt an inexplicable call to become Muslim, and to surrender to God — the meaning of the word "Islam."
"It wasn't about intellect," she said. "All I know is the calling of my heart to Islam was very much something about my identity and who I am supposed to be.
"I could not not be a Muslim."
Redding's situation is highly unusual. Officials at the national Episcopal Church headquarters said they are not aware of any other instance in which a priest has also been a believer in another faith. They said it's up to the local bishop to decide whether such a priest could continue in that role.
Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting. Her announcement, first made through a story in her diocese's newspaper, hasn't caused much controversy yet, he said.
Some local Muslim leaders are perplexed.
Being both Muslim and Christian — "I don't know how that works," said Hisham Farajallah, president of the Islamic Center of Washington.
But Redding has been embraced by leaders at the Al-Islam Center of Seattle, the Muslim group she prays with.
"Islam doesn't say if you're a Christian, you're not a Muslim," said programming director Ayesha Anderson. "Islam doesn't lay it out like that."
Redding believes telling her story can help ease religious tensions, and she hopes it can be a step toward her dream of creating an institute to study Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
"I think this thing that's happened to me can be a sign of hope," she said.
Finding a religion that fit
Redding is 55 and single, with deep brown eyes, dreadlocks and a voice that becomes easily impassioned when talking about faith. She's also a classically trained singer, and has sung at jazz nights at St. Mark's.
The oldest of three girls, Redding grew up in Pennsylvania in a high-achieving, intellectual family. Her father was one of the lawyers who argued the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that desegregated the nation's public schools. Her mother was in the first class of Fulbright scholars.
Though her parents weren't particularly religious, they had her baptized and sent her to an Episcopal Sunday school. She has always sensed that God existed and God loved her, even when things got bleak — which they did.
She experienced racism in schools, was sexually abused and, by the time she was a young adult, was struggling with alcohol addiction; she's been in recovery for 20 years.
Despite those difficulties, she graduated from Brown University, earned master's degrees from two seminaries and received her Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. She felt called to the priesthood and was ordained in 1984.
As much as she loves her church, she has always challenged it. She calls Christianity the "world religion of privilege." She has never believed in original sin. And for years she struggled with the nature of Jesus' divinity.
She found a good fit at St. Mark's, coming to the flagship of the Episcopal Church in Western Washington in 2001. She was in charge of programs to form and deepen people's faith until March this year when she was one of three employees laid off for budget reasons. The dean of the cathedral said Redding's exploration of Islam had nothing to do with her layoff.
Ironically, it was at St. Mark's that she first became drawn to Islam.
In fall 2005, a local Muslim leader gave a talk at the cathedral, then prayed before those attending. Redding was moved. As he dropped to his knees and stretched forward against the floor, it seemed to her that his whole body was involved in surrendering to God.
Then in the spring, at a St. Mark's interfaith class, another Muslim leader taught a chanted prayer and led a meditation on opening one's heart. The chanting appealed to the singer in Redding; the meditation spoke to her heart. She began saying the prayer daily.
Around that time, her mother died, and then "I was in a situation that I could not handle by any other means, other than a total surrender to God," she said.
She still doesn't know why that meant she had to become a Muslim. All she knows is "when God gives you an invitation, you don't turn it down."
In March 2006, she said her shahada — the profession of faith — testifying that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his messenger. She became a Muslim.
Before she took the shahada, she read a lot about Islam. Afterward, she learned from local Muslim leaders, including those in Islam's largest denomination — Sunni — and those in the Sufi mystical tradition of Islam. She began praying with the Al-Islam Center, a Sunni group that is predominantly African-American.
There were moments when practicing Islam seemed like coming home.
In Seattle's Episcopal circles, Redding had mixed largely with white people. "To walk into Al-Islam and be reminded that there are more people of color in the world than white people, that in itself is a relief," she said.
She found the discipline of praying five times a day — one of the five pillars of Islam that all Muslims are supposed to follow — gave her the deep sense of connection with God that she yearned for.
It came from "knowing at all times I'm in between prayers." She likens it to being in love, constantly looking forward to having "all these dates with God. ... Living a life where you're remembering God intentionally, consciously, just changes everything."
Friends who didn't know she was practicing Islam told her she glowed.
Aside from the established sets of prayers she recites in Arabic fives times each day, Redding says her prayers are neither uniquely Islamic nor Christian. They're simply her private talks with God or Allah — she uses both names interchangeably. "It's the same person, praying to the same God."
In many ways, she says, "coming to Islam was like coming into a family with whom I'd been estranged. We have not only the same God, but the same ancestor with Abraham."
A shared beginning
Indeed, Islam, Christianity and Judaism trace their roots to Abraham, the patriarch of Judaism who is also considered the spiritual father of all three faiths. They share a common belief in one God, and there are certain similar stories in their holy texts.
But there are many significant differences, too.
Muslims regard the Quran as the unadulterated word of God, delivered through the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. While they believe the Torah and the Gospels include revelations from God, they believe those revelations have been misinterpreted or mishandled by humans.
Most significantly, Muslims and Christians disagree over the divinity of Jesus.
Muslims generally believe in Jesus' virgin birth, that he was a messenger of God, that he ascended to heaven alive and that he will come back at the end of time to destroy evil. They do not believe in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus or in his death and resurrection.
For Christians, belief in Jesus' divinity, and that he died on the cross and was resurrected, lie at the heart of the faith, as does the belief that there is one God who consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Redding's views, even before she embraced Islam, were more interpretive than literal.
She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.
She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.
She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.
What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God's will.
She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.
She considers Jesus her savior. At times of despair, because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, "he has connected me with God," she said.
That's not to say she couldn't develop as deep a relationship with Mohammed. "I'm still getting to know him," she said.
Matter of interpretation
Some religious scholars understand Redding's thinking.
While the popular Christian view is that Jesus is God and that he came to Earth and took on a human body, other Christians believe his divinity means that he embodied the spirit of God in his life and work, said Eugene Webb, professor emeritus of comparative religion at the University of Washington.
Webb says it's possible to be both Muslim and Christian: "It's a matter of interpretation. But a lot of people on both sides do not believe in interpretation. "
Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky, agrees with Webb, and adds that Islam tends to be a little more flexible. Muslims can have faith in Jesus, he said, as long as they believe in Mohammed's message.
Other scholars are skeptical.
"The theological beliefs are irreconcilable," said Mahmoud Ayoub, professor of Islamic studies and comparative religion at Temple University in Philadelphia. Islam holds that God is one, unique, indivisible. "For Muslims to say Jesus is God would be blasphemy."
Frank Spina, an Episcopal priest and also a professor of Old Testament and biblical theology at Seattle Pacific University, puts it bluntly.
"I just do not think this sort of thing works," he said. "I think you have to give up what is essential to Christianity to make the moves that she has done.
"The essence of Christianity was not that Jesus was a great rabbi or even a great prophet, but that he is the very incarnation of the God that created the world.... Christianity stands or falls on who Jesus is."
Spina also says that as priests, he and Redding have taken vows of commitment to the doctrines of the church. "That means none of us get to work out what we think all by ourselves."
Redding knows there are many Christians and Muslims who will not accept her as both.
"I don't care," she says. "They can't take away my baptism." And as she understands it, once she's made her profession of faith to become a Muslim, no one can say she isn't that, either.
While she doesn't rule out that one day she may choose one or the other, it's more likely "that I'm going to be 100 percent Christian and 100 percent Muslim when I die."
Deepened spirituality
These days, Redding usually carries a headscarf with her wherever she goes so she can pray five times a day.
On Fridays, she prays with about 20 others at the Al-Islam Center. On Sundays, she prays in church, usually at St. Clement's of Rome in the Mount Baker neighborhood.
One thing she prays for every day: "I pray not to cause scandal or bring shame upon either of my traditions."
Being Muslim has given her insights into Christianity, she said. For instance, because Islam regards Jesus as human, not divine, it reinforces for her that "we can be like Jesus. There are no excuses."
Doug Thorpe, who served on St. Mark's faith-formation committee with Redding, said he's trying to understand all the dimensions of her faith choices. But he saw how it deepened her spirituality. And it spurred him to read the Quran and think more deeply about his own faith.
He believes Redding is being called. She is, "by her very presence, a bridge person," Thorpe said. "And we desperately need those bridge persons."
In Redding's car, she has hung up a cross she made of clear crystal beads. Next to it, she has dangled a heart-shaped leather object etched with the Arabic symbol for Allah.
"For me, that symbolizes who I am," Redding said. "I look through Jesus and I see Allah."
Seattle Times religion reporter
Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.
On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.
She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim.
Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.
Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim?
