Via VirtueOnline:
OPINION
By TIMOTHY LARSEN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
MAY 29, 2009
Have you ever heard the one about the Christian who started to study calculus and ended up losing his faith? Of course you have. Such "conversion" to atheism is supposed to be the story of all modern, thinking people. But imagine it happening the other way around. Moreover, imagine the convert being a well-informed, public intellectual who had long made it his business to argue that faith is irrational?
Just such a conversion has happened to A.N. Wilson, the 58-year-old British biographer, novelist and man of letters. He was once an observant Anglican and, later, a Roman Catholic, but in the 1980s he lost his faith and began skewering the supposed delusions of the faithful. His antifaith stance was expressed in books such as "God's Funeral" (1999) and "Jesus: A Life" (1992). A few weeks ago, however, Mr. Wilson confessed that Christ had risen indeed. He attributed this to "the confidence I have gained with age." He now says he believes that atheists are like "people who have no ear for music or who have never been in love."
Mr. Wilson's story matches that of other skeptical authors who became convinced by Christianity, not least in Victorian Britain, when Darwin and various modern ideas shook the foundations of faith among the educated classes. Among the notable examples from Victorian Britain are Thomas Cooper, the most popular free-thinking lecturer in London in the 1850s; George Sexton, the most academically accomplished secularist intellectual of the time; and Joseph Barker, a well-respected leader of the mid-19th-century free-thinking movement. The 20th century also had its share of writers and intellectuals who rediscovered Christianity as mature thinkers, including T.S. Eliot, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, C.S. Lewis, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh and W.H. Auden.
Our modern assumption that thought and faith are incompatible can be traced to the Victorian atheists. As one of them snidely remarked when a fellow secularist came to faith: "I find it hard to believe that someone could progress backwards."
For his part, A. N. Wilson had denounced as dishonest every leading Victorian intellectual who maintained a commitment to orthodox Christianity. Indeed, in "God's Funeral" he did not just go after the usual targets, such as John Henry Newman, but savaged even Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth. They were not presented as simply mistaken, but rather as downright "dishonorable."
Secularist leaders were usually raised religious. As clever youths, they would begin to handle the Bible critically. They prided themselves in being "rational" and would decide that Christian beliefs did not meet this standard. They would then go on to find intellectual satisfaction in picking apart the beliefs of others. Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason," a book beloved by free-thinkers in the 19th century, systematically went through the Bible, gleefully mocking each book in turn.
Those who later recanted their atheism began to doubt their doubts went on from this common start to begin to doubt their doubts. They gradually decided that their rationalistic method was too narrow: It could pick holes not only in Christianity but in any attempt to distinguish between right and wrong or to articulate the meaning of life. They came to realize that they could only tear down and thus were left intellectually with no habitable place to live. John Henry Gordon, who held the only full-time, salaried secularist lecturer position in England, came to believe that secularism was a creed of "mere negations."
Having realized that their method was flawed, they then began to reconsider faith. Christianity, they discovered, spoke to the deepest realities of human experience. George Sexton, for example, decided that Jesus as presented in the Gospels was so compelling and haunting that only a historical original could account for this: "If Christ be simply an ideal picture, the man who sketched it will be as difficult to account for as the Being himself."
Their skeptical pasts did leave a permanent stamp on their thought. Joseph Barker believed as a young man that the Bible was error-free. As a free-thinking lecturer he specialized in highlighting problem passages. As a convert, he conceded that the Bible was not perfect but went on to argue that it was perfectly suited to speak to the human condition. The Swiss Alps are not perfect cones, he observed, but this does not detract from their grandeur. Thomas Cooper declared that his newly rediscovered faith did not include a belief in eternal punishment.
As is the case with Mr. Wilson, intellectuals often pursue long, drawn-out love affairs with Christian thought. Next time you hear someone fume that God is the most contemptible being who never existed, keep in mind that you just might be watching the first act of a divine romantic comedy.
---Mr. Larsen is the author of "Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England" (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Saturday, May 30, 2009
SAN JOAQUIN, CA: Bishop Lamb Confirms Lack of Quorum to Elect Him
Via VirtueOnline:
By A.S. Haley
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/05/bishop-lamb-confirms-lack-of-quorum-to.html
May 27, 2009
Bishop Lamb has finally provided proof that there was not a sufficient quorum of clergy canonically resident in the Diocese of San Joaquin who were present at the "Special Diocesan Convention" which was held in Lodi a year ago March 29.
Today he acknowledged that last Friday and this Tuesday, he signed certificates with the intent of deposing 61 clergy in the Diocese for having "abandoned the Communion of this Church" in leaving to follow the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield and his Diocese out of ECUSA. (H/T: VirtueOnLine.)
Now anyone can do the math. According to the contemporary report of the "special convention" in Episcopal Life, there were just twenty-one clergy present at the meeting. Twenty-one present, plus sixty-one absent (and now "deposed"): that makes eighty-two total clergy canonically resident in the Diocese as of March 29, 2008, exactly as I reported here on April 28, 2008 in this post. Diocesan Canon III, section 3.01, which Bishop Lamb and the meeting claim to have followed, provides (with my emphasis added):
A quorum shall consist of one-third of all the Clergy entitled to seats and votes together with at least one (1) Lay Delegate from each of one-third of all the Parishes and Missions entitled to representation. If a quorum be not present at any Convention, no business shall be transacted except that of adjournment from time to time until a quorum shall be present.
Quick, anyone: 81 is 3 x 27, so what would be the minimum quorum for 82 clergy to meet at a legal Special Convention of the Diocese? That's right---twenty-eight were required to be present for lawful business to be transacted on March 29, 2008.
And now we come to one, giant, glorious chicken-and-egg problem into which Bishop Lamb, the group he is leading, and ECUSA have gotten themselves. Let me lay out the logic for you:
A. Without a quorum present, Bishop Lamb was not lawfully confirmed as Provisional Bishop of the "Diocese of San Joaquin," under its own canons. (Nor was the "Standing Committee" voted on at the same meeting lawfully elected, either.)
B. Since Bishop Lamb was not lawfully confirmed in that position, he has no canonical authority to depose the 61 clergy he claims to have deposed.
C. Therefore, as far as the "Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin" claims to be a lawful diocese of ECUSA, and one that follows its own Constitution and Canons, those same 61 clergy are still lawfully canonically resident in that Diocese, and no lawful Convention, Special or Annual, can be held without at least seven of them being present.
So until the "Diocese of San Joaquin" properly reconstitutes itself under ECUSA's own Constitution and Canons (which will need to be amended for the occasion), it has no Bishop and no Ecclesiastical Authority---and no way of lawfully electing one.
As I warned in an earlier post, nothing good could come from this strategy of charging ahead without any proper basis in the canons for doing so. You are witnessing a piling on of illegality upon illegality, or what I called in that earlier post "a murder of crows, a scold of jays, a sneak of weasels".
The point is not whether a court of law will accept what ECUSA tells everyone is the case in San Joaquin. The point is that anyone with a rudimentary ability to read a canon and do the numbers can see---now thanks to the brashness of Bishop Lamb and those advising him---that it is a lie. We have once again the highly un-Christian spectacle of a bishop who is sworn to uphold the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of ECUSA and who violates that same discipline in "deposing" others for violating the same oath.
And no one in ECUSA is doing anything about this ongoing, shameful lawlessness. It is business as usual for the Episcopal Church, the Church of Enablers and Lawbreakers.
END
By A.S. Haley
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/05/bishop-lamb-confirms-lack-of-quorum-to.html
May 27, 2009
Bishop Lamb has finally provided proof that there was not a sufficient quorum of clergy canonically resident in the Diocese of San Joaquin who were present at the "Special Diocesan Convention" which was held in Lodi a year ago March 29.
Today he acknowledged that last Friday and this Tuesday, he signed certificates with the intent of deposing 61 clergy in the Diocese for having "abandoned the Communion of this Church" in leaving to follow the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield and his Diocese out of ECUSA. (H/T: VirtueOnLine.)
Now anyone can do the math. According to the contemporary report of the "special convention" in Episcopal Life, there were just twenty-one clergy present at the meeting. Twenty-one present, plus sixty-one absent (and now "deposed"): that makes eighty-two total clergy canonically resident in the Diocese as of March 29, 2008, exactly as I reported here on April 28, 2008 in this post. Diocesan Canon III, section 3.01, which Bishop Lamb and the meeting claim to have followed, provides (with my emphasis added):
A quorum shall consist of one-third of all the Clergy entitled to seats and votes together with at least one (1) Lay Delegate from each of one-third of all the Parishes and Missions entitled to representation. If a quorum be not present at any Convention, no business shall be transacted except that of adjournment from time to time until a quorum shall be present.
Quick, anyone: 81 is 3 x 27, so what would be the minimum quorum for 82 clergy to meet at a legal Special Convention of the Diocese? That's right---twenty-eight were required to be present for lawful business to be transacted on March 29, 2008.
And now we come to one, giant, glorious chicken-and-egg problem into which Bishop Lamb, the group he is leading, and ECUSA have gotten themselves. Let me lay out the logic for you:
A. Without a quorum present, Bishop Lamb was not lawfully confirmed as Provisional Bishop of the "Diocese of San Joaquin," under its own canons. (Nor was the "Standing Committee" voted on at the same meeting lawfully elected, either.)
B. Since Bishop Lamb was not lawfully confirmed in that position, he has no canonical authority to depose the 61 clergy he claims to have deposed.
C. Therefore, as far as the "Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin" claims to be a lawful diocese of ECUSA, and one that follows its own Constitution and Canons, those same 61 clergy are still lawfully canonically resident in that Diocese, and no lawful Convention, Special or Annual, can be held without at least seven of them being present.
So until the "Diocese of San Joaquin" properly reconstitutes itself under ECUSA's own Constitution and Canons (which will need to be amended for the occasion), it has no Bishop and no Ecclesiastical Authority---and no way of lawfully electing one.
As I warned in an earlier post, nothing good could come from this strategy of charging ahead without any proper basis in the canons for doing so. You are witnessing a piling on of illegality upon illegality, or what I called in that earlier post "a murder of crows, a scold of jays, a sneak of weasels".
The point is not whether a court of law will accept what ECUSA tells everyone is the case in San Joaquin. The point is that anyone with a rudimentary ability to read a canon and do the numbers can see---now thanks to the brashness of Bishop Lamb and those advising him---that it is a lie. We have once again the highly un-Christian spectacle of a bishop who is sworn to uphold the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of ECUSA and who violates that same discipline in "deposing" others for violating the same oath.
And no one in ECUSA is doing anything about this ongoing, shameful lawlessness. It is business as usual for the Episcopal Church, the Church of Enablers and Lawbreakers.
END
VIRGINIA: Evangelical Episcopalians Say They Will Stay In The Episcopal Church
By David W. Virtue in Virginia
www.virtueonline.org
5/27/2009
A number of evangelical Episcopal theologians, clergy and laity believe that if they leave The Episcopal Church the conservative voice will be lost forever.
