dba pecusa aka the Episcopal Fraud, as its called on DCNY. ed.
A message from Bishop David Anderson
Dearly Beloved in Christ,
Those of us who have been privileged to grow up in a somewhat genteel Church and Society have perhaps believed in a rule of law based on the what the laws says and what the facts of a particular case happen to be. One of the reasons many earnest Anglicans in the USA are nonplussed is that the Church in which we were catechized and the society that we were a part of have both seemingly gone upside down. Doctrine and faith that we were taught is now contradicted by leading Episcopal Church officials, and practices that were only recently considered abhorrent and openly known to be sin are now exalted as sacred and rites are fabricated to celebrate them in church. That is why so many are leaving churches that teach and model such, and fortunately there are places, Anglican and otherwise, that are safely orthodox to receive them. The issues of society are more difficult, for as civil law moves to permit formerly illegal behavior, and even grant license for it, speaking against the sin is increasingly falling into so-called "hate speech" categories, and the government that once stood for stability and morality now is moving to suppress both in favor of granting a grave sinner freedom to never hear a call to repentance.
The law itself, in its practical application, has developed a strong third leg: money. It seems that now law, facts and money stand, not equal but tipped in favor of money. Those who have the money will litigate mercilessly, and if the ones they are suing are financially unable to defend themselves, despite law or fact, they fall out of court and lose. The amazing thing is that one source of this kind of abuse is a Church, and a Church that calls itself Christian. In the USA we are familiar with The Episcopal Church becoming the Church of Perpetual Litigation, and using its vast financial resources to sue individual congregations, rectors, and vestry members. This is being expanded now to include suing dioceses as they also depart from the organizational structure and the heretical beliefs of present day Episcopalianism. An article that is included for your review details how the "remaining Episcopal" fragment of the Diocese of San Joaquin, now calling themselves the Diocese of San Joaquin (Episcopal), is turning to the national Episcopal Church for operational funding in amounts that may approach $600,000, and dedicating all of its internal income for litigation against the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin (the original diocese).
What is really going on? This is a ploy so that the national Episcopal church can say it isn't funding the San Joaquin litigation, it is funding MISSION. The TEC Diocese uses all of its assets to litigate, then TEC rewards the faux San Joaquin with $600,000 for the internal operations that SJE should have used their money for. Wise as serpents, but neither meek, nor a dove. Other birds do come to mind.
The Episcopal Church, within its coterie of fellow "progressives," has been pressing Brazil to further punish the breakaway diocese of Recife, which has realigned with the Province of the Southern Cone. This stems from Recife's bishop, Robinson Cavalcanti's assistance given to orthodox Episcopalians some years ago when the AAC scheduled a confirmation service in Ohio, and Bishop Cavalcanti was one of several bishops that responded to our call. It was an early point in the development of trans-border ministry. The Diocese of Recife is fully incorporated and independent of the Province of Brazil, but with the financial resources to abuse, the Province of Brazil is now suing Recife in Brazilian Court seeking to revoke their corporate status. Bishop Cavalcanti is in real need of financial assistance for legal defense, and any assistance you can give them can be sent to either the AAC marked "Recife," or to Anglican Mainstream in the UK, again, marked "Recife."
In California, the special election item known as Proposition 8, which would change the California Constitution to specify that marriage was only between a man and a woman, has passed. The AAC, in our advocacy for Anglican (and Christian) orthodoxy, is concerned with several issues which grow out of our defense of orthodox Christology, Trinitarian doctrine, and Biblical authority; among those issues are the protection of the not yet born and moral sexual behavior. Regarding the latter, in the past we would have expected that the Episcopal Church would defend the Biblical concept of marriage being between a man and a woman, but no, not now, not in the USA. All of the current TEC dioceses in California worked to DEFEAT the Proposition 8 (marriage between a man and a woman). All of the TEC dioceses in California are supportive of gay marriage. This is the upside down world I wrote of in the first paragraph. One of the leading opponents of man-woman marriage limitations is the Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles, J. Jon Bruno, who worked hard to advance the lesbian-gay agenda in this election. Clearly he was not pleased with the outcome, and wrote in a November 5 statement, "I call upon Californians who supported Proposition 8 to make an honest and dedicated effort to learn more about the lives and experiences of lesbian and gay humanity whose constitutional rights are unfairly targeted by this measure."The proponents of the "progressive" viewpoint believe that if the orthodox would just meet and really get to know a homosexual, we would think their behavior was all right. In my 32 years in parish ministry, I worked with many people whose behavior contravened Holy Scripture, sometimes even landing them in legal trouble with the civil authorities. Though I cared about them as individuals, my care for them could not override God's standards for behavior. The worst thing that you can do for a sinner is to tell him or her that it isn't a sin and doesn't matter, or perhaps that it is blessed and sacred and should have church rites to celebrate it. When the church blesses wrong behavior, how will the sinner ever hear the Gospel call to repentance?
Across the United States and Canada, the push by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) for same-sex blessings continues unabated. Even when the ACC passed a resolution urging moratoria on same-sex blessings, it craftily grandfathered in those dioceses that have already voted to move forward on the blessings, and an article by George Conger details how the Anglican Diocese of Montreal will begin building the rites for such a service. In the United States, the diocese of Atlanta will vote this month on a resolution to forward to the Episcopal General Convention 2009 for the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to develop appropriate rites for the sacred unions of gay and lesbian persons.
While Atlanta considers overturning things good and holy, they will also vote on a resolution for the upcoming General Convention to overturn Resolution B033 from the 2006 General Convention, which agreed to "exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."
As we go to press, we hear that the Archbishop of Canterbury has called for a Primates' Meeting in Egypt during the first week of February, 2009. Canterbury's past response to the egregious behavior of TEC and Canada has been to go soft, draw lines in the sand, and propose things that will never be enforced. Considering the above-cited conduct of TEC and Canada, is he prepared to do anything more than what was done in Dar es Salaam? He has picked a meeting location with plenty of soft, shifting sand, but when will we see something firmer in the administration of justice and truth?
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
________________
No comments:
Post a Comment