But it has drawn other reactions too. Friends generally say they support her, while religious scholars are mixed: Some say that, depending on how one interprets the tenets of the two faiths, it is, indeed, possible to be both. Others consider the two faiths mutually exclusive.
"There are tenets of the faiths that are very, very different," said Kurt Fredrickson, director of the doctor of ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. "The most basic would be: What do you do with Jesus?"
Christianity has historically regarded Jesus as the son of God and God incarnate, both fully human and fully divine. Muslims, though they regard Jesus as a great prophet, do not see him as divine and do not consider him the son of God.
"I don't think it's possible" to be both, Fredrickson said, just like "you can't be a Republican and a Democrat."
Redding, who will begin teaching the New Testament as a visiting assistant professor at Seattle University this fall, has a different analogy: "I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I'm both an American of African descent and a woman. I'm 100 percent both."
Redding doesn't feel she has to resolve all the contradictions. People within one religion can't even agree on all the details, she said. "So why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam?
"At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need."
She says she felt an inexplicable call to become Muslim, and to surrender to God — the meaning of the word "Islam."
"It wasn't about intellect," she said. "All I know is the calling of my heart to Islam was very much something about my identity and who I am supposed to be.
"I could not not be a Muslim."
Redding's situation is highly unusual. Officials at the national Episcopal Church headquarters said they are not aware of any other instance in which a priest has also been a believer in another faith. They said it's up to the local bishop to decide whether such a priest could continue in that role.
Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting. Her announcement, first made through a story in her diocese's newspaper, hasn't caused much controversy yet, he said.
Some local Muslim leaders are perplexed.
Being both Muslim and Christian — "I don't know how that works," said Hisham Farajallah, president of the Islamic Center of Washington.
But Redding has been embraced by leaders at the Al-Islam Center of Seattle, the Muslim group she prays with.
"Islam doesn't say if you're a Christian, you're not a Muslim," said programming director Ayesha Anderson. "Islam doesn't lay it out like that."
Redding believes telling her story can help ease religious tensions, and she hopes it can be a step toward her dream of creating an institute to study Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
"I think this thing that's happened to me can be a sign of hope," she said.
Finding a religion that fit
Redding is 55 and single, with deep brown eyes, dreadlocks and a voice that becomes easily impassioned when talking about faith. She's also a classically trained singer, and has sung at jazz nights at St. Mark's.
The oldest of three girls, Redding grew up in Pennsylvania in a high-achieving, intellectual family. Her father was one of the lawyers who argued the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that desegregated the nation's public schools. Her mother was in the first class of Fulbright scholars.
Though her parents weren't particularly religious, they had her baptized and sent her to an Episcopal Sunday school. She has always sensed that God existed and God loved her, even when things got bleak — which they did.
She experienced racism in schools, was sexually abused and, by the time she was a young adult, was struggling with alcohol addiction; she's been in recovery for 20 years.
Despite those difficulties, she graduated from Brown University, earned master's degrees from two seminaries and received her Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. She felt called to the priesthood and was ordained in 1984.
As much as she loves her church, she has always challenged it. She calls Christianity the "world religion of privilege." She has never believed in original sin. And for years she struggled with the nature of Jesus' divinity.
She found a good fit at St. Mark's, coming to the flagship of the Episcopal Church in Western Washington in 2001. She was in charge of programs to form and deepen people's faith until March this year when she was one of three employees laid off for budget reasons. The dean of the cathedral said Redding's exploration of Islam had nothing to do with her layoff.
Ironically, it was at St. Mark's that she first became drawn to Islam.
In fall 2005, a local Muslim leader gave a talk at the cathedral, then prayed before those attending. Redding was moved. As he dropped to his knees and stretched forward against the floor, it seemed to her that his whole body was involved in surrendering to God.
Then in the spring, at a St. Mark's interfaith class, another Muslim leader taught a chanted prayer and led a meditation on opening one's heart. The chanting appealed to the singer in Redding; the meditation spoke to her heart. She began saying the prayer daily.
Around that time, her mother died, and then "I was in a situation that I could not handle by any other means, other than a total surrender to God," she said.
She still doesn't know why that meant she had to become a Muslim. All she knows is "when God gives you an invitation, you don't turn it down."
In March 2006, she said her shahada — the profession of faith — testifying that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his messenger. She became a Muslim.
Before she took the shahada, she read a lot about Islam. Afterward, she learned from local Muslim leaders, including those in Islam's largest denomination — Sunni — and those in the Sufi mystical tradition of Islam. She began praying with the Al-Islam Center, a Sunni group that is predominantly African-American.
There were moments when practicing Islam seemed like coming home.
In Seattle's Episcopal circles, Redding had mixed largely with white people. "To walk into Al-Islam and be reminded that there are more people of color in the world than white people, that in itself is a relief," she said.
She found the discipline of praying five times a day — one of the five pillars of Islam that all Muslims are supposed to follow — gave her the deep sense of connection with God that she yearned for.
It came from "knowing at all times I'm in between prayers." She likens it to being in love, constantly looking forward to having "all these dates with God. ... Living a life where you're remembering God intentionally, consciously, just changes everything."
Friends who didn't know she was practicing Islam told her she glowed.
Aside from the established sets of prayers she recites in Arabic fives times each day, Redding says her prayers are neither uniquely Islamic nor Christian. They're simply her private talks with God or Allah — she uses both names interchangeably. "It's the same person, praying to the same God."
In many ways, she says, "coming to Islam was like coming into a family with whom I'd been estranged. We have not only the same God, but the same ancestor with Abraham."
A shared beginning
Indeed, Islam, Christianity and Judaism trace their roots to Abraham, the patriarch of Judaism who is also considered the spiritual father of all three faiths. They share a common belief in one God, and there are certain similar stories in their holy texts.
But there are many significant differences, too.
Muslims regard the Quran as the unadulterated word of God, delivered through the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. While they believe the Torah and the Gospels include revelations from God, they believe those revelations have been misinterpreted or mishandled by humans.
Most significantly, Muslims and Christians disagree over the divinity of Jesus.
Muslims generally believe in Jesus' virgin birth, that he was a messenger of God, that he ascended to heaven alive and that he will come back at the end of time to destroy evil. They do not believe in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus or in his death and resurrection.
For Christians, belief in Jesus' divinity, and that he died on the cross and was resurrected, lie at the heart of the faith, as does the belief that there is one God who consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Redding's views, even before she embraced Islam, were more interpretive than literal.
She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.
She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.
She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.
What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God's will.
She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.
She considers Jesus her savior. At times of despair, because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, "he has connected me with God," she said.
That's not to say she couldn't develop as deep a relationship with Mohammed. "I'm still getting to know him," she said.
Matter of interpretation
Some religious scholars understand Redding's thinking.
While the popular Christian view is that Jesus is God and that he came to Earth and took on a human body, other Christians believe his divinity means that he embodied the spirit of God in his life and work, said Eugene Webb, professor emeritus of comparative religion at the University of Washington.
Webb says it's possible to be both Muslim and Christian: "It's a matter of interpretation. But a lot of people on both sides do not believe in interpretation. "
Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky, agrees with Webb, and adds that Islam tends to be a little more flexible. Muslims can have faith in Jesus, he said, as long as they believe in Mohammed's message.
Other scholars are skeptical.
"The theological beliefs are irreconcilable," said Mahmoud Ayoub, professor of Islamic studies and comparative religion at Temple University in Philadelphia. Islam holds that God is one, unique, indivisible. "For Muslims to say Jesus is God would be blasphemy."
Frank Spina, an Episcopal priest and also a professor of Old Testament and biblical theology at Seattle Pacific University, puts it bluntly.
"I just do not think this sort of thing works," he said. "I think you have to give up what is essential to Christianity to make the moves that she has done.
"The essence of Christianity was not that Jesus was a great rabbi or even a great prophet, but that he is the very incarnation of the God that created the world.... Christianity stands or falls on who Jesus is."
Spina also says that as priests, he and Redding have taken vows of commitment to the doctrines of the church. "That means none of us get to work out what we think all by ourselves."
Redding knows there are many Christians and Muslims who will not accept her as both.
"I don't care," she says. "They can't take away my baptism." And as she understands it, once she's made her profession of faith to become a Muslim, no one can say she isn't that, either.
While she doesn't rule out that one day she may choose one or the other, it's more likely "that I'm going to be 100 percent Christian and 100 percent Muslim when I die."
Deepened spirituality
These days, Redding usually carries a headscarf with her wherever she goes so she can pray five times a day.
On Fridays, she prays with about 20 others at the Al-Islam Center. On Sundays, she prays in church, usually at St. Clement's of Rome in the Mount Baker neighborhood.