Meeting at Virginia Theological Seminary recently, host Dean Ian Markham said that VTS is a school that connects the dots and the dots are connected. "It is important that TEC has a clear stance of disclosure on issues of revelation and authority which we develop and worship or the narrative of the Christian gospel could get lost. VTS is to the right of center. We always teach students to take scripture seriously and to go and live in that light and witness to that light. We are a school that is Trinitarian, incarnational and we love the Lord Jesus."
The Rev. Mario Gonzalez, rector of St. Matthews Church in Richmond, VA told hearers, "We are the group that is staying in The Episcopal Church."
The Rev. Dr. Bob Pritchard, VTS Professor of Church History said he was discouraged and embarrassed about his church. "I am discouraged and embarrassed by our divisions. I get more phone calls about litigation than about evangelism. I am embarrassed by being in gatherings where those who should be our companions in the gospel are being turned into enemies. I am embarrassed that more money is spent in litigation than in overseas ministry."
Pritchard said he was further embarrassed by the theological discourse in TEC in which complicated questions are reduced to slogans. "We equate niceness with holiness, we know someone and they are nice, so we assume the best about them. I am embarrassed that we are losing sight of the central core gospel, the discovery that we are not really sinners and we talk about our innate goodness and don't look to the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation. The culture of TEC is not preaching the gospel and preaching holiness."
The historian likened it to Elijah who cried out "I alone remain. He gets new directions for his life and moves on. In a crisis it is a time to wait, pray and listen. Remaining faithful is essential for carrying on the unity in the lord. We need to keep prophets in TEC with both encouragement and voice."
The Rev. Philip Wainwright, parish priest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh who has chosen to stay in TEC, said there was no Plan B. "Many have thought they were the only ones left. It is true we are a floundering church, a church struggling over decisive issues. I was called to remain faithful. It seems clear to me that leaving exacerbates and waters down the voice of orthodoxy."
Wainwright said he spoke against the Diocese of Pittsburgh leaving The Episcopal Church. Evangelicals staying need to make themselves known to each other, he said.
"We do not have the ability to discipline the unorthodox. Bishops can only be disciplined by a majority of other bishops, and orthodox bishops are in the minority. Clergy can only be disciplined by the bishops, and most unorthodox clergy have an unorthodox bishop. Lay persons can only be disciplined by their parish clergy, most of whom are unorthodox. As long as we are in the minority, we have no power to do whatever scripture says should be done in this situation. The question for us is not how leaders should deal with the unorthodox, but how we orthodox should respond to unorthodox leaders."
The theologian priest cited numerous passages of Scripture to support staying in TEC.
"Jesus' words in Matthew 7:21-23, 'Lord, Lord, without doing His will, suggest that such persons will not be cast out of the until the final judgment - 'on that day' He makes the same point even more forcefully in Mt. 24:11-14, 24, 31. A famous verse in Revelation, 18:4 actually describes this happening on the Day of Judgment."
Wainwright said Jesus' command in Mt. 10:14 to 'shake the dust off your feet' is a sign for those who reject His message entirely and is not applicable in this situation.
"The parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt. 13) suggests that even in the church, the weeds and tares grow up together until the last judgment.
"Matthew 15:13 says that it's God, not man, who is to root up the plants He has not planted - 'Let them alone', is the conclusion.
"In John's gospel the image of pruning the vine (chapter 15) is also one that refers to the end times, when the pruned branches will be thrown into the fire and burned. It is God who is the vinedresser and does the pruning, and there is no suggestion here that this work is delegated to the church.
"In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira are two of the baptized who lie to the church. Peter's response is to confront them with the lie. No further act was necessary because of God's own intervention.
"In Acts 8, Simon Magus is a baptized man who thinks that the Holy Spirit is for sale. Peter calls on him to repent. It is not clear whether Simon repents or not, there is no record of any further action.
"In Acts 15, we find the first description of what orthodox Christian leaders should do when others are teaching falsehood. The 'Judaizers', Christians (they are described as 'believers' in v. 5) who begin got teach that Gentiles must become Jews in order to become Christians. The church considers this false teaching but no action is reported as being taken against those who had upheld the false teaching. In 21:17ff, we can see that false teaching may not only still be flourishing in the church, but dominant in it; James warns Paul that Jewish believers are 'all zealous for the law.'
"In Acts 20, Paul is speaking to the Ephesian elders and at first expresses no confidence that all the elders are up to the standard required, only that if they are not, it's not Paul's fault, because has done the required teaching. He later admits that some will teach falsely. No action is recommended against them, only care not to become one of them.
"Romans 12:19 reminds Christians to leave punishment to God and overcome evil with good, a point which Paul will make again. In 13:13, Paul reminds the Christians of Rome that sexual immorality is not acceptable, but does not suggest any sanction against those who need this teaching. In 16:17, when people are wrongly adding to Christ's teaching, fellowship is broken with them to the extent that they are to be avoided."
Wainwright points to Paul's letters to Timothy as conclusive. False teachers are ordered to stop but no sanction accompanies this. Paul commands Timothy to 'have nothing to do with' false teachings 4:7, and to teach the truth instead (4:6) and to show them they are wrong and to rebuke them.
Wainwright says that Paul's second letter to Timothy was caused by Timothy's discouragement that there is still so much false teaching and immorality in the church. The whole tenor of this second letter is that faithlessness in the church is to be expected, and he mustn't let it stop him teaching the truth. The image in 2:20ff of the great house with vessels of varying degrees of nobility confirms the picture of a mixed church.
"The letter to Titus takes the same line. An overseer must be able to refute those who contradict him. He is to exhort and rebuke with authority and when someone won't listen, he is to warn him twice, and then have nothing to do with him.
"I Peter exhorts the leaders to tend the flock "as examples". II Peter says that heresy and sexual immorality can be expected to be rife in the churches and while encouraging leaders not to follow their example there is no sanction against the immoral or the heretical."
Wainwright notes that Diotrephes the false teacher is the only person in the NT described as putting someone out of the church. Likewise in Jude, it is the heretics who set up divisions, the faithful who work at convincing.
"In Revelation, there are false teachers in Ephesus, whom the faithful are commended for 'enduring patiently', 2:3 the faithful are rebuked for allowing their love to grow cold. In Pergamum there are false teachers, and the faithful are called to repentance as a result. In Thyatria, were sexual immorality is an issue, the faithful are rebuked for their 'toleration' or 'forgiveness' of one its promoters, but are given no other burden than holding fast to what they have. (2:24ff)."
Wainwright said that in Rev. 18:4, is the famous verse used by the 16th Century Anglican reformers to justify separation from the Roman church and other to justify separation from the Anglican Church, but neither can be justified by the context, which is the final judgment. It is the end of history, as Jesus had said in Matthew's account, that the faithful will be taken out of the mixed church in order that the unfaithful may be punished.
The evangelical priest said the thought most often used of heresy and immorality understood in the NT is "avoidance" a practice the orthodox should adopt at Diocesan meetings. "The recommended procedure doesn't seem to be any different in all cases; it's avoid them, not cast them out, even in the case of the immoral brother in Corinth.
Wainwright concluded his remarks by saying that the orthodox are to deal with the less-than-orthodox by being examples of faithfulness, by clearly pointing out to the former the error of their ways, and by limiting their personal fellowship with them in the hope that this will bring them round. "The constant exhortations to the faithful not to be drawn down the same path suggest that ecclesiastical fellowship was not broken, and in all the examples this level of fellowship seems to have been maintained. There is no suggestion anywhere that any of this would be different if the unorthodox were in the position of overseers, i.e. bishops."
"Separation and division, therefore, is not the scriptural response, and we must assume that the biblical thing to do is to stay together. A PECUSA parish leaving PECUSA is not exercising discipline; it is leaving a problem that it does not know how to deal with."
Other speakers said The Episcopal Church can be reformed. The Church of England in the 17th century was full of unbiblical elements. Congregationalists and Baptists broke away from it. Many faithful Christians stayed in the CofE. By the first half of the 18th Century the CofE was caught up in a huge revival. There is no church God cannot reform. The heart of the gospel is embraced in Anglicanism.
"We need to go on with faithful and godly expository preaching," said Wainwright. The old evangelical tradition is to be faithful in ministry in the local church year after year. The local church is where the real action is. We need a new fellowship of witness."
Recently fifteen bishops including four members of the Anglican Communion Institute declared their loyalty to The Episcopal Church and the inherent authority of a Bishop. They argued that the changing face of Anglicanism in North America and what looked like a power grab by Episcopal leaders in New York demanded that they address the issue of the historic episcopacy, "as a matter of faithfulness to our apostolic vocation and our Constitution."
"The traditional doctrine and worship and the historic polity of the Church are in grave peril. For this reason, we emphasize that The Episcopal Church consists of autonomous, but interdependent, dioceses not subject to any metropolitical power or hierarchical control. The Ecclesiastical Authorities in our dioceses are the Bishops and Standing Committees; no one else may act in or speak on behalf of the dioceses or of The Episcopal Church within the dioceses. We intend to exercise our episcopal authority to remain constituent members of the Anglican Communion and will continue to speak out on these issues as necessary."
The following bishops signed this document:
The Right Reverend James M. Adams, Jr.
Bishop of Western Kansas
The Right Reverend Peter H. Beckwith
Bishop of Springfield
The Right Reverend William C. Frey
Assisting Bishop of Rio Grande;
Retired Bishop of Colorado
The Right Reverend Alden M. Hathaway
Retired Bishop of Pittsburgh
The Right Reverend John W. Howe
Bishop of Central Florida
The Right Reverend Russell E. Jacobus
Bishop of Fond du Lac
The Right Reverend Paul E. Lambert
Bishop Suffragan of Dallas
The Right Reverend Mark J. Lawrence
Bishop of South Carolina
The Right Reverend Edward S. Little II
Bishop of Northern Indiana
The Right Reverend William H. Love
Bishop of Albany
The Right Reverend D. Bruce MacPherson
Bishop of Western Louisiana
The Right Reverend Edward L. Salmon, Jr.
Retired Bishop of South Carolina
The Right Reverend Michael G. Smith
Bishop of North Dakota
The Right Reverend James M. Stanton
Bishop of Dallas
The Right Reverend Don A. Wimberly
Bishop of Texas
Also Endorsed By:
The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner (The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.)
Following the bishops declaration a number of rectors' declared their support for the Bishops' Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church.
They concluded that the authority of the Episcopal Church resides at the diocesan level. They said that the structure of the church is "that of a voluntary association of equal dioceses." They also affirmed that the Constitution and Canons of the Church made no provision for either a central hierarchy or a Presiding Bishop with metropolitan authority. General Convention is a representation of dioceses and not communicants, with only an administrative role for the convention leadership, the voting members of the leadership themselves drawn from the diocesan deputations. In addition, the ordinal does not contain any language acknowledging or committing to submit to any metropolitan or central hierarchal authority.