One thing she prays for every day: "I pray not to cause scandal or bring shame upon either of my traditions."
Being Muslim has given her insights into Christianity, she said. For instance, because Islam regards Jesus as human, not divine, it reinforces for her that "we can be like Jesus. There are no excuses."
Doug Thorpe, who served on St. Mark's faith-formation committee with Redding, said he's trying to understand all the dimensions of her faith choices. But he saw how it deepened her spirituality. And it spurred him to read the Quran and think more deeply about his own faith.
He believes Redding is being called. She is, "by her very presence, a bridge person," Thorpe said. "And we desperately need those bridge persons."
In Redding's car, she has hung up a cross she made of clear crystal beads. Next to it, she has dangled a heart-shaped leather object etched with the Arabic symbol for Allah.
"For me, that symbolizes who I am," Redding said. "I look through Jesus and I see Allah."
Happy Talk
From The Living Church:
07/01/2007
By Neal O. Michell
“That’s one of the great joys I’ve had in my first six months, getting to travel and see the health and vitality that exists in this church,’’ she told a crowd of about 300 at Christ Episcopal Church. “I know it’s not always what you read in the newspaper or hear on the news, but it’s true.’’
—The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Thus our Presiding Bishop seeks to assure the people in the pews of The Episcopal Church that all is well. Isn’t that what a leader is supposed to do within an organization during a time of difficulty? Be a non-anxious presence?
After all, there is much good ministry and mission going on in Episcopal churches day in and day out. If we could just get the word out about all the good ministry that is going on in The Episcopal Church, people would realize that we really are doing quite well.
What’s wrong with this picture? What is wrong with this picture is that it is not the complete picture.
Max DePree, author of Leadership Jazz and Leadership is an Art, says that the first task of the leader is to define reality. The problem with this quote from our Presiding Bishop—and she has said much the same thing in several venues—is that although there are places of health and vitality in The Episcopal Church, this assessment amounts to no more than happy talk.
What is “happy talk”? John Kotter, professor of leadership at Harvard Business School, says that too much happy talk from senior leaders can lull everyone into a sense of complacency. Mr. Kotter states that the failure of leaders to establish a (healthy) sense of urgency is one of several reasons that organizations fail.
A survey of The Episcopal Church taken a couple of years ago, “Faith Communities Today,” asked congregations to complete a survey which asked questions similar to those found on the parochial reports. When the compilers of the survey compared the completed surveys with those of that congregation’s parochial reports, it was determined that the survey results contradicted the parochial report data. Only those churches that were growing 10 percent or more per year “told the truth.” The vast majority of churches reported that they were doing better than their parochial reports indicated. Happy talk.
The task of the leader of an organization in a time of crisis is two-fold: to be a non-anxious presence, and to develop a sense of urgency. A look at the baptized membership and average Sunday attendance in The Episcopal Church indicates that we are a denomination in decline. Here are the figures from the last 10 years:
1996: 875,400 ASA, 2.366 million baptized members
1997: 838,048 ASA, 2.339 million baptized members
1998: 822,923 ASA, 2.318 million baptized members
1999: 919,405 ASA, 2.297 million baptized members
2000: 908,971 ASA, 2.319 million baptized members
2001: 846,640 ASA, 2.317 million baptized members
2002: 860,686 ASA, 2.320 million baptized members
2003: 823,017 ASA, 2.284 million baptized members
2004: 795,765 ASA, 2.248 million baptized members
2005: 787,271 ASA, 2.205 million baptized members
These numbers indicate that we are a denomination that is growing smaller. Say what you will about the health and vitality of various churches, the overall direction of our statistics indicates a church that is declining . . . precipitously. Evidently fewer and fewer people want what we have to offer. Since 1999 our average Sunday attendance has shrunk by 132,134 persons per Sunday, or nearly 15 percent. In other words, in the past six years we have lost the equivalent of nearly everyone in the pews of our churches in Provinces 6 and 7 combined!
So what is the reason for our decline? Is it the conflict over human sexuality? A declining birth rate? An aging membership? Lack of evangelism? Conflict in the denomination? Whatever the reasons, these numbers indicate a crisis that our leadership is ignoring and refuses to address. Our leaders tell us that it is only a few churches that are leaving, and that there are only a few disgruntled members that are unhappy with the direction of The Episcopal Church and that there is much health and vitality in our denomination.
The reality is that our denomination is in severe decline. That decline preceded the 2003 General Convention vote to approve the consecration of Canon V. Gene Robinson as the Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire.
Is there much health and vitality in many of our churches? Yes. Is our denomination healthy and vital? No. Anything to the contrary is simply happy talk. ❏
The Rev. Canon Neal O. Michell is canon for strategic development in the Diocese of Dallas.
The Reader's Viewpoint article does not necessarily represent the editorial opinion of The Living Church or its board of directors.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Call 1-800-211-2771 today to start your subscription.
07/01/2007
By Neal O. Michell
“That’s one of the great joys I’ve had in my first six months, getting to travel and see the health and vitality that exists in this church,’’ she told a crowd of about 300 at Christ Episcopal Church. “I know it’s not always what you read in the newspaper or hear on the news, but it’s true.’’
—The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Thus our Presiding Bishop seeks to assure the people in the pews of The Episcopal Church that all is well. Isn’t that what a leader is supposed to do within an organization during a time of difficulty? Be a non-anxious presence?
After all, there is much good ministry and mission going on in Episcopal churches day in and day out. If we could just get the word out about all the good ministry that is going on in The Episcopal Church, people would realize that we really are doing quite well.
What’s wrong with this picture? What is wrong with this picture is that it is not the complete picture.
Max DePree, author of Leadership Jazz and Leadership is an Art, says that the first task of the leader is to define reality. The problem with this quote from our Presiding Bishop—and she has said much the same thing in several venues—is that although there are places of health and vitality in The Episcopal Church, this assessment amounts to no more than happy talk.
What is “happy talk”? John Kotter, professor of leadership at Harvard Business School, says that too much happy talk from senior leaders can lull everyone into a sense of complacency. Mr. Kotter states that the failure of leaders to establish a (healthy) sense of urgency is one of several reasons that organizations fail.
A survey of The Episcopal Church taken a couple of years ago, “Faith Communities Today,” asked congregations to complete a survey which asked questions similar to those found on the parochial reports. When the compilers of the survey compared the completed surveys with those of that congregation’s parochial reports, it was determined that the survey results contradicted the parochial report data. Only those churches that were growing 10 percent or more per year “told the truth.” The vast majority of churches reported that they were doing better than their parochial reports indicated. Happy talk.
The task of the leader of an organization in a time of crisis is two-fold: to be a non-anxious presence, and to develop a sense of urgency. A look at the baptized membership and average Sunday attendance in The Episcopal Church indicates that we are a denomination in decline. Here are the figures from the last 10 years:
1996: 875,400 ASA, 2.366 million baptized members
1997: 838,048 ASA, 2.339 million baptized members
1998: 822,923 ASA, 2.318 million baptized members
1999: 919,405 ASA, 2.297 million baptized members
2000: 908,971 ASA, 2.319 million baptized members
2001: 846,640 ASA, 2.317 million baptized members
2002: 860,686 ASA, 2.320 million baptized members
2003: 823,017 ASA, 2.284 million baptized members
2004: 795,765 ASA, 2.248 million baptized members
2005: 787,271 ASA, 2.205 million baptized members
These numbers indicate that we are a denomination that is growing smaller. Say what you will about the health and vitality of various churches, the overall direction of our statistics indicates a church that is declining . . . precipitously. Evidently fewer and fewer people want what we have to offer. Since 1999 our average Sunday attendance has shrunk by 132,134 persons per Sunday, or nearly 15 percent. In other words, in the past six years we have lost the equivalent of nearly everyone in the pews of our churches in Provinces 6 and 7 combined!
So what is the reason for our decline? Is it the conflict over human sexuality? A declining birth rate? An aging membership? Lack of evangelism? Conflict in the denomination? Whatever the reasons, these numbers indicate a crisis that our leadership is ignoring and refuses to address. Our leaders tell us that it is only a few churches that are leaving, and that there are only a few disgruntled members that are unhappy with the direction of The Episcopal Church and that there is much health and vitality in our denomination.
The reality is that our denomination is in severe decline. That decline preceded the 2003 General Convention vote to approve the consecration of Canon V. Gene Robinson as the Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire.
Is there much health and vitality in many of our churches? Yes. Is our denomination healthy and vital? No. Anything to the contrary is simply happy talk. ❏
The Rev. Canon Neal O. Michell is canon for strategic development in the Diocese of Dallas.
The Reader's Viewpoint article does not necessarily represent the editorial opinion of The Living Church or its board of directors.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Call 1-800-211-2771 today to start your subscription.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Case Not Made:
A Response to Prof. John Thorp’s “Making the Case” for Blessing
Homosexual Unions in the Anglican Church of Canada
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Preface
A 29-page paper entitled “Making the Case: The Blessing of Same Sex Unions in the Anglican Church of Canada” (May 2007) has been circulated to all the delegates at the 2007 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada. The writer of the paper is a certain John Thorp, who is a professor of philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. A copy of the paper can be found on the web at the Anglican Church of Canada website at http://www.anglican.ca/faith/ethics/documents/Making-the-Case-Thorp.pdf.
Although Thorp apologizes in his preface for the limited scope of his essay, this does not stop him from making many bold claims. He ends with the following: “Gay liberation is clearly the work of the Spirit. How can it reasonably be judged otherwise?” (p. 29; his emphasis). He believes that the case he has made for blessing homosexual unions at three levels—Scripture, Tradition, and Reason—“easily overcomes the surface prohibitions” against homosexual practice in Scripture (p. 19; my emphasis).
The reality of the matter is quite different. I see very little evidence that he is even aware of the major counterarguments to his position, much less that he responds effectively to these arguments. This circumstance apparently forms the basis for his overconfidence. True, he has some understanding of the philosophical discussions in ancient Greece; see, for example, his essay “The Social Construction of Homosexuality” in Phoenix 46.1 (1992): 54-61 (online at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html). But his lack of expertise in biblical studies, theology, and science shows throughout the essay. Even where one would expect him to be strongest, namely in his own area of philosophical argumentation, the presentation is surprisingly weak.
Even so, I never assume that what appears as a markedly weak case to the trained eye will also appear so to the untrained eye. The rebuttal below presents in relatively short order some of the major counterarguments, following in order the basic outline of his essay. We can only be cursory here given the short turnover time that delegates will have to read and digest this material. Fuller documentation of my arguments can be obtained by reading material from the abridged bibliography. Hopefully Prof. Thorp will begin reading some of these resources.
For full text:
http://robgagnon.net/JohnThorpResponse.htm
Homosexual Unions in the Anglican Church of Canada
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Preface
A 29-page paper entitled “Making the Case: The Blessing of Same Sex Unions in the Anglican Church of Canada” (May 2007) has been circulated to all the delegates at the 2007 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada. The writer of the paper is a certain John Thorp, who is a professor of philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. A copy of the paper can be found on the web at the Anglican Church of Canada website at http://www.anglican.ca/faith/ethics/documents/Making-the-Case-Thorp.pdf.
Although Thorp apologizes in his preface for the limited scope of his essay, this does not stop him from making many bold claims. He ends with the following: “Gay liberation is clearly the work of the Spirit. How can it reasonably be judged otherwise?” (p. 29; his emphasis). He believes that the case he has made for blessing homosexual unions at three levels—Scripture, Tradition, and Reason—“easily overcomes the surface prohibitions” against homosexual practice in Scripture (p. 19; my emphasis).
The reality of the matter is quite different. I see very little evidence that he is even aware of the major counterarguments to his position, much less that he responds effectively to these arguments. This circumstance apparently forms the basis for his overconfidence. True, he has some understanding of the philosophical discussions in ancient Greece; see, for example, his essay “The Social Construction of Homosexuality” in Phoenix 46.1 (1992): 54-61 (online at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html). But his lack of expertise in biblical studies, theology, and science shows throughout the essay. Even where one would expect him to be strongest, namely in his own area of philosophical argumentation, the presentation is surprisingly weak.
Even so, I never assume that what appears as a markedly weak case to the trained eye will also appear so to the untrained eye. The rebuttal below presents in relatively short order some of the major counterarguments, following in order the basic outline of his essay. We can only be cursory here given the short turnover time that delegates will have to read and digest this material. Fuller documentation of my arguments can be obtained by reading material from the abridged bibliography. Hopefully Prof. Thorp will begin reading some of these resources.
For full text:
http://robgagnon.net/JohnThorpResponse.htm
Fort Worth Responds to Executive Council Threats
A Statement of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth concerning certain actions of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church
The adversarial relationship between this Diocese and the leadership of The Episcopal Church was exacerbated by two decisions made by the Executive Council of TEC at its meeting last week.
I. The Council’s refusal to participate in the Pastoral Scheme developed by the Dar es Salaam primates’ Meeting has deepened our sense of alienation from TEC. Instead of “waging reconciliation,” the Council has failed to respond to the expressed needs of those dioceses appealing for Alternative Primatial Oversight, pushing us further apart from TEC. They have claimed that the Pastoral Council proposal violates the polity of TEC, but they have been unable to substantiate this by citing any constitutional or canonical provisions to that effect.
II. Claiming an authority that our polity does not give, the Council has declared certain amendments to our Diocesan Constitution “null and void.” To this, we respond, first, that it is not within the scope of duties assigned to the Executive Council to render findings as to the legality or constitutionality of actions by the several dioceses of The Episcopal Church; and second, that resolutions adopted by the Council, or even by the General Convention, are non-binding. Therefore, this resolution is nothing more than an opinion expressed by those individuals who issued the statement. It is itself “null and void“ – unenforceable and of no effect. This action is another example of the heavy-handed tactics being used by those who do not have the right to interfere in the internal constitutional process of the dioceses.
While the Council’s resolutions on a range of subjects may excite debate, that does not guarantee their opinions are consistent with the Faith, the law of the land, or the Constitution of The Episcopal Church, much less that they establish precedent. That the Council would attempt to interfere now, nearly 20 years after this diocese first amended its Constitution, is evidence of an illegitimate magisterial attitude that has emerged in the legislative function of TEC. Sadly, the one thing the resolution does show is that there is no desire on the part of the Council for reconciliation with those alienated by the recent actions of General Convention.
The Council’s threats may continue, but we will continue to stand for the historic biblical faith and our Lord Jesus Christ’s call to extend His Kingdom. We regret that a further deterioration in our relationship with TEC has been effected by these decisions.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
The Very Rev. Ryan S. Reed
President, Standing Committee
June 19, 2007
The adversarial relationship between this Diocese and the leadership of The Episcopal Church was exacerbated by two decisions made by the Executive Council of TEC at its meeting last week.
I. The Council’s refusal to participate in the Pastoral Scheme developed by the Dar es Salaam primates’ Meeting has deepened our sense of alienation from TEC. Instead of “waging reconciliation,” the Council has failed to respond to the expressed needs of those dioceses appealing for Alternative Primatial Oversight, pushing us further apart from TEC. They have claimed that the Pastoral Council proposal violates the polity of TEC, but they have been unable to substantiate this by citing any constitutional or canonical provisions to that effect.
II. Claiming an authority that our polity does not give, the Council has declared certain amendments to our Diocesan Constitution “null and void.” To this, we respond, first, that it is not within the scope of duties assigned to the Executive Council to render findings as to the legality or constitutionality of actions by the several dioceses of The Episcopal Church; and second, that resolutions adopted by the Council, or even by the General Convention, are non-binding. Therefore, this resolution is nothing more than an opinion expressed by those individuals who issued the statement. It is itself “null and void“ – unenforceable and of no effect. This action is another example of the heavy-handed tactics being used by those who do not have the right to interfere in the internal constitutional process of the dioceses.
While the Council’s resolutions on a range of subjects may excite debate, that does not guarantee their opinions are consistent with the Faith, the law of the land, or the Constitution of The Episcopal Church, much less that they establish precedent. That the Council would attempt to interfere now, nearly 20 years after this diocese first amended its Constitution, is evidence of an illegitimate magisterial attitude that has emerged in the legislative function of TEC. Sadly, the one thing the resolution does show is that there is no desire on the part of the Council for reconciliation with those alienated by the recent actions of General Convention.
The Council’s threats may continue, but we will continue to stand for the historic biblical faith and our Lord Jesus Christ’s call to extend His Kingdom. We regret that a further deterioration in our relationship with TEC has been effected by these decisions.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
The Very Rev. Ryan S. Reed
President, Standing Committee
June 19, 2007
They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love
David Booth Beers: "We can sue them."
From: Anglicans United
Post #5 Executive Council by Cherie Wetzel
June 18, 2007
Hi, Everyone.
As I explained the other day, I am at the Council meeting as a member of the Press. Press passes are given to those who apply and meet certain requirements. The press is guided and directed by Canon Bob Williams, the Director of Communications and Neva Rae Fox, his intrepid assistant and excellent friend of the press people here. I had a delightful opportunity to ride with them into New York City on Tuesday.