They also argued for the adoption of the Covenant by parishes in their dioceses. "Such grace will allow these parishes and clergy to obey their consciences and calling to be members of the Anglican Communion and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."
The following priests signed this statement:
The Rev. Dr. Charles Alley Rector,
St. Matthew's Episcopal Church
Richmond, Virginia
The Rev. John D. Badders, Jr. Rector,
St. John's Episcopal Church
McAllen, Texas
The Rev. Phyllis Bartle Rector,
St. Jude's Episcopal Church
Orange City, Florida
The Rev. Milton E. Black, Jr. Rector,
Church of the Good Shepherd Corpus Christi, Texas
The Rev. Christopher Andrew Bowhay Rector,
St. Thomas' Episcopal Church Houston, Texas
The Rev. William J. Cavanaugh Rector,
Church of the Epiphany Richardson, Texas
The Very Reverend Anthony Clark Dean,
St. Luke's Cathedral Orlando, Florida
The Rev. Joseph N. Davis Rector,
Church of the Resurrection Franklin, Tennessee
The Very Rev. Canon Richard C. Doscher, Sr. Rector,
St. Alfred's Episcopal Church Palm Harbor, Florida
The Rev. Mifflin Dove, Jr. Rector,
St. Paul's Episcopal Church Katy, Texas
The Rev. Robert G. Eaton Rector,
St. John Episcopal Church Tulare, California
The Rev. Theodore W. Edwards, Jr. Rector,
St. George's Episcopal Church Bradenton, Florida
The Rev. Richard H. Elwood Rector,
St. Barnabas Episcopal Church Fredericksburg, Texas
The Rev. Frank E. Fuller Rector,
St. Mark's Episcopal Church Beaumont, Texas
The Rev. Ronald E. Greiser, Jr. Rector,
St. John's Episcopal Church Portsmouth, Virginia
The Rev. Laurens A. Hall Rector,
St. John the Divine Houston, Texas
The Rev. John F. Hardie Rector,
St. Mark's Episcopal Church Corpus Christi, Texas
The Rev. Theodore E. Hervey, Jr. Rector,
Epiphany Episcopal Church Bertram, Texas
The Rev. John M. Himes, OSF Rector,
Trinity Episcopal Church Marshall, Texas
The Rev. Charles L. Holt Rector,
St. Peter's Episcopal Church Lake Mary, Florida
The Rev. Robert Horowitz Rector,
Church of the Redeemer Greenville, South Carolina
The Rev. Thomas S. Hotchkiss Rector,
Church of The Advent Nashville, Tennessee
The Rev. Robert T. Jennings Rector,
St. Francis in the Fields Harrods Creek, South Carolina
The Rev. Bennett G. Jones, II Rector,
St. Paul Episcopal Church Munster, Indiana
The Rev. Timothy Jones Senior Associate Rector, St. George's Episcopal Church Nashville, Tennessee
The Rev. Jerome A. Kramer Rector,
Church of the Annunciation New Orleans, Louisiana
The Rev. Gerald W. Krumenacker, Jr. Rector,
Christ Church Dallas, Texas
The Rev. Ronald James LeBlanc Priest-in-Charge,
Church of the Incarnation Lafayette, Louisiana
The Rev. Dr. Russell J. Levenson, Jr. Rector,
St. Martin's Episcopal Church Houston, Texas
The Rev. John S. Liebler Rector,
St. Andrew's Church and Academy Fort Pierce, Florida
The Rev. Ramiro E. Lopez, Jr. Rector,
St. George Episcopal Church San Antonio, Texas
The Rev. Daniel H. Martins Rector,
St. Anne's Episcopal Church Warsaw, Indiana
The Very Rev. Dr. Jean McCurdy Meade Rector,
Mount Olivet Episcopal Church New Orleans, Louisiana
The Rev. Mark A. Michael Rector,
Saint Paul's Episcopal Church Sharpsburg, Maryland
The Rev. Ian Montgomery Retired Rector,
St. Thomas Church Menasha, Wisconsin
The Rev. Joel J. Morsch Rector,
Christ Church Bradenton, Florida
The Rev. Elizabeth L. Myers Rector,
St. Francis of Assisi Lake Placid, Florida
The Rev. David G. Newhart Rector,
St. Elizabeth's Episcopal Church Sebastian, Florida
The Rev. John Newton Rector,
Messiah Episcopal Church Saint Paul, Minnesota
The Very Rev. Timothy C. Nunez Rector,
St. Mary's Episcopal Church Belleview, Florida
The Rev. Robert P. Price Rector,
St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church Houston, Texas
The Rev. Dr. Darrel D. Proffitt Rector,
Church of the Holy Apostles Katy, Texas
The Rev. Fredrick Arthur Robinson Rector,
The Church of the Redeemer Sarasota, Florida
The Rev. Mark Seitz Rector,
St. Matthew's Episcopal Church Wheeling, West Virginia
The Rev. John Thomas Sheehan Rector,
The Church of Our Redeemer Aldie, Virginia
The Rev. Dr. Jerry Smith Rector,
St. Bartholomew's Parish Nashville, Tennessee
The Rev. Leigh Spruill Rector,
St. George's Episcopal Church Nashville, Tennessee
The Very Rev. Canon Harold L. Trott, SSC Vicar,
Church of Our Saviour Albuquerque, New Mexico
The Rev. Eric W. Turner, Sr. Rector,
St. John's Episcopal Church Melbourne, Florida
The Rev. Guido Verbeck Rector,
St. Paul's Episcopal Church Shreveport, Louisiana
The Very Rev. Dr. Edward A. Weiss, OSB, APC Rector,
Church of Our Saviour Okeechobee, Florida
The Rev. John T. Wells Rector,
Episcopal Church Of The Holy Spirit Waco, Texas
The Rev. Ted Welty Interim Rector,
Christ Episcopal Church Tyler, Texas
The Rev. Stockton Williams, Jr. Rector,
St. Peter's Episcopal Church
Kerrville, Texas
The Rev. Dr. Kenneth A. Wolfe Rector,
The Parish of Christ Church
Fitchburg, Massachusetts
The Rev. Michael Wyckoff Rector,
St. Luke's on the Lake
Austin, Texas
END
www.virtueonline.org
5/27/2009
A number of evangelical Episcopal theologians, clergy and laity believe that if they leave The Episcopal Church the conservative voice will be lost forever.
Meeting at Virginia Theological Seminary recently, host Dean Ian Markham said that VTS is a school that connects the dots and the dots are connected. "It is important that TEC has a clear stance of disclosure on issues of revelation and authority which we develop and worship or the narrative of the Christian gospel could get lost. VTS is to the right of center. We always teach students to take scripture seriously and to go and live in that light and witness to that light. We are a school that is Trinitarian, incarnational and we love the Lord Jesus."
The Rev. Mario Gonzalez, rector of St. Matthews Church in Richmond, VA told hearers, "We are the group that is staying in The Episcopal Church."
The Rev. Dr. Bob Pritchard, VTS Professor of Church History said he was discouraged and embarrassed about his church. "I am discouraged and embarrassed by our divisions. I get more phone calls about litigation than about evangelism. I am embarrassed by being in gatherings where those who should be our companions in the gospel are being turned into enemies. I am embarrassed that more money is spent in litigation than in overseas ministry."
Pritchard said he was further embarrassed by the theological discourse in TEC in which complicated questions are reduced to slogans. "We equate niceness with holiness, we know someone and they are nice, so we assume the best about them. I am embarrassed that we are losing sight of the central core gospel, the discovery that we are not really sinners and we talk about our innate goodness and don't look to the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation. The culture of TEC is not preaching the gospel and preaching holiness."
The historian likened it to Elijah who cried out "I alone remain. He gets new directions for his life and moves on. In a crisis it is a time to wait, pray and listen. Remaining faithful is essential for carrying on the unity in the lord. We need to keep prophets in TEC with both encouragement and voice."
The Rev. Philip Wainwright, parish priest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh who has chosen to stay in TEC, said there was no Plan B. "Many have thought they were the only ones left. It is true we are a floundering church, a church struggling over decisive issues. I was called to remain faithful. It seems clear to me that leaving exacerbates and waters down the voice of orthodoxy."
Wainwright said he spoke against the Diocese of Pittsburgh leaving The Episcopal Church. Evangelicals staying need to make themselves known to each other, he said.
"We do not have the ability to discipline the unorthodox. Bishops can only be disciplined by a majority of other bishops, and orthodox bishops are in the minority. Clergy can only be disciplined by the bishops, and most unorthodox clergy have an unorthodox bishop. Lay persons can only be disciplined by their parish clergy, most of whom are unorthodox. As long as we are in the minority, we have no power to do whatever scripture says should be done in this situation. The question for us is not how leaders should deal with the unorthodox, but how we orthodox should respond to unorthodox leaders."
The theologian priest cited numerous passages of Scripture to support staying in TEC.
"Jesus' words in Matthew 7:21-23, 'Lord, Lord, without doing His will, suggest that such persons will not be cast out of the until the final judgment - 'on that day' He makes the same point even more forcefully in Mt. 24:11-14, 24, 31. A famous verse in Revelation, 18:4 actually describes this happening on the Day of Judgment."
Wainwright said Jesus' command in Mt. 10:14 to 'shake the dust off your feet' is a sign for those who reject His message entirely and is not applicable in this situation.
"The parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt. 13) suggests that even in the church, the weeds and tares grow up together until the last judgment.
"Matthew 15:13 says that it's God, not man, who is to root up the plants He has not planted - 'Let them alone', is the conclusion.
"In John's gospel the image of pruning the vine (chapter 15) is also one that refers to the end times, when the pruned branches will be thrown into the fire and burned. It is God who is the vinedresser and does the pruning, and there is no suggestion here that this work is delegated to the church.
"In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira are two of the baptized who lie to the church. Peter's response is to confront them with the lie. No further act was necessary because of God's own intervention.
"In Acts 8, Simon Magus is a baptized man who thinks that the Holy Spirit is for sale. Peter calls on him to repent. It is not clear whether Simon repents or not, there is no record of any further action.
"In Acts 15, we find the first description of what orthodox Christian leaders should do when others are teaching falsehood. The 'Judaizers', Christians (they are described as 'believers' in v. 5) who begin got teach that Gentiles must become Jews in order to become Christians. The church considers this false teaching but no action is reported as being taken against those who had upheld the false teaching. In 21:17ff, we can see that false teaching may not only still be flourishing in the church, but dominant in it; James warns Paul that Jewish believers are 'all zealous for the law.'
"In Acts 20, Paul is speaking to the Ephesian elders and at first expresses no confidence that all the elders are up to the standard required, only that if they are not, it's not Paul's fault, because has done the required teaching. He later admits that some will teach falsely. No action is recommended against them, only care not to become one of them.