Regardless of our political beliefs, their actions and behavior towards me have been gracious and welcoming. Most of the people I have encountered here have been polite and cordial. Committee chairmen have all approved my sitting in on their meetings until they went into closed session. Indeed, the National Concerns chair, John Vanderstar, sought me out after break yesterday afternoon when that committee re-opened their meeting. Yet, I have not forgotten that I am here on your behalf and will continue these postings through the weekend, as it will take me that long to get all of the information in order.
Since many of you have asked and prayed that I would not be subjected to ill-treatment, I want to make this clear.
I also need to publish two corrections. The Presiding Bishop has maintained her maiden name and I have cited it incorrectly. Also, when she hosted the Executive Council on Tuesday at her apartment, she did not serve cocktails. Perhaps wine; not cocktails. I regret that I misinformed you.
This morning, in Plenary, several issues that deal with network dioceses and the Anglican Communion came up for vote. These issues have been discussed in private and except for a general release last night by Episcopal News Service, we did not have access to the discussions or the resolutions.
One resolution dealt with the dioceses that have changed their constitution and canons and limited their full accession to the national constitution and canons. The council made it clear that Pittsburgh (Bishop Bob Duncan), San Joaquin (Bishop John-David Schofield), Quincy (Bishop Keith Ackerman) and Fort Worth (Bishop Jack Iker), “will live by the rules we have agreed upon at General Convention this will be enforced.” The four dioceses are named in the resolution. The council member from San Joaquin asked that, “you (the Council) treat it as an opportunity not to punish but to enact reconciliation.” I believe this fell on deaf ears.
In discussion, David Booth Beers, the national chancellor stated, “I have written to 2 of the chancellors, if they decline to roll back these canonical and constitutional amendments, the Presiding Bishop will have to consider what action to take. We can sue them. These are recalcitrant dioceses. What did they actually do? Those dioceses have said that they don’t like what we are doing and they won’t go along with it. We will frame our litigation in reference to that.”
The vote was called. There was 1 abstention, and 1 no. The resolution passed by voice vote.
There were three resolutions on the Anglican Communion, again with exact wording to follow tomorrow. One stated that we intend to remain a part of the Communion. Unanimous voice vote.
A second, “tells the Anglican Communion that no governing body other than General Convention can interpret Convention resolutions or agree to deny ‘future decisions by dioceses or General Convention.’” I believe this will negatively impact the September 30 deadline issued by the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. And since most of our bishops have already been invited to Lambeth 2008, complying with the Communiqué is a moot point.
The third resolution involves the Primatial Vicar and Pastoral Council. ‘The Council (will) decline to participate in a so-called Pastoral Scheme proposed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion for dealing with some disaffected Episcopal Church dioceses. In March the House of Bishops said the plan "would be injurious to The Episcopal Church" and urged the Council to decline to participate.
Belton Ziegler of South Carolina proposed a substitution to this resolution, “Ask House Of Bishops to reconsider their decision to decline to participate in the proposed Pastoral Scheme. And Request our Presiding Bishop to take action necessary to convene a pastoral council to determine what action to implement such that the scheme may be appropriately taken under our constitution and canons.
The substitution had no discussion outside of points of order, and it was defeated. The Executive Council will recommend to the House of Bishops at their meeting in September, that they refuse to participate in the Pastoral Council.
So, for now, the course seems clear. Those bishops and dioceses who attempt to leave TEC for reasons of conscience, will be deposed and sued into the next century; those who disagree with the decisions of General Convention have no recourse but to seek a different denomination.
But, I want to caution you not do so yet. The ball is sailing towards the net in this tennis match that we are observing. It will land on the other side of the net and a response will be forthcoming. Bishop Stacey Sauls, Lexington a take no prisoners bishop stated this morning, “Every diocese has pledged itself to Constitution and Canon of TEC, not the primates of the Anglican Communion…. This resolution is a statement that we will live by the rules we have agreed upon and will enforce this.” But, his is not the final word we will hear on this issue. Be of Good Cheer. Jesus has overcome the world.
Cherie Wetzel for Anglicans United
June 14, 2007, 12:45 PM
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. John 12:31-36 KJV
Provided by International Bible Society
News Feed
Stay up to date with the latest news. Subscribe to our RSS or XML feed. Just click on the appropriate link below.
RSS XML
Anglican Voice
Stay informed with the latest issue of the Anglican Voice. Subscribe to our RSS or XML feed. Just click on the appropriate link below.
RSS XML
Link to LatimerPress.com
Check out our selection of Reformed Anglican books. Order yours today!
Site design by Caleb Simpson
From: Anglicans United
Post #5 Executive Council by Cherie Wetzel
June 18, 2007
Hi, Everyone.
As I explained the other day, I am at the Council meeting as a member of the Press. Press passes are given to those who apply and meet certain requirements. The press is guided and directed by Canon Bob Williams, the Director of Communications and Neva Rae Fox, his intrepid assistant and excellent friend of the press people here. I had a delightful opportunity to ride with them into New York City on Tuesday.
Regardless of our political beliefs, their actions and behavior towards me have been gracious and welcoming. Most of the people I have encountered here have been polite and cordial. Committee chairmen have all approved my sitting in on their meetings until they went into closed session. Indeed, the National Concerns chair, John Vanderstar, sought me out after break yesterday afternoon when that committee re-opened their meeting. Yet, I have not forgotten that I am here on your behalf and will continue these postings through the weekend, as it will take me that long to get all of the information in order.
Since many of you have asked and prayed that I would not be subjected to ill-treatment, I want to make this clear.
I also need to publish two corrections. The Presiding Bishop has maintained her maiden name and I have cited it incorrectly. Also, when she hosted the Executive Council on Tuesday at her apartment, she did not serve cocktails. Perhaps wine; not cocktails. I regret that I misinformed you.
This morning, in Plenary, several issues that deal with network dioceses and the Anglican Communion came up for vote. These issues have been discussed in private and except for a general release last night by Episcopal News Service, we did not have access to the discussions or the resolutions.
One resolution dealt with the dioceses that have changed their constitution and canons and limited their full accession to the national constitution and canons. The council made it clear that Pittsburgh (Bishop Bob Duncan), San Joaquin (Bishop John-David Schofield), Quincy (Bishop Keith Ackerman) and Fort Worth (Bishop Jack Iker), “will live by the rules we have agreed upon at General Convention this will be enforced.” The four dioceses are named in the resolution. The council member from San Joaquin asked that, “you (the Council) treat it as an opportunity not to punish but to enact reconciliation.” I believe this fell on deaf ears.
In discussion, David Booth Beers, the national chancellor stated, “I have written to 2 of the chancellors, if they decline to roll back these canonical and constitutional amendments, the Presiding Bishop will have to consider what action to take. We can sue them. These are recalcitrant dioceses. What did they actually do? Those dioceses have said that they don’t like what we are doing and they won’t go along with it. We will frame our litigation in reference to that.”
The vote was called. There was 1 abstention, and 1 no. The resolution passed by voice vote.
There were three resolutions on the Anglican Communion, again with exact wording to follow tomorrow. One stated that we intend to remain a part of the Communion. Unanimous voice vote.
A second, “tells the Anglican Communion that no governing body other than General Convention can interpret Convention resolutions or agree to deny ‘future decisions by dioceses or General Convention.’” I believe this will negatively impact the September 30 deadline issued by the Dar es Salaam Communiqué. And since most of our bishops have already been invited to Lambeth 2008, complying with the Communiqué is a moot point.
The third resolution involves the Primatial Vicar and Pastoral Council. ‘The Council (will) decline to participate in a so-called Pastoral Scheme proposed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion for dealing with some disaffected Episcopal Church dioceses. In March the House of Bishops said the plan "would be injurious to The Episcopal Church" and urged the Council to decline to participate.
Belton Ziegler of South Carolina proposed a substitution to this resolution, “Ask House Of Bishops to reconsider their decision to decline to participate in the proposed Pastoral Scheme. And Request our Presiding Bishop to take action necessary to convene a pastoral council to determine what action to implement such that the scheme may be appropriately taken under our constitution and canons.
The substitution had no discussion outside of points of order, and it was defeated. The Executive Council will recommend to the House of Bishops at their meeting in September, that they refuse to participate in the Pastoral Council.
So, for now, the course seems clear. Those bishops and dioceses who attempt to leave TEC for reasons of conscience, will be deposed and sued into the next century; those who disagree with the decisions of General Convention have no recourse but to seek a different denomination.
But, I want to caution you not do so yet. The ball is sailing towards the net in this tennis match that we are observing. It will land on the other side of the net and a response will be forthcoming. Bishop Stacey Sauls, Lexington a take no prisoners bishop stated this morning, “Every diocese has pledged itself to Constitution and Canon of TEC, not the primates of the Anglican Communion…. This resolution is a statement that we will live by the rules we have agreed upon and will enforce this.” But, his is not the final word we will hear on this issue. Be of Good Cheer. Jesus has overcome the world.
Cherie Wetzel for Anglicans United
June 14, 2007, 12:45 PM
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. John 12:31-36 KJV
Provided by International Bible Society
News Feed
Stay up to date with the latest news. Subscribe to our RSS or XML feed. Just click on the appropriate link below.
RSS XML
Anglican Voice
Stay informed with the latest issue of the Anglican Voice. Subscribe to our RSS or XML feed. Just click on the appropriate link below.
RSS XML
Link to LatimerPress.com
Check out our selection of Reformed Anglican books. Order yours today!
Site design by Caleb Simpson
Monday, June 18, 2007
Neal Michell: What the Kenyan Initiative Means
Posted by Kendall Harmon at TitusOneNine:
The Province of Kenya issued a statement on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, announcing its intention to consecrate The Rev. Canon Bill Atwood as a Suffragan Bishop “to support the international interests of the Anglican Church of Kenya, including support of Kenyan clergy and congregations in North America.” Their further “goal is to collaborate with faithful Anglicans (including those in North America who are related with other provinces). A North American Anglican Coalition can provide a safe haven for those who maintain historic Anglican faith and practice, and offer a way to live and work together in the furtherance of the Gospel.”
So, what does this mean? It is illustrative of the truism, “nature abhors a vacuum.”
In this analogy, nature is the Anglican Communion. What is the vacuum? The lack of leadership from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I have long been a supporter of the Archbishop’s leadership and the difficult position that he has been in. I have gleaned his writings and comments for those tidbits that would give an indication of the direction in which he would lead the Communion.
He has been quoted to say that “actions have consequences,” leading me, and others, to believe that he would allow the TEC to suffer the consequences of their decisions in some form of discipline. He said that he gave a September 30th deadline for the assurances from the American Episcopal House of Bishops so that invitations to Lambeth could be sent out or withdrawn in response to the American bishops’ responses. He said that the primates would decide what course of action they would take.
This all made sense in light of his perceived ecclesiology: he did not want to make an arbitrary decision that would give subsequent Archbishops of Canterbury more power that might be abused later; he had a conciliar view of the authority of the church and its bishops. All this made sense to me until the invitations to Lambeth were issued in an untimely manner, and the actions of the American Episcopal church bishops that consented to and consecrated the bishop of New Hampshire that has caused this rupture in the Communion.
The act of issuing these invitations at this time has shown that some actions have not had any consequences. The American House of Bishops’ response to the Primates’ Communiqué from Dar es Salaam clearly rejected the pastoral scheme of the Communiqué and dismissive of the underlying concerns of the Primates.
Since the actions of the American Church seem to have no consequences with respect to the full Communion, contrary to their stated concerns, we are left with the consequences of inaction. The inaction of the primates as a whole and our Archbishop of Canterbury have resulted in the consequences of yet another Anglican bishop being consecrated by another foreign (African) province to provide oversight for churches who want to leave the Episcopal Church because the actions of their American bishops have been shown to have no consequences at the international level.
In short: nature abhors a vacuum. Because the conciliar vision expounded by the Archbishop of Canterbury is either not working or not being followed we are left with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6). This has led to the multiplicity of foreign jurisdiction Anglican bishops in the United States, lawsuit upon lawsuit, inhibition and deposition upon early resignation and retirement.
How does Jesus view us? I suspect just as he did when he saw the crowds: “he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”
We are a bishop-based church. Whether one believes that bishops are of the esse or the bene esse of the church, it is time for our bishops, both primates and diocesans, and especially the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in consultation with the Archbishop of York, to step up and bring some order out of this chaos. We are witnessing the breakup of the Anglican Communion before our very eyes. It has been given to the primates to enforce their own Communiqué. If they do not, the Anglican witness in the United States will truly be diverse, with a multiplicity American-born Caucasian bishops from Bolivia, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Venezuela, overseeing their little niches of Anglicans in the United States, while the greater cause of Christ is hampered by our sad divisions that speak the lie to all our self-affirmations of unity. Maybe this is what God wants. Maybe this is what Anglicanism deserves.
--The Rev. Canon Dr. Neal O. Michell is Canon Missioner for Strategic Development in the Diocese of Dallas; this is posted here with his permission
The Province of Kenya issued a statement on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, announcing its intention to consecrate The Rev. Canon Bill Atwood as a Suffragan Bishop “to support the international interests of the Anglican Church of Kenya, including support of Kenyan clergy and congregations in North America.” Their further “goal is to collaborate with faithful Anglicans (including those in North America who are related with other provinces). A North American Anglican Coalition can provide a safe haven for those who maintain historic Anglican faith and practice, and offer a way to live and work together in the furtherance of the Gospel.”
So, what does this mean? It is illustrative of the truism, “nature abhors a vacuum.”
In this analogy, nature is the Anglican Communion. What is the vacuum? The lack of leadership from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I have long been a supporter of the Archbishop’s leadership and the difficult position that he has been in. I have gleaned his writings and comments for those tidbits that would give an indication of the direction in which he would lead the Communion.
He has been quoted to say that “actions have consequences,” leading me, and others, to believe that he would allow the TEC to suffer the consequences of their decisions in some form of discipline. He said that he gave a September 30th deadline for the assurances from the American Episcopal House of Bishops so that invitations to Lambeth could be sent out or withdrawn in response to the American bishops’ responses. He said that the primates would decide what course of action they would take.
This all made sense in light of his perceived ecclesiology: he did not want to make an arbitrary decision that would give subsequent Archbishops of Canterbury more power that might be abused later; he had a conciliar view of the authority of the church and its bishops. All this made sense to me until the invitations to Lambeth were issued in an untimely manner, and the actions of the American Episcopal church bishops that consented to and consecrated the bishop of New Hampshire that has caused this rupture in the Communion.
The act of issuing these invitations at this time has shown that some actions have not had any consequences. The American House of Bishops’ response to the Primates’ Communiqué from Dar es Salaam clearly rejected the pastoral scheme of the Communiqué and dismissive of the underlying concerns of the Primates.
Since the actions of the American Church seem to have no consequences with respect to the full Communion, contrary to their stated concerns, we are left with the consequences of inaction. The inaction of the primates as a whole and our Archbishop of Canterbury have resulted in the consequences of yet another Anglican bishop being consecrated by another foreign (African) province to provide oversight for churches who want to leave the Episcopal Church because the actions of their American bishops have been shown to have no consequences at the international level.
In short: nature abhors a vacuum. Because the conciliar vision expounded by the Archbishop of Canterbury is either not working or not being followed we are left with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6). This has led to the multiplicity of foreign jurisdiction Anglican bishops in the United States, lawsuit upon lawsuit, inhibition and deposition upon early resignation and retirement.
How does Jesus view us? I suspect just as he did when he saw the crowds: “he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”
We are a bishop-based church. Whether one believes that bishops are of the esse or the bene esse of the church, it is time for our bishops, both primates and diocesans, and especially the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in consultation with the Archbishop of York, to step up and bring some order out of this chaos. We are witnessing the breakup of the Anglican Communion before our very eyes. It has been given to the primates to enforce their own Communiqué. If they do not, the Anglican witness in the United States will truly be diverse, with a multiplicity American-born Caucasian bishops from Bolivia, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Venezuela, overseeing their little niches of Anglicans in the United States, while the greater cause of Christ is hampered by our sad divisions that speak the lie to all our self-affirmations of unity. Maybe this is what God wants. Maybe this is what Anglicanism deserves.
--The Rev. Canon Dr. Neal O. Michell is Canon Missioner for Strategic Development in the Diocese of Dallas; this is posted here with his permission
Friday, June 15, 2007
Anglican Demand for Change Is Rebuffed by Episcopalians
From The New York Times:
June 15, 2007
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
The executive council of the Episcopal Church announced yesterday that it would not comply with demands from leaders of the global Anglican Communion to retract the church’s liberal position on homosexuality and create alternative supervision for disaffected conservative Episcopalians.
The announcement came a day after the Anglican archbishop of Kenya said he would consecrate an American bishop in Texas to minister to alienated Episcopalians in the United States. In May, the archbishop of Nigeria installed a bishop in Virginia, a step considered by many to be outside the bounds of Anglicanism’s traditional lines of authority.
The churches in the Anglican Communion, which trace their heritage to the Church of England, have been brought to the brink of schism over the issue of homosexuality. The executive council’s action makes clear that the Episcopal Church, Anglicanism’s American branch, does not intend to back down.