"Romans 12:19 reminds Christians to leave punishment to God and overcome evil with good, a point which Paul will make again. In 13:13, Paul reminds the Christians of Rome that sexual immorality is not acceptable, but does not suggest any sanction against those who need this teaching. In 16:17, when people are wrongly adding to Christ's teaching, fellowship is broken with them to the extent that they are to be avoided."
Wainwright points to Paul's letters to Timothy as conclusive. False teachers are ordered to stop but no sanction accompanies this. Paul commands Timothy to 'have nothing to do with' false teachings 4:7, and to teach the truth instead (4:6) and to show them they are wrong and to rebuke them.
Wainwright says that Paul's second letter to Timothy was caused by Timothy's discouragement that there is still so much false teaching and immorality in the church. The whole tenor of this second letter is that faithlessness in the church is to be expected, and he mustn't let it stop him teaching the truth. The image in 2:20ff of the great house with vessels of varying degrees of nobility confirms the picture of a mixed church.
"The letter to Titus takes the same line. An overseer must be able to refute those who contradict him. He is to exhort and rebuke with authority and when someone won't listen, he is to warn him twice, and then have nothing to do with him.
"I Peter exhorts the leaders to tend the flock "as examples". II Peter says that heresy and sexual immorality can be expected to be rife in the churches and while encouraging leaders not to follow their example there is no sanction against the immoral or the heretical."
Wainwright notes that Diotrephes the false teacher is the only person in the NT described as putting someone out of the church. Likewise in Jude, it is the heretics who set up divisions, the faithful who work at convincing.
"In Revelation, there are false teachers in Ephesus, whom the faithful are commended for 'enduring patiently', 2:3 the faithful are rebuked for allowing their love to grow cold. In Pergamum there are false teachers, and the faithful are called to repentance as a result. In Thyatria, were sexual immorality is an issue, the faithful are rebuked for their 'toleration' or 'forgiveness' of one its promoters, but are given no other burden than holding fast to what they have. (2:24ff)."
Wainwright said that in Rev. 18:4, is the famous verse used by the 16th Century Anglican reformers to justify separation from the Roman church and other to justify separation from the Anglican Church, but neither can be justified by the context, which is the final judgment. It is the end of history, as Jesus had said in Matthew's account, that the faithful will be taken out of the mixed church in order that the unfaithful may be punished.
The evangelical priest said the thought most often used of heresy and immorality understood in the NT is "avoidance" a practice the orthodox should adopt at Diocesan meetings. "The recommended procedure doesn't seem to be any different in all cases; it's avoid them, not cast them out, even in the case of the immoral brother in Corinth.
Wainwright concluded his remarks by saying that the orthodox are to deal with the less-than-orthodox by being examples of faithfulness, by clearly pointing out to the former the error of their ways, and by limiting their personal fellowship with them in the hope that this will bring them round. "The constant exhortations to the faithful not to be drawn down the same path suggest that ecclesiastical fellowship was not broken, and in all the examples this level of fellowship seems to have been maintained. There is no suggestion anywhere that any of this would be different if the unorthodox were in the position of overseers, i.e. bishops."
"Separation and division, therefore, is not the scriptural response, and we must assume that the biblical thing to do is to stay together. A PECUSA parish leaving PECUSA is not exercising discipline; it is leaving a problem that it does not know how to deal with."
Other speakers said The Episcopal Church can be reformed. The Church of England in the 17th century was full of unbiblical elements. Congregationalists and Baptists broke away from it. Many faithful Christians stayed in the CofE. By the first half of the 18th Century the CofE was caught up in a huge revival. There is no church God cannot reform. The heart of the gospel is embraced in Anglicanism.
"We need to go on with faithful and godly expository preaching," said Wainwright. The old evangelical tradition is to be faithful in ministry in the local church year after year. The local church is where the real action is. We need a new fellowship of witness."
Recently fifteen bishops including four members of the Anglican Communion Institute declared their loyalty to The Episcopal Church and the inherent authority of a Bishop. They argued that the changing face of Anglicanism in North America and what looked like a power grab by Episcopal leaders in New York demanded that they address the issue of the historic episcopacy, "as a matter of faithfulness to our apostolic vocation and our Constitution."
"The traditional doctrine and worship and the historic polity of the Church are in grave peril. For this reason, we emphasize that The Episcopal Church consists of autonomous, but interdependent, dioceses not subject to any metropolitical power or hierarchical control. The Ecclesiastical Authorities in our dioceses are the Bishops and Standing Committees; no one else may act in or speak on behalf of the dioceses or of The Episcopal Church within the dioceses. We intend to exercise our episcopal authority to remain constituent members of the Anglican Communion and will continue to speak out on these issues as necessary."
The following bishops signed this document:
The Right Reverend James M. Adams, Jr.
Bishop of Western Kansas
The Right Reverend Peter H. Beckwith
Bishop of Springfield
The Right Reverend William C. Frey
Assisting Bishop of Rio Grande;
Retired Bishop of Colorado
The Right Reverend Alden M. Hathaway
Retired Bishop of Pittsburgh
The Right Reverend John W. Howe
Bishop of Central Florida
The Right Reverend Russell E. Jacobus
Bishop of Fond du Lac
The Right Reverend Paul E. Lambert
Bishop Suffragan of Dallas
The Right Reverend Mark J. Lawrence
Bishop of South Carolina
The Right Reverend Edward S. Little II
Bishop of Northern Indiana
The Right Reverend William H. Love
Bishop of Albany
The Right Reverend D. Bruce MacPherson
Bishop of Western Louisiana
The Right Reverend Edward L. Salmon, Jr.
Retired Bishop of South Carolina
The Right Reverend Michael G. Smith
Bishop of North Dakota
The Right Reverend James M. Stanton
Bishop of Dallas
The Right Reverend Don A. Wimberly
Bishop of Texas
Also Endorsed By:
The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner (The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.)
Following the bishops declaration a number of rectors' declared their support for the Bishops' Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church.
They concluded that the authority of the Episcopal Church resides at the diocesan level. They said that the structure of the church is "that of a voluntary association of equal dioceses." They also affirmed that the Constitution and Canons of the Church made no provision for either a central hierarchy or a Presiding Bishop with metropolitan authority. General Convention is a representation of dioceses and not communicants, with only an administrative role for the convention leadership, the voting members of the leadership themselves drawn from the diocesan deputations. In addition, the ordinal does not contain any language acknowledging or committing to submit to any metropolitan or central hierarchal authority.
They also argued for the adoption of the Covenant by parishes in their dioceses. "Such grace will allow these parishes and clergy to obey their consciences and calling to be members of the Anglican Communion and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."
The following priests signed this statement:
The Rev. Dr. Charles Alley Rector,
St. Matthew's Episcopal Church
Richmond, Virginia
The Rev. John D. Badders, Jr. Rector,
St. John's Episcopal Church
McAllen, Texas
The Rev. Phyllis Bartle Rector,
St. Jude's Episcopal Church
Orange City, Florida
The Rev. Milton E. Black, Jr. Rector,
Church of the Good Shepherd Corpus Christi, Texas
The Rev. Christopher Andrew Bowhay Rector,
St. Thomas' Episcopal Church Houston, Texas
The Rev. William J. Cavanaugh Rector,
Church of the Epiphany Richardson, Texas
The Very Reverend Anthony Clark Dean,
St. Luke's Cathedral Orlando, Florida
The Rev. Joseph N. Davis Rector,
Church of the Resurrection Franklin, Tennessee
The Very Rev. Canon Richard C. Doscher, Sr. Rector,
St. Alfred's Episcopal Church Palm Harbor, Florida
The Rev. Mifflin Dove, Jr. Rector,
St. Paul's Episcopal Church Katy, Texas
The Rev. Robert G. Eaton Rector,
St. John Episcopal Church Tulare, California
The Rev. Theodore W. Edwards, Jr. Rector,
St. George's Episcopal Church Bradenton, Florida
The Rev. Richard H. Elwood Rector,
St. Barnabas Episcopal Church Fredericksburg, Texas
The Rev. Frank E. Fuller Rector,
St. Mark's Episcopal Church Beaumont, Texas
The Rev. Ronald E. Greiser, Jr. Rector,
St. John's Episcopal Church Portsmouth, Virginia
The Rev. Laurens A. Hall Rector,
St. John the Divine Houston, Texas
The Rev. John F. Hardie Rector,
St. Mark's Episcopal Church Corpus Christi, Texas
The Rev. Theodore E. Hervey, Jr. Rector,
Epiphany Episcopal Church Bertram, Texas
The Rev. John M. Himes, OSF Rector,
Trinity Episcopal Church Marshall, Texas
The Rev. Charles L. Holt Rector,
St. Peter's Episcopal Church Lake Mary, Florida
The Rev. Robert Horowitz Rector,
Church of the Redeemer Greenville, South Carolina
The Rev. Thomas S. Hotchkiss Rector,
Church of The Advent Nashville, Tennessee
The Rev. Robert T. Jennings Rector,
St. Francis in the Fields Harrods Creek, South Carolina
The Rev. Bennett G. Jones, II Rector,
St. Paul Episcopal Church Munster, Indiana
The Rev. Timothy Jones Senior Associate Rector, St. George's Episcopal Church Nashville, Tennessee
The Rev. Jerome A. Kramer Rector,
Church of the Annunciation New Orleans, Louisiana
The Rev. Gerald W. Krumenacker, Jr. Rector,
Christ Church Dallas, Texas
The Rev. Ronald James LeBlanc Priest-in-Charge,
Church of the Incarnation Lafayette, Louisiana
The Rev. Dr. Russell J. Levenson, Jr. Rector,
St. Martin's Episcopal Church Houston, Texas
The Rev. John S. Liebler Rector,
St. Andrew's Church and Academy Fort Pierce, Florida
The Rev. Ramiro E. Lopez, Jr. Rector,
St. George Episcopal Church San Antonio, Texas
The Rev. Daniel H. Martins Rector,
St. Anne's Episcopal Church Warsaw, Indiana
The Very Rev. Dr. Jean McCurdy Meade Rector,
Mount Olivet Episcopal Church New Orleans, Louisiana
The Rev. Mark A. Michael Rector,
Saint Paul's Episcopal Church Sharpsburg, Maryland
The Rev. Ian Montgomery Retired Rector,
St. Thomas Church Menasha, Wisconsin
The Rev. Joel J. Morsch Rector,
Christ Church Bradenton, Florida
The Rev. Elizabeth L. Myers Rector,
St. Francis of Assisi Lake Placid, Florida
The Rev. David G. Newhart Rector,
St. Elizabeth's Episcopal Church Sebastian, Florida
The Rev. John Newton Rector,
Messiah Episcopal Church Saint Paul, Minnesota
The Very Rev. Timothy C. Nunez Rector,
St. Mary's Episcopal Church Belleview, Florida
The Rev. Robert P. Price Rector,
St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church Houston, Texas
The Rev. Dr. Darrel D. Proffitt Rector,
Church of the Holy Apostles Katy, Texas
The Rev. Fredrick Arthur Robinson Rector,
The Church of the Redeemer Sarasota, Florida
The Rev. Mark Seitz Rector,
St. Matthew's Episcopal Church Wheeling, West Virginia
The Rev. John Thomas Sheehan Rector,
The Church of Our Redeemer Aldie, Virginia
The Rev. Dr. Jerry Smith Rector,
St. Bartholomew's Parish Nashville, Tennessee
The Rev. Leigh Spruill Rector,
St. George's Episcopal Church Nashville, Tennessee
The Very Rev. Canon Harold L. Trott, SSC Vicar,
Church of Our Saviour Albuquerque, New Mexico
The Rev. Eric W. Turner, Sr. Rector,
St. John's Episcopal Church Melbourne, Florida
The Rev. Guido Verbeck Rector,
St. Paul's Episcopal Church Shreveport, Louisiana
The Very Rev. Dr. Edward A. Weiss, OSB, APC Rector,
Church of Our Saviour Okeechobee, Florida
The Rev. John T. Wells Rector,
Episcopal Church Of The Holy Spirit Waco, Texas
The Rev. Ted Welty Interim Rector,
Christ Episcopal Church Tyler, Texas
The Rev. Stockton Williams, Jr. Rector,
St. Peter's Episcopal Church
Kerrville, Texas
The Rev. Dr. Kenneth A. Wolfe Rector,
The Parish of Christ Church
Fitchburg, Massachusetts
The Rev. Michael Wyckoff Rector,
St. Luke's on the Lake
Austin, Texas
END
Friday, May 29, 2009
3 Bishops, ACI Call for Email Investigation
From The Living Church:
Posted on: May 27, 2009
Allegations of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy will be lodged by three bishops against a member of the national Executive Council and the president of Integrity in response to the misappropriation and publication of private correspondence.
Bishops John Howe of Central Florida, Mark Lawrence of South Carolina, and D. Bruce MacPherson of Western Louisiana, along with other leaders of the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI), are concerned about a possible “dirty tricks” campaign waged against the ACI by the Rev. Canon Mark Harris, the Rev. Susan Russell, and an unidentified member on the staff at the Diocese of Washington.
Priests “publishing the private emails of bishops is a matter of grave pastoral disorder,” said the Very Rev. Philip Turner, former dean of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and a member of the ACI. The publication of the correspondence also may violate laws concerning attorney-client privilege, Bishop MacPherson said.
The dispute involves the misappropriation of emails and a draft of an ACI paper titled “Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church.” Most of the private correspondence contained a standard legal disclaimer noting that the information was privileged and intended solely for those to whom it was addressed.
On April 21 Canon Harris published snippets from the bishops’ statement and 13 email messages exchanged among the ACI leaders and their lawyer. The following day, Ms. Russell published the bishops’ statement along with extracts from the emails and the Washington Blade, a secular gay-interest newspaper, published an expurgated version of the email exchange.
“Since when do we have priests publishing the private correspondence of bishops to each other?” Bishop Howe asked.
Writing on an internet blog maintained by Integrity Ms. Russell applauded the “outing” of the ACI because she said it was advocating an “unprecedented power grab by anti-gay bishops.”
A spokesman for the ACI said the organization did not contemplate pursuing civil or criminal remedies for the misappropriation of the private documents. One of the bishops said that formal ecclesiastical charges have not been preferred against either Ms. Russell or Canon Harris, but the matter has been brought to the attention of Bishop J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, which is where Ms. Russell is canonically resident, and the Bishop Wayne Wright, where Canon Harris resides.
Bishop MacPherson said it was a sad commentary of the current state of the church that such correspondence would be published, but he was more distressed by the damage the leaked information had done to the point the 14 bishops who signed the statement were trying to make.
“My prayer is that we will be able to find our way back as a church to following the constitution and canons that have been handed down to us,” he said. “The current leadership is moving away in another direction.”
(The Rev.) George Conger and Steve Waring
Posted on: May 27, 2009
Allegations of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy will be lodged by three bishops against a member of the national Executive Council and the president of Integrity in response to the misappropriation and publication of private correspondence.
Bishops John Howe of Central Florida, Mark Lawrence of South Carolina, and D. Bruce MacPherson of Western Louisiana, along with other leaders of the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI), are concerned about a possible “dirty tricks” campaign waged against the ACI by the Rev. Canon Mark Harris, the Rev. Susan Russell, and an unidentified member on the staff at the Diocese of Washington.
Priests “publishing the private emails of bishops is a matter of grave pastoral disorder,” said the Very Rev. Philip Turner, former dean of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and a member of the ACI. The publication of the correspondence also may violate laws concerning attorney-client privilege, Bishop MacPherson said.
The dispute involves the misappropriation of emails and a draft of an ACI paper titled “Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church.” Most of the private correspondence contained a standard legal disclaimer noting that the information was privileged and intended solely for those to whom it was addressed.
On April 21 Canon Harris published snippets from the bishops’ statement and 13 email messages exchanged among the ACI leaders and their lawyer. The following day, Ms. Russell published the bishops’ statement along with extracts from the emails and the Washington Blade, a secular gay-interest newspaper, published an expurgated version of the email exchange.
“Since when do we have priests publishing the private correspondence of bishops to each other?” Bishop Howe asked.
Writing on an internet blog maintained by Integrity Ms. Russell applauded the “outing” of the ACI because she said it was advocating an “unprecedented power grab by anti-gay bishops.”
A spokesman for the ACI said the organization did not contemplate pursuing civil or criminal remedies for the misappropriation of the private documents. One of the bishops said that formal ecclesiastical charges have not been preferred against either Ms. Russell or Canon Harris, but the matter has been brought to the attention of Bishop J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, which is where Ms. Russell is canonically resident, and the Bishop Wayne Wright, where Canon Harris resides.
Bishop MacPherson said it was a sad commentary of the current state of the church that such correspondence would be published, but he was more distressed by the damage the leaked information had done to the point the 14 bishops who signed the statement were trying to make.
“My prayer is that we will be able to find our way back as a church to following the constitution and canons that have been handed down to us,” he said. “The current leadership is moving away in another direction.”
(The Rev.) George Conger and Steve Waring
On the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America
From the Rev. J Philip Ashey, Chaplain of the American Anglican Council:
The Chaplain's Corner
This week, I would like to turn to the hope for a new province in the Anglican Communion - the Anglican Church in North America, and its upcoming Provincial Assembly on June 22-25 to ratify the Constitution and Canons adopted by the Provincial Council on April 27-28, 2009.
This week I have also been shaped by that wonderful passage from Acts 1:12-26, which speaks into the season we are in right now - between Ascension and Pentecost, that uncomfortable "in-between" time waiting for what Christ has promised, and for what we so desperately need. Anglicans who have left TEC to form the new province are in such a time: waiting uncomfortably between the promise of an orthodox Anglican Church in North America that is united, biblical and missional, and the hope for an outpouring of God's blessing upon the vessel that has been prepared - including the constitution and canons around which that vessel is built. Will the Provincial Assembly be our "Pentecost" and not simply a warmed-over version of TEC General Convention with an orthodox veneer? What can Acts 1:12-26 teach us about how to prepare for a Pentecost rather than a parliament?
Let me suggest three lessons from the upper room that can help us prepare for Pentecost and the spirit-filled and empowered mission of reaching the unchurched that is at the heart of our hopes for this new province.
1. They were obedient to Christ's commands - especially to prepare for mission
Jesus gave his disciples this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about." (Acts 1:4 NIV) Jesus went on to explain the purpose of that waiting, which was to receive power to be his witnesses, power to reach unbelievers and turn them into fully devoted followers of Jesus (Acts 1:8). After his ascension, Jesus' disciples did exactly what he had commended them. They returned to Jerusalem, went upstairs, and waited for the gift (Acts 1:12-13).
One of the defining characteristics of the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA is their obedience to Christ's commands - and especially the Great Commission. Article III of the Constitution proclaims the mission of the Province: "So to present Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit that people everywhere will come to put their trust in God through Him, know Him as Savior and serve Him as Lord in the fellowship of the Church." Article III goes on to describe this mission in terms of equipping every member to reconcile the world to Christ, planting new congregations and making disciples of all nations. Canon I.10.1 repeats the language of Article III in describing the people of God as the chief agents of mission, and Canon I.6.1 the local congregation (not the Diocese, please note) as the fundamental agency of that mission. For this very reason, proficiency in basic principles of cross-cultural communication, mission strategies, and personal relational evangelism and apologetics are among the requirements for ordination to the priesthood and leadership of the local church. (Canon III.4.2)
Likewise, the gathering of the whole Province at Provincial Assembly has as its chief work the strengthening of the mission of the Church - and not legislation. (Canon I.2.1) Governance is the chief work of the Provincial Council (Canon I.1.1), and in order to safeguard the missionary focus of all the people at Provincial Assembly they shall either ratify or send back to Provincial Council the Constitution, Canons or amendments adopted by Council (Canon I.2.2).
This is a fact to be celebrated, not a conspiracy. The challenge of missional Anglicans in 21st century post-modern and post-Christian America is NOT how to mobilize more legislators and legislative processes. Leave that to TEC. Our challenge is how to mobilize more church planters, more evangelists, and more apologists and missionaries to reach the unchurched. This challenge is addressed by the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA.
2. They suspended their suspicions and came together as one body
Consider the list of those present in the upper room in Acts 1:13b-14. The list includes those who denied Jesus and abandoned him at his trial, as well as his own brothers who scorned and deserted him while he was alive. There was doubting Thomas who removed himself from the other disciples and would not believe their accounts of the risen Lord. There were faithful women who never deserted our Lord. And yet the bible says "They ALL joined together..." (Acts 1:14 NIV)
We cannot imagine them coming together as they did without each of them suspending their own grievances, dislikes, accusations and suspicions of the others. I suspect they were there with each other in a spirit of humility and repentance. Why? Because each recognized his or her own failures in following Jesus. As a result, they were able to extend grace to each other and overlook their differences in order to come together in obedience to Christ.
I must confess some discouragement as I have followed discussion of the Constitution and Canons on several blogs. Those who have drafted, listened, edited and redrafted the C&C have been accused of party spirit, conspiracy, theological ignorance and worse. One comment I read jumped from the recommendation of the tithe as a minimum standard of giving to the inevitable construction of a national church bureaucracy of bill collectors. The commentator could be forgiven for not taking time to inquire and discover the facts that the budget for the whole Province (covering all Anglican churches in the USA and Canada) is less than half of the total budget of the church where I worship outside Atlanta! But the willingness to impute the worst possible motives and the worst possible scenarios is not at all in keeping with the spirit that brought the 120 together in that upper room.