Leaders of the Anglican Communion’s geographical provinces, known as primates, issued an ultimatum to the Episcopal Church in February demanding that it stop blessing same-sex unions and agree not to consecrate another openly gay bishop. The primates gave the Episcopal Church until Sept. 30 to comply.
The executive council, after a four-day meeting in Parsippany, N.J., followed the footsteps of the church’s House of Bishops and issued a statement yesterday, saying, “We question the authority of the primates to impose deadlines and demands upon any of the churches of the Anglican Communion.”
The council said the primates’ demands could “only properly be dealt with by our General Convention,” the large triennial meeting of Episcopal bishops, priests and laity, next scheduled for 2009.
The council said, “We strongly affirm this church’s desire to be in the fullest possible relationship with our Anglican sisters and brothers, but in truth the only thing we really have to offer in that relationship is who we are.”
The council said that the Episcopal Church had always “struggled to embrace people who have historically been marginalized” — and that this applied to gay men and lesbians.
Bonnie Anderson, president of the church’s House of Deputies, composed of clergy and lay representatives, said: “The Episcopal Church has spoken quite clearly as to where we are on this.”
The new bishop to be consecrated by the archbishop of Kenya, Benjamin Nzimbi, is the Rev. Canon Bill Atwood, who runs the Ekklesia Society, an aid organization based in Dallas.
Mr. Atwood said he would minister to about 30 congregations, 20 predominantly American and 10 Kenyan, throughout the United States. He said his churches were cooperating with other conservative networks in the United States established by the archbishops of Nigeria and Rwanda.
“There is a desperate need for care,” Mr. Atwood said, “and the Episcopal Church has been utterly unresponsive.”
June 15, 2007
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
The executive council of the Episcopal Church announced yesterday that it would not comply with demands from leaders of the global Anglican Communion to retract the church’s liberal position on homosexuality and create alternative supervision for disaffected conservative Episcopalians.
The announcement came a day after the Anglican archbishop of Kenya said he would consecrate an American bishop in Texas to minister to alienated Episcopalians in the United States. In May, the archbishop of Nigeria installed a bishop in Virginia, a step considered by many to be outside the bounds of Anglicanism’s traditional lines of authority.
The churches in the Anglican Communion, which trace their heritage to the Church of England, have been brought to the brink of schism over the issue of homosexuality. The executive council’s action makes clear that the Episcopal Church, Anglicanism’s American branch, does not intend to back down.
Leaders of the Anglican Communion’s geographical provinces, known as primates, issued an ultimatum to the Episcopal Church in February demanding that it stop blessing same-sex unions and agree not to consecrate another openly gay bishop. The primates gave the Episcopal Church until Sept. 30 to comply.
The executive council, after a four-day meeting in Parsippany, N.J., followed the footsteps of the church’s House of Bishops and issued a statement yesterday, saying, “We question the authority of the primates to impose deadlines and demands upon any of the churches of the Anglican Communion.”
The council said the primates’ demands could “only properly be dealt with by our General Convention,” the large triennial meeting of Episcopal bishops, priests and laity, next scheduled for 2009.
The council said, “We strongly affirm this church’s desire to be in the fullest possible relationship with our Anglican sisters and brothers, but in truth the only thing we really have to offer in that relationship is who we are.”
The council said that the Episcopal Church had always “struggled to embrace people who have historically been marginalized” — and that this applied to gay men and lesbians.
Bonnie Anderson, president of the church’s House of Deputies, composed of clergy and lay representatives, said: “The Episcopal Church has spoken quite clearly as to where we are on this.”
The new bishop to be consecrated by the archbishop of Kenya, Benjamin Nzimbi, is the Rev. Canon Bill Atwood, who runs the Ekklesia Society, an aid organization based in Dallas.
Mr. Atwood said he would minister to about 30 congregations, 20 predominantly American and 10 Kenyan, throughout the United States. He said his churches were cooperating with other conservative networks in the United States established by the archbishops of Nigeria and Rwanda.
“There is a desperate need for care,” Mr. Atwood said, “and the Episcopal Church has been utterly unresponsive.”
From Chancellor David Booth Beers to the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts-Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church
A Satirical Essay
By the Rt. Rev. Dr. C. Fitzsimons Allison
Special to VirtueOnline
www.virtueonline.org
Dear Katharine,
I have not been sleeping well and it occurs to me that it may be because we are on the wrong road to unity. I have changed my mind about how we should proceed toward parishes wishing to leave TEC for other branches of the Anglican Communion. If we continue the very expensive policy we now have it will last a very long time with increasing acrimony and higher hurdles to overcome in any future reunion. After all we are still in the Anglican Communion and so will they be.
If we succeed in capturing their churches, in most cases, the small remnant which remains will find the cost of operation and upkeep prohibitive. To sell the properties would be a public relations fiasco. I now believe it would be a better strategy to follow the policy of your predecessor, Frank Griswold, and let the property matters be merely a matter between the parish and the diocese.
My law firm and others are doubtless in a position to gain an enormous amount of business, which might raise a question of conflict of interest, and as a devout churchman, I am seriously concerned over the moral issue of spending this money in litigation. Even more importantly, is it wise to spend the time and energy for what, at best, will be a diversion from our Christian mission, the New Millennium Development Goals, and probably become an indelible black mark on our reputation as a Church?
I am also concerned that we are in an increasingly deficit financial position with our operating budget.
The huge publicity coming from the present suits, especially in Virginia, will not likely allow us to escape detection. The churches we are suing will have the right of discovery and our financial arrangements will be an open book.
The following example illustrates the destiny of the road we are now traveling. In a successful suit the Diocese of Massachusetts took over St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Brockton, an exquisite Ralph Adam Cram building in which the Diocese had not put a penny. This imposing Gothic church is hardly suitable for any other use. Ninety-eight per cent of the former congregation of St. Paul's left and for some years met in a Seventh Day Adventist church building. They have subsequently built an even larger facility at a new location and are a thriving congregation. The Diocese did win its case in court but at the cost of over two million dollars. The old church is now virtually empty and the Diocese is asking neighboring parishes to help fund the utility costs.
This church, and others, will stand for a very long time as empty testimonies to litigation that local communities will overwhelmingly blame on the national church. This, in turn, will have a chilling effect on future giving. Even winning a long projected court case will become a pyrrhic victory. Katharine, I am seriously worried abut how we will manage if we win these suits in Virginia. The Falls Church spends a half-million dollars a year on utilities alone. The 30 remaining people could not afford to manage those buildings. The same would be true for Truro and the other parishes we are suing. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion would sustain a great loss if we were to sell them.
We might learn from an incident that happened many years ago. Bishop Albert Stuart of Georgia was faced with the defection of St. John's Parish in Savannah, Georgia. Instead of going to court to take the property, as many pressed him to do, he insisted that if the diocese remained courteous and open they would, in time, return. They did indeed return and, I believe, the parish is now the largest in the Diocese of Georgia.
Could we not be as gracious and wise as Bishop Stuart? To keep congregations in TEC, by litigation or threat of litigation, makes us look as though we care more about property and control than about faith and the Anglican Communion. It's not too late to change course and my nightmares might cease. As your Chancellor and legal advisor I feel we are on a morally dubious road with both legal and ethical consequences, responsibility for which we might not want to bear.
Respectfully,
Bishop Allison notes that this is the letter that he had hoped David Booth Beers would send to Mrs. Schori.
--The Rt. Rev. Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison is the Bishop of South Carolina (ret.) He is the author of several books on theology and history.
------------------------------
By the Rt. Rev. Dr. C. Fitzsimons Allison
Special to VirtueOnline
www.virtueonline.org
Dear Katharine,
I have not been sleeping well and it occurs to me that it may be because we are on the wrong road to unity. I have changed my mind about how we should proceed toward parishes wishing to leave TEC for other branches of the Anglican Communion. If we continue the very expensive policy we now have it will last a very long time with increasing acrimony and higher hurdles to overcome in any future reunion. After all we are still in the Anglican Communion and so will they be.
If we succeed in capturing their churches, in most cases, the small remnant which remains will find the cost of operation and upkeep prohibitive. To sell the properties would be a public relations fiasco. I now believe it would be a better strategy to follow the policy of your predecessor, Frank Griswold, and let the property matters be merely a matter between the parish and the diocese.
My law firm and others are doubtless in a position to gain an enormous amount of business, which might raise a question of conflict of interest, and as a devout churchman, I am seriously concerned over the moral issue of spending this money in litigation. Even more importantly, is it wise to spend the time and energy for what, at best, will be a diversion from our Christian mission, the New Millennium Development Goals, and probably become an indelible black mark on our reputation as a Church?