The Preamble to the Constitution contains this important clause: "We repent ourselves of things done and left undone that have contributed to or tolerated the rise of false teaching, and we humbly embrace the forgiveness that comes through Christ's atoning sacrifice." We added this clause in response to public requests for suggestions and amendments, and because we recognized our own need for humility, repentance and forgiveness.
I understand the hermeneutics of suspicion. I have seen the dark side of Anglican and Episcopal church life in ways that many have not. I've lived almost my entire life under the abuse of ecclesiastical power. But pride, anger and self-righteousness are not the solution. These things simply divide us and deaden us.
When are we going to get serious about our own sins, and embrace the same spirit of humility, repentance, forgiveness and mutual grace that animated the upper room?
3. They prayed together constantly
"They all joined together constantly in prayer" (Acts 1:14 NIV). Waiting for the promise requires prayer. Not only petitionary prayer but also listening prayer. If we want to experience a Pentecost birth for the Anglican Church in North America, we need to take some time out from the arguments and debates to simply gather in the upper room and pray. We need time to listen to the Lord for direction. We need time to petition Him for the gift of the Holy Spirit, without which all our efforts will be in vain. We need to be in a posture of dependence rather than a posture of pride.
I trust that each of us, every church coming into the ACNA, and all our friends will intentionally set time aside to pray for God to pour out His blessings upon us, and to give us that supernatural power to accomplish the mission He has given us.
If we can set our hearts to obey Christ's commands and the Great Commission, suspend our suspicions in a spirit of humility, and join together in prayer, we too will experience that Pentecost promise of power to be witnesses for Jesus Christ.
"Glory to God whose power, working in us, can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine; Glory to him from generation to generation in the Church, and in Christ Jesus for ever and ever. Amen." (Ephesians 3:20-21)
In Christ,
Rev. J Philip Ashey, Chief Operating Officer and Chaplain
_________________________
The Chaplain's Corner
This week, I would like to turn to the hope for a new province in the Anglican Communion - the Anglican Church in North America, and its upcoming Provincial Assembly on June 22-25 to ratify the Constitution and Canons adopted by the Provincial Council on April 27-28, 2009.
This week I have also been shaped by that wonderful passage from Acts 1:12-26, which speaks into the season we are in right now - between Ascension and Pentecost, that uncomfortable "in-between" time waiting for what Christ has promised, and for what we so desperately need. Anglicans who have left TEC to form the new province are in such a time: waiting uncomfortably between the promise of an orthodox Anglican Church in North America that is united, biblical and missional, and the hope for an outpouring of God's blessing upon the vessel that has been prepared - including the constitution and canons around which that vessel is built. Will the Provincial Assembly be our "Pentecost" and not simply a warmed-over version of TEC General Convention with an orthodox veneer? What can Acts 1:12-26 teach us about how to prepare for a Pentecost rather than a parliament?
Let me suggest three lessons from the upper room that can help us prepare for Pentecost and the spirit-filled and empowered mission of reaching the unchurched that is at the heart of our hopes for this new province.
1. They were obedient to Christ's commands - especially to prepare for mission
Jesus gave his disciples this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about." (Acts 1:4 NIV) Jesus went on to explain the purpose of that waiting, which was to receive power to be his witnesses, power to reach unbelievers and turn them into fully devoted followers of Jesus (Acts 1:8). After his ascension, Jesus' disciples did exactly what he had commended them. They returned to Jerusalem, went upstairs, and waited for the gift (Acts 1:12-13).
One of the defining characteristics of the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA is their obedience to Christ's commands - and especially the Great Commission. Article III of the Constitution proclaims the mission of the Province: "So to present Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit that people everywhere will come to put their trust in God through Him, know Him as Savior and serve Him as Lord in the fellowship of the Church." Article III goes on to describe this mission in terms of equipping every member to reconcile the world to Christ, planting new congregations and making disciples of all nations. Canon I.10.1 repeats the language of Article III in describing the people of God as the chief agents of mission, and Canon I.6.1 the local congregation (not the Diocese, please note) as the fundamental agency of that mission. For this very reason, proficiency in basic principles of cross-cultural communication, mission strategies, and personal relational evangelism and apologetics are among the requirements for ordination to the priesthood and leadership of the local church. (Canon III.4.2)
Likewise, the gathering of the whole Province at Provincial Assembly has as its chief work the strengthening of the mission of the Church - and not legislation. (Canon I.2.1) Governance is the chief work of the Provincial Council (Canon I.1.1), and in order to safeguard the missionary focus of all the people at Provincial Assembly they shall either ratify or send back to Provincial Council the Constitution, Canons or amendments adopted by Council (Canon I.2.2).
This is a fact to be celebrated, not a conspiracy. The challenge of missional Anglicans in 21st century post-modern and post-Christian America is NOT how to mobilize more legislators and legislative processes. Leave that to TEC. Our challenge is how to mobilize more church planters, more evangelists, and more apologists and missionaries to reach the unchurched. This challenge is addressed by the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA.
2. They suspended their suspicions and came together as one body
Consider the list of those present in the upper room in Acts 1:13b-14. The list includes those who denied Jesus and abandoned him at his trial, as well as his own brothers who scorned and deserted him while he was alive. There was doubting Thomas who removed himself from the other disciples and would not believe their accounts of the risen Lord. There were faithful women who never deserted our Lord. And yet the bible says "They ALL joined together..." (Acts 1:14 NIV)
We cannot imagine them coming together as they did without each of them suspending their own grievances, dislikes, accusations and suspicions of the others. I suspect they were there with each other in a spirit of humility and repentance. Why? Because each recognized his or her own failures in following Jesus. As a result, they were able to extend grace to each other and overlook their differences in order to come together in obedience to Christ.
I must confess some discouragement as I have followed discussion of the Constitution and Canons on several blogs. Those who have drafted, listened, edited and redrafted the C&C have been accused of party spirit, conspiracy, theological ignorance and worse. One comment I read jumped from the recommendation of the tithe as a minimum standard of giving to the inevitable construction of a national church bureaucracy of bill collectors. The commentator could be forgiven for not taking time to inquire and discover the facts that the budget for the whole Province (covering all Anglican churches in the USA and Canada) is less than half of the total budget of the church where I worship outside Atlanta! But the willingness to impute the worst possible motives and the worst possible scenarios is not at all in keeping with the spirit that brought the 120 together in that upper room.
The Preamble to the Constitution contains this important clause: "We repent ourselves of things done and left undone that have contributed to or tolerated the rise of false teaching, and we humbly embrace the forgiveness that comes through Christ's atoning sacrifice." We added this clause in response to public requests for suggestions and amendments, and because we recognized our own need for humility, repentance and forgiveness.
I understand the hermeneutics of suspicion. I have seen the dark side of Anglican and Episcopal church life in ways that many have not. I've lived almost my entire life under the abuse of ecclesiastical power. But pride, anger and self-righteousness are not the solution. These things simply divide us and deaden us.
When are we going to get serious about our own sins, and embrace the same spirit of humility, repentance, forgiveness and mutual grace that animated the upper room?
3. They prayed together constantly
"They all joined together constantly in prayer" (Acts 1:14 NIV). Waiting for the promise requires prayer. Not only petitionary prayer but also listening prayer. If we want to experience a Pentecost birth for the Anglican Church in North America, we need to take some time out from the arguments and debates to simply gather in the upper room and pray. We need time to listen to the Lord for direction. We need time to petition Him for the gift of the Holy Spirit, without which all our efforts will be in vain. We need to be in a posture of dependence rather than a posture of pride.
I trust that each of us, every church coming into the ACNA, and all our friends will intentionally set time aside to pray for God to pour out His blessings upon us, and to give us that supernatural power to accomplish the mission He has given us.
If we can set our hearts to obey Christ's commands and the Great Commission, suspend our suspicions in a spirit of humility, and join together in prayer, we too will experience that Pentecost promise of power to be witnesses for Jesus Christ.
"Glory to God whose power, working in us, can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine; Glory to him from generation to generation in the Church, and in Christ Jesus for ever and ever. Amen." (Ephesians 3:20-21)
In Christ,
Rev. J Philip Ashey, Chief Operating Officer and Chaplain
_________________________
A Message from Bishop David Anderson
Dearly Beloved in Christ,
As the Western world turns further and further away from God and His ordered plan for humankind, and more and more toward the devices and desires of humanity's own thinking, chaos enters our churches, our legal systems, our schools, and almost every aspect of the communities that we live in.
Two areas of public interest that the news media exploit regularly are money and sex; ears perk up, eyes pop wide open, and the reader or listener is immediately paying attention. For many people, the two areas that they have the most difficulty responsibly and properly managing are money and sex. Both concern basic drives within human beings that at times are difficult to control, such as gratification, power, needing to be needed, and others. Both areas are of concern to God, and they can become a contest - whether we are willing to do things God's way or rebel and do things the way we want to.
The tithe (10%) that God asks for is a first step in our learning to properly use the 90% that is left over. The prohibitions and directions in Scripture about sexual relations are to channel the reproductive drive as well as other human needs into positive and protective relationships, which honor the physical structure that God has given each of us as male or female, and the family structures that we are born into, and then re-form in our own marriage and children, and then enjoy as aunts, uncles, siblings, parents, grandparents, etc. Although both areas, finance and sexuality, are under attack in today's Western culture, I want to focus here on the chaos in human sexuality.
The other day, television personality Larry King volunteered that he had been married eight times, but only was in love for three. Although this is an extreme, it highlights the problem of marriage in a world of throw-away relationships, and the insecurity that is imparted to children who go through a parental divorce. Many of my readers in the West will have gone through divorce, either their parents' or their own, and can testify to the pain and hurt which tearing a family apart inflicts on everyone. The problem of failing marriages is an important part of the chaos within the normally-oriented world, but it is only a part of the larger problem when all of the alternative sexualities are considered - there is the disorder and chaos within the Anglican church that surfaced with the consecration of V. Gene Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire (despite the fact that his homosexual relationship with a declared partner disqualified him from any order of ministry in the Christian Church), the adoption of same-sex blessings and the development of liturgies for such in the church, and the move by governments to legally establish perceived gender descriptions, orientations, or ways of dressing and acting within protected classes.
We read in the news that the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) is near splitting over the issue of gay clergy assignments. We are aware that pastors in Europe have been arrested or investigated by the police for reading passages from the Bible that speak against certain sexual behaviors, and now we are advised that the US House of Representatives just passed H.R. 1913, a so-called hate crimes bill that makes 'sexual orientation,' 'gender,' and 'gender identity' into federally-protected classes under the law. Without further definition of these categories, it gives these sexual behaviors federally protected minority status. Has Congress lost its collective mind?
The rebellion against God within the culture is unnerving, as we see behaviors that formerly were against the law and punishable by the courts now become exalted and given special protection. The rebellion within the Church is even sadder, for with the churches divided over even the basic Christian beliefs of the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible, there is clearly a stiff battle ahead. In a little over a month the American Anglican Council will be present at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, working to support orthodox deputies, and reporting the truthful news back to the world. One of the newer ministries of the AAC, the Episcopal Desk, which focuses on work with those orthodox people who are staying inside TEC, will help to encourage the orthodox deputies with daily worship, and provide them with committee news so they know what is coming up and what to watch for on the legislative floor.
In late June, in Bedford, Texas, the AAC will also be present for the first Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, which is an Anglican province organizing so that it can receive recognition and full communion status with the separate global Anglican Provinces. Some critics of the American Anglican Council ask how the AAC can work inside TEC and outside TEC at the same time, but such a question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the mission of the AAC. The AAC has a commitment to stand with orthodox Anglicans whatever church structure they may find themselves in, and to work for reformation and renewal within the larger Anglican Communion.
In the fall of 2003, the AAC partnered with Christ Church Plano to bring forth the Plano Conference, which soon had to be moved into Dallas, as the size grew far beyond even Christ Church's seating. Now the Common Cause Partners, who are becoming the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), together with Christ Church Plano, are again sponsoring a mega event in the enthronement of Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh as the first Archbishop and Primate of ACNA. A large crowd is expected - it will be an historic event of the first order.
The great hope is that the orthodox Anglicans, in coming together, can more effectively witness to the world around us with a visible sign of unity, more effectively spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and counter the culture around us that seems to be slipping into disorder and ungodliness.
Pray for the first Assembly of the ACNA, wherein the Constitution and Canons will be put to a vote of the representatives, and pray for the General Convention of The Episcopal Church in Anaheim, and those faithful orthodox Anglicans remaining inside TEC. Pray for us too, since we will be fully involved in both events.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
As the Western world turns further and further away from God and His ordered plan for humankind, and more and more toward the devices and desires of humanity's own thinking, chaos enters our churches, our legal systems, our schools, and almost every aspect of the communities that we live in.
Two areas of public interest that the news media exploit regularly are money and sex; ears perk up, eyes pop wide open, and the reader or listener is immediately paying attention. For many people, the two areas that they have the most difficulty responsibly and properly managing are money and sex. Both concern basic drives within human beings that at times are difficult to control, such as gratification, power, needing to be needed, and others. Both areas are of concern to God, and they can become a contest - whether we are willing to do things God's way or rebel and do things the way we want to.
The tithe (10%) that God asks for is a first step in our learning to properly use the 90% that is left over. The prohibitions and directions in Scripture about sexual relations are to channel the reproductive drive as well as other human needs into positive and protective relationships, which honor the physical structure that God has given each of us as male or female, and the family structures that we are born into, and then re-form in our own marriage and children, and then enjoy as aunts, uncles, siblings, parents, grandparents, etc. Although both areas, finance and sexuality, are under attack in today's Western culture, I want to focus here on the chaos in human sexuality.
The other day, television personality Larry King volunteered that he had been married eight times, but only was in love for three. Although this is an extreme, it highlights the problem of marriage in a world of throw-away relationships, and the insecurity that is imparted to children who go through a parental divorce. Many of my readers in the West will have gone through divorce, either their parents' or their own, and can testify to the pain and hurt which tearing a family apart inflicts on everyone. The problem of failing marriages is an important part of the chaos within the normally-oriented world, but it is only a part of the larger problem when all of the alternative sexualities are considered - there is the disorder and chaos within the Anglican church that surfaced with the consecration of V. Gene Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire (despite the fact that his homosexual relationship with a declared partner disqualified him from any order of ministry in the Christian Church), the adoption of same-sex blessings and the development of liturgies for such in the church, and the move by governments to legally establish perceived gender descriptions, orientations, or ways of dressing and acting within protected classes.
We read in the news that the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) is near splitting over the issue of gay clergy assignments. We are aware that pastors in Europe have been arrested or investigated by the police for reading passages from the Bible that speak against certain sexual behaviors, and now we are advised that the US House of Representatives just passed H.R. 1913, a so-called hate crimes bill that makes 'sexual orientation,' 'gender,' and 'gender identity' into federally-protected classes under the law. Without further definition of these categories, it gives these sexual behaviors federally protected minority status. Has Congress lost its collective mind?
The rebellion against God within the culture is unnerving, as we see behaviors that formerly were against the law and punishable by the courts now become exalted and given special protection. The rebellion within the Church is even sadder, for with the churches divided over even the basic Christian beliefs of the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible, there is clearly a stiff battle ahead. In a little over a month the American Anglican Council will be present at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, working to support orthodox deputies, and reporting the truthful news back to the world. One of the newer ministries of the AAC, the Episcopal Desk, which focuses on work with those orthodox people who are staying inside TEC, will help to encourage the orthodox deputies with daily worship, and provide them with committee news so they know what is coming up and what to watch for on the legislative floor.
In late June, in Bedford, Texas, the AAC will also be present for the first Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, which is an Anglican province organizing so that it can receive recognition and full communion status with the separate global Anglican Provinces. Some critics of the American Anglican Council ask how the AAC can work inside TEC and outside TEC at the same time, but such a question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the mission of the AAC. The AAC has a commitment to stand with orthodox Anglicans whatever church structure they may find themselves in, and to work for reformation and renewal within the larger Anglican Communion.
In the fall of 2003, the AAC partnered with Christ Church Plano to bring forth the Plano Conference, which soon had to be moved into Dallas, as the size grew far beyond even Christ Church's seating. Now the Common Cause Partners, who are becoming the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), together with Christ Church Plano, are again sponsoring a mega event in the enthronement of Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh as the first Archbishop and Primate of ACNA. A large crowd is expected - it will be an historic event of the first order.
The great hope is that the orthodox Anglicans, in coming together, can more effectively witness to the world around us with a visible sign of unity, more effectively spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and counter the culture around us that seems to be slipping into disorder and ungodliness.
Pray for the first Assembly of the ACNA, wherein the Constitution and Canons will be put to a vote of the representatives, and pray for the General Convention of The Episcopal Church in Anaheim, and those faithful orthodox Anglicans remaining inside TEC. Pray for us too, since we will be fully involved in both events.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
Disgraced Florida TV Priest Joins Episcopal Church
From The Living Church:
Posted on: May 28, 2009
The Rev. Alberto Cutié, the Roman Catholic priest and TV host who was removed from his parish after a celebrity magazine published photos of him kissing a woman on a beach, has been received into The Episcopal Church.
Fr. Cutie was received at Trinity Cathedral in Miami on May 28 by the Rt. Rev. Leo Frade, Bishop of Southeast Florida, who said that Mr. Cutié will pursue the priesthood.
But at a press conference that same day, the Most Rev. John C. Favalora, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Miami, said Fr. Cutié has not been released from his vows to the Roman Catholic priesthood. He described the actions by Bishop Frade as disappointing and disrespectful.
“Bishop Frade has never spoken to me about his position on this delicate matter, or what actions he was contemplating,” Archbishop Favalora said. “I have only heard from him through the local media. This truly is a serious setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation between us.
“The Archdiocese of Miami has never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination,” Archbishop Favalora continued. “In fact to do would violate the principles of the Catholic Church governing ecumenical relations. I regret that Bishop Frade has not afforded me or the Catholic community the same courtesy and respect.”
“In the end, the message of Father Alberto’s decision to join the Episcopal Church is the very message that is central to our church, its teachings, and its opportunities for growth and evangelism in the future,” Bishop Frade said in a letter sent to the diocese’s clergy. “Our central mission in the days ahead will be of course to welcome Father Alberto, and to support him on his path, but we recognize as well that his very personal and spiritual decision offers a window into our own story – the story of the Episcopal Church.”
Fr. Cutié, 40, was removed from his Miami Beach congregation and his Spanish language television and radio talk shows on May 5 after TVnotas published photos of him cavorting with Ruhama Buni Canellis. Ms. Canellis was also received into The Episcopal Church by Bishop Frade.
At a press conference following the service, Fr. Cutié said he and Ms. Canellis have been dating for two years and that they are engaged to be married.
Bishop Frade said that while Fr. Cutié pursues the requirements necessary to be received into the ordained priesthood of The Episcopal Church, he has granted Fr. Cutié a license to preach and appointed him to a special initiative to provide “emergency responses to Episcopal churches in urgent need.” His first assignment will be to preach May 31 at Church of the Resurrection, Biscayne Park.
Posted on: May 28, 2009
The Rev. Alberto Cutié, the Roman Catholic priest and TV host who was removed from his parish after a celebrity magazine published photos of him kissing a woman on a beach, has been received into The Episcopal Church.
Fr. Cutie was received at Trinity Cathedral in Miami on May 28 by the Rt. Rev. Leo Frade, Bishop of Southeast Florida, who said that Mr. Cutié will pursue the priesthood.
But at a press conference that same day, the Most Rev. John C. Favalora, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Miami, said Fr. Cutié has not been released from his vows to the Roman Catholic priesthood. He described the actions by Bishop Frade as disappointing and disrespectful.
“Bishop Frade has never spoken to me about his position on this delicate matter, or what actions he was contemplating,” Archbishop Favalora said. “I have only heard from him through the local media. This truly is a serious setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation between us.
“The Archdiocese of Miami has never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination,” Archbishop Favalora continued. “In fact to do would violate the principles of the Catholic Church governing ecumenical relations. I regret that Bishop Frade has not afforded me or the Catholic community the same courtesy and respect.”
“In the end, the message of Father Alberto’s decision to join the Episcopal Church is the very message that is central to our church, its teachings, and its opportunities for growth and evangelism in the future,” Bishop Frade said in a letter sent to the diocese’s clergy. “Our central mission in the days ahead will be of course to welcome Father Alberto, and to support him on his path, but we recognize as well that his very personal and spiritual decision offers a window into our own story – the story of the Episcopal Church.”
Fr. Cutié, 40, was removed from his Miami Beach congregation and his Spanish language television and radio talk shows on May 5 after TVnotas published photos of him cavorting with Ruhama Buni Canellis. Ms. Canellis was also received into The Episcopal Church by Bishop Frade.
At a press conference following the service, Fr. Cutié said he and Ms. Canellis have been dating for two years and that they are engaged to be married.
Bishop Frade said that while Fr. Cutié pursues the requirements necessary to be received into the ordained priesthood of The Episcopal Church, he has granted Fr. Cutié a license to preach and appointed him to a special initiative to provide “emergency responses to Episcopal churches in urgent need.” His first assignment will be to preach May 31 at Church of the Resurrection, Biscayne Park.
A Defeat for Same-Sex Marriage
Via VirtueOnline:
By Mike McManus
May 27, 2009
The liberal California Supreme Court, which issued a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage only a year ago, reversed itself and upheld, by a 6-1 vote, the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which added this sentence to the state's Constitution: "Only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California."
However, it also ruled that the 18,000 same-sex couples who "married" between May and the passage of Prop 8 in November, remain valid. Clearly, the court ignored the plain meaning of the amendment which it declared constitutional in the same decision.