I am also concerned that we are in an increasingly deficit financial position with our operating budget.
The huge publicity coming from the present suits, especially in Virginia, will not likely allow us to escape detection. The churches we are suing will have the right of discovery and our financial arrangements will be an open book.
The following example illustrates the destiny of the road we are now traveling. In a successful suit the Diocese of Massachusetts took over St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Brockton, an exquisite Ralph Adam Cram building in which the Diocese had not put a penny. This imposing Gothic church is hardly suitable for any other use. Ninety-eight per cent of the former congregation of St. Paul's left and for some years met in a Seventh Day Adventist church building. They have subsequently built an even larger facility at a new location and are a thriving congregation. The Diocese did win its case in court but at the cost of over two million dollars. The old church is now virtually empty and the Diocese is asking neighboring parishes to help fund the utility costs.
This church, and others, will stand for a very long time as empty testimonies to litigation that local communities will overwhelmingly blame on the national church. This, in turn, will have a chilling effect on future giving. Even winning a long projected court case will become a pyrrhic victory. Katharine, I am seriously worried abut how we will manage if we win these suits in Virginia. The Falls Church spends a half-million dollars a year on utilities alone. The 30 remaining people could not afford to manage those buildings. The same would be true for Truro and the other parishes we are suing. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion would sustain a great loss if we were to sell them.
We might learn from an incident that happened many years ago. Bishop Albert Stuart of Georgia was faced with the defection of St. John's Parish in Savannah, Georgia. Instead of going to court to take the property, as many pressed him to do, he insisted that if the diocese remained courteous and open they would, in time, return. They did indeed return and, I believe, the parish is now the largest in the Diocese of Georgia.
Could we not be as gracious and wise as Bishop Stuart? To keep congregations in TEC, by litigation or threat of litigation, makes us look as though we care more about property and control than about faith and the Anglican Communion. It's not too late to change course and my nightmares might cease. As your Chancellor and legal advisor I feel we are on a morally dubious road with both legal and ethical consequences, responsibility for which we might not want to bear.
Respectfully,
Bishop Allison notes that this is the letter that he had hoped David Booth Beers would send to Mrs. Schori.
--The Rt. Rev. Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison is the Bishop of South Carolina (ret.) He is the author of several books on theology and history.
------------------------------
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Finding a way forward
By Dr. Bill Atwood, General Secretary of Ekklesia
It’s probably no news bulletin to say that the Episcopal Church is in a mess. It’s not the ordinary kind of mess, it is a gigundo, mountainous, saber-toothed tiger eat-you-alive-and-pick-his-teeth-with-you-bones sort of mess. It is a mess of such monumental proportions that it has compromised the Gospel mission of the Anglican Communion. Again and again, I have heard the muffled questions asking, “How can this crisis be solved?”
While there may be some differences in tactics, there are principles that can be observed in some of the godly leaders of the Global South—the ones who are indelibly marked with the primacy of the Gospel and who live to see manifest the principles that undergird the Kingdom of God. They walk on the same sod we do, but they do it differently. Here are some examples (but certainly not all of them) of their call to us:
1. We are people of the Ark. We are to preach the Gospel (in a joinable fashion so that people can become part of the spiritual Body of Christ). The Word of God says if we will commit to bring them into the Ark, He will help bring them to the Ark.
2. We are people of the Cross. We are to speak the truth in love (both to declare the Kingdom of God and to call people who are stuck in sin to repent.)
3. We are people of the Light. No hidden agendas.
4. We are people of the Spirit. We are to live with uncompromised personal integrity and the pursuit of holiness, led, motivated, and refined by God.
5. We are people of the pitcher and towel. We are to manifest servants’ hearts, from Archbishops to lay workers, seeking to serve God’s people and God’s purpose, in God’s time and in His way, never using the church to carry out personal vision or to manipulate events for our own purposes.
6. We are people of the Red Sea. We are called to have a Kingdom vision that is so great it will fail without the miraculous intervention of God Himself.
7. We are people of the empty tomb who count not cost but possibility. Having died and been buried with Christ, we rise to a new life that is so observably different from the one before, there is no explanation other than Christ has transformed us for a purpose.
There are scores of dioceses in ECUSA where someone needs to cry out, “Repent.” This church is not leading very many people to Christ. In fact, it is leading droves of them away from His redeeming love. To fail to challenge that is to fail the cause of Christ. It is for our shortcomings that He gave His life, but the cross is not a license to withdraw from the challenge. In fact, it is a looming mandate that compels all who have eyes to see, to get moving and where they should walk.
To know the Cross is to have our lives, choices and priorities ravaged and reinterpreted for ever. It is to know that the costs of faithfulness are nothing compared to the gains of Kingdom authenticity. It is to be people of faith and not fear, casting ourselves into His almighty providence with such utter abandon that we no longer see the sacrifice but the prize.
It is cause for weeping when we are not such disciples, but by God’s name and for His heart, doesn’t it stir your soul to believe that we might be? The people who have remained faithful in the face of martyrdom have not done so only at the moment of some romantic, inspirational sacrifice. They made choice after choice to beg the Lord to conform their hearts to His own heart. Such people will be birthed out of our present darkness. For some of us, the people who have lived lives of genuine Gospel virtue provide examples to be emulated. If the idea kindles a fire in your spirit, then you are part of the hope for the future.
Posted by drbillatwood on February 05 2006 21:40:39
News reports say that Canon Atwood will be consecrated a Suffragan Bishop by the Church of Kenya for service in the U.S. ed.
It’s probably no news bulletin to say that the Episcopal Church is in a mess. It’s not the ordinary kind of mess, it is a gigundo, mountainous, saber-toothed tiger eat-you-alive-and-pick-his-teeth-with-you-bones sort of mess. It is a mess of such monumental proportions that it has compromised the Gospel mission of the Anglican Communion. Again and again, I have heard the muffled questions asking, “How can this crisis be solved?”
While there may be some differences in tactics, there are principles that can be observed in some of the godly leaders of the Global South—the ones who are indelibly marked with the primacy of the Gospel and who live to see manifest the principles that undergird the Kingdom of God. They walk on the same sod we do, but they do it differently. Here are some examples (but certainly not all of them) of their call to us:
1. We are people of the Ark. We are to preach the Gospel (in a joinable fashion so that people can become part of the spiritual Body of Christ). The Word of God says if we will commit to bring them into the Ark, He will help bring them to the Ark.
2. We are people of the Cross. We are to speak the truth in love (both to declare the Kingdom of God and to call people who are stuck in sin to repent.)
3. We are people of the Light. No hidden agendas.
4. We are people of the Spirit. We are to live with uncompromised personal integrity and the pursuit of holiness, led, motivated, and refined by God.
5. We are people of the pitcher and towel. We are to manifest servants’ hearts, from Archbishops to lay workers, seeking to serve God’s people and God’s purpose, in God’s time and in His way, never using the church to carry out personal vision or to manipulate events for our own purposes.
6. We are people of the Red Sea. We are called to have a Kingdom vision that is so great it will fail without the miraculous intervention of God Himself.
7. We are people of the empty tomb who count not cost but possibility. Having died and been buried with Christ, we rise to a new life that is so observably different from the one before, there is no explanation other than Christ has transformed us for a purpose.
There are scores of dioceses in ECUSA where someone needs to cry out, “Repent.” This church is not leading very many people to Christ. In fact, it is leading droves of them away from His redeeming love. To fail to challenge that is to fail the cause of Christ. It is for our shortcomings that He gave His life, but the cross is not a license to withdraw from the challenge. In fact, it is a looming mandate that compels all who have eyes to see, to get moving and where they should walk.
To know the Cross is to have our lives, choices and priorities ravaged and reinterpreted for ever. It is to know that the costs of faithfulness are nothing compared to the gains of Kingdom authenticity. It is to be people of faith and not fear, casting ourselves into His almighty providence with such utter abandon that we no longer see the sacrifice but the prize.
It is cause for weeping when we are not such disciples, but by God’s name and for His heart, doesn’t it stir your soul to believe that we might be? The people who have remained faithful in the face of martyrdom have not done so only at the moment of some romantic, inspirational sacrifice. They made choice after choice to beg the Lord to conform their hearts to His own heart. Such people will be birthed out of our present darkness. For some of us, the people who have lived lives of genuine Gospel virtue provide examples to be emulated. If the idea kindles a fire in your spirit, then you are part of the hope for the future.
Posted by drbillatwood on February 05 2006 21:40:39
News reports say that Canon Atwood will be consecrated a Suffragan Bishop by the Church of Kenya for service in the U.S. ed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)