Nevertheless, some feared that the court which had overturned a referendum in which Californians voted 61% against counterfeit marriage in 2000 - would do so again.
In this week's decision, the Court said its role is "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our personal beliefs and values."
Sounds noble, but if the court had really set aside its personal beliefs, it would not have grandfathered in the 18,000 same-sex unions performed last year.
That exemption for existing marriages is "a ticking time bomb" that could give a federal court a way to declare Prop 8 a violation of the U.S. Constitution, asserts Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "You have people in the same state being treated differently, so you have an equal protection clause challenge in the making."
In fact, the intent of the court may well have been to issue a contradictory opinion that it knew could eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Why didn't the California Supremes simply vote to overturn the Constitutional Amendment? In that state, the public can vote to "recall" judges who they think have acted improperly. Prop 8 supporters openly talked about such an action, had the vote of seven million Californians on the Constitutional Amendment been ignored by the court.
In the three months since the case was argued, three more states have legalized same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut, which had already done so.
On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court voted unanimously to strike down a state law that limited marriage to couples of the opposite sex. It cited the earlier California Supreme Court ruling 4-3 to overturn the 2000 referendum.
Within a week, the Vermont Legislature voted narrowly to override a governor's veto of gay marriage legislation. Maine passed a same-sex bill on May 6, which was quickly signed by the governor.
However, California Supreme Court's endorsement of traditional marriage demonstrates a new court respect for the power of the people on this issue. When the public is given a voice, it always opposes gay marriage, as it did twice in California, a determination that would have led to the recall of Justices who dared flout public will.
A poll by CNN/Opinion Research April 23-26 found that 54 percent of voters say same-sex unions should not be recognized vs. 44 percent who said they should be legal.
Therefore, the National Organization for Marriage is working hard to overturn Maine's decision by putting gay marriage on the ballot in November, which now appears likely. I predict that like California, Maine voters will demonstrate that the public does not consider same-sex unions to be marriage.
NOM's tactics differ in each state. In the Democratically controlled New Hampshire Legislature, the issue has been debated for four months. NOM placed three phone calls to each household, warning that if gays won, religious liberties would be threatened. NOM was proven right when a same-sex bill that contained expanded religious protection was defeated by 188-186. Backers of gay marriage refused to compromise, though Gov. John Lynch said he would sign a bill with that protection.
Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, who is also a syndicated columnist, blames the press for not covering the issue in New York, where State Sen. Reuben Diaz of the Bronx, and a Democrat, a surprising leader of traditional marriage - has gotten little visibility.
Her answer: ads will be running this weekend on a big screen in Times Square and in the home districts of key legislators.
"We had to bypass the media and go directly to voters," she asserted.
However, on the day after California's Supreme Court's decision, an unlikely pair of lawyers, two men who represented opposing sides in the Bush v. Gore case, former U.S Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boies, announced a federal law suit to take the Prop 8 case to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming gays have a "right" to marriage.
There's no rest for the weary.
---Michael J. McManus is a syndicated columnist writing on "Ethics & Religion". He is President & Co-Chair of Marriage Savers. He lives with his wife in Potomac, MD.
By Mike McManus
May 27, 2009
The liberal California Supreme Court, which issued a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage only a year ago, reversed itself and upheld, by a 6-1 vote, the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which added this sentence to the state's Constitution: "Only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California."
However, it also ruled that the 18,000 same-sex couples who "married" between May and the passage of Prop 8 in November, remain valid. Clearly, the court ignored the plain meaning of the amendment which it declared constitutional in the same decision.
Nevertheless, some feared that the court which had overturned a referendum in which Californians voted 61% against counterfeit marriage in 2000 - would do so again.
In this week's decision, the Court said its role is "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our personal beliefs and values."
Sounds noble, but if the court had really set aside its personal beliefs, it would not have grandfathered in the 18,000 same-sex unions performed last year.
That exemption for existing marriages is "a ticking time bomb" that could give a federal court a way to declare Prop 8 a violation of the U.S. Constitution, asserts Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "You have people in the same state being treated differently, so you have an equal protection clause challenge in the making."
In fact, the intent of the court may well have been to issue a contradictory opinion that it knew could eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Why didn't the California Supremes simply vote to overturn the Constitutional Amendment? In that state, the public can vote to "recall" judges who they think have acted improperly. Prop 8 supporters openly talked about such an action, had the vote of seven million Californians on the Constitutional Amendment been ignored by the court.
In the three months since the case was argued, three more states have legalized same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut, which had already done so.
On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court voted unanimously to strike down a state law that limited marriage to couples of the opposite sex. It cited the earlier California Supreme Court ruling 4-3 to overturn the 2000 referendum.
Within a week, the Vermont Legislature voted narrowly to override a governor's veto of gay marriage legislation. Maine passed a same-sex bill on May 6, which was quickly signed by the governor.
However, California Supreme Court's endorsement of traditional marriage demonstrates a new court respect for the power of the people on this issue. When the public is given a voice, it always opposes gay marriage, as it did twice in California, a determination that would have led to the recall of Justices who dared flout public will.
A poll by CNN/Opinion Research April 23-26 found that 54 percent of voters say same-sex unions should not be recognized vs. 44 percent who said they should be legal.
Therefore, the National Organization for Marriage is working hard to overturn Maine's decision by putting gay marriage on the ballot in November, which now appears likely. I predict that like California, Maine voters will demonstrate that the public does not consider same-sex unions to be marriage.
NOM's tactics differ in each state. In the Democratically controlled New Hampshire Legislature, the issue has been debated for four months. NOM placed three phone calls to each household, warning that if gays won, religious liberties would be threatened. NOM was proven right when a same-sex bill that contained expanded religious protection was defeated by 188-186. Backers of gay marriage refused to compromise, though Gov. John Lynch said he would sign a bill with that protection.
Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, who is also a syndicated columnist, blames the press for not covering the issue in New York, where State Sen. Reuben Diaz of the Bronx, and a Democrat, a surprising leader of traditional marriage - has gotten little visibility.
Her answer: ads will be running this weekend on a big screen in Times Square and in the home districts of key legislators.
"We had to bypass the media and go directly to voters," she asserted.
However, on the day after California's Supreme Court's decision, an unlikely pair of lawyers, two men who represented opposing sides in the Bush v. Gore case, former U.S Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boies, announced a federal law suit to take the Prop 8 case to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming gays have a "right" to marriage.
There's no rest for the weary.
---Michael J. McManus is a syndicated columnist writing on "Ethics & Religion". He is President & Co-Chair of Marriage Savers. He lives with his wife in Potomac, MD.
Coming Attractions: GenCon 09 - Off the Deep End?
Via VirtueOnline:
by David C. Trimble
http://stillonpatrol.typepad.com/still_on_patrol/2009/05/coming-attractions-gencon-09-off-the-deep-end.html
May 26, 2009
As more pre-convention information is floated into the electronic ether, the shape and face of the upcoming triennial General Convention of the Episcopal Church is becoming ever more clear. And it is not a pretty sight.
One proposed resolution, DO13, seems to say it all in regard to illustrating TEO's view of the world. This resolution in its opening paragraph seeks that the General Convention affirm TEO's membership in the Anglican Communion and support of whatever it was that happened at Lambeth 2008. (Does this include the boycott and non-participation of many orthodox Bishops? Hmmm.) In its second paragraph, the resolution also seeks affirmation of TEO's "distinctive polity and charism" that "requires" TEO to include LGBT persons "in all orders of the ministry." Yes, TEO business as usual - we want to hold on to the brand-name "Anglican", but we don't want to play by the rules while doing so.
The LGBT agenda will be fully realized at GenCon 09. No fewer than eight resolutions have been filed so far seeking in various forms that GenCon 06 Resolution BO33 either be rescinded outright, or a declaration be made that no one is bound by it. No fewer than four resolutions have been submitted directing the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music to develop rites and blessings for same-sex unions and present them at GenCon 12. Some reference inclusion of such rites in the "occasional Services" book, but others seem to intend actual inclusion in the Book of Common Prayer. Another resolution, CO28, seeks that all marriage rites be revised to use gender-neutral language.
What else? CO01 seeks to amend Title III, Canon 1, Section 2 to include "gender identity or expression of gender identity" as prohibited bases for discrimination in admission to the discernment process for entry into the ministry. CO61 echoes this proposal. CO04 seeks affirmation that there is no restriction on a Diocesan Bishop allowing blessings of same-sex marriages. CO25 seeks that parish priests be required to register civil unions along with marriages. And CO55 generally seeks support for people in same gender relationships.
Another set of resolutions seek to codify TEO's political activism on behalf ofLGBT causes. CO23 proposes a rejection of the proposition that same-sex unions have a detrimental effect on traditional marriage, seeks an effort to repeal the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, and an effort to campaign against state level anti-same-sex marriage laws. CO48 seeks support for the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a substantial broadening of Federal anti-discrimination laws to include all of the LGBT proposals. DO12 is similar but less specific.
I have little doubt there will be many more such resolutions by the time the Convention convenes in Anaheim. My prediction is that all of this agenda will be passed in some form or fashion, and TEO on the far side of the Convention will be working to amend the BCP and/or Book of Occasional Services to include same-sex rites, and to render all language gender-neutral. BO33 from GenCon 06 is toast, despite Rowan Williams' warnings to the contrary. And TEO will have become what will be essentially a political action committee for the LGBT legislative agenda in Congress and state legislatures.
It is in another aspect of this General Convention that this all takes on a more sinister appearance. Remember the amendments being proposed to the Title IV disciplinary Canons? What is being presented as a needed reorganization of the disciplinary Canons into a format similar to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and/or other professional disciplinary codes, is also being contemplated by TEO leadership as making it far easier for them to impose church discipline on orthodox Bishops and clergy, thus completing their iron-fisted grip on the national church. The overall, abiding intent of the proposed amendments is to make it easier for the national church to push discipline and conformity with their view of what TEO should be.
A very good example may be found in a very small change to the "abandonment of communion" canon. As you probably know by now, the "abandonment of communion" canon is the one most frequently applied by the High Priestess to try to take out her enemies from the orthodox side of the aisle. "Abandonment of Communion" is now defined by three different actions: (1) an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of this Church, or (2) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with same, or (3) by exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than this Church. Because (2) and(3) are fairly well-defined, clause (1), the "open renunciation" clause, is the one usually used by the Priestess.
Now let's look at the Title IV amendment to this section. It adds a fourth way to abandon communion: "(iv) IN ANY OTHER WAY." (my emphasis). Does anyone see any opportunity for abuse with this wide-open amendment? Add to this the knowledge that clergy can be charged with abandonment even for matters within what they teach locally, i.e., in their sermons, in Bible Study or Sunday School class, or in private discussions with parishioners, the possibilities for being charged with "abandonment of communion" suddenly become endless. What if a Priest expresses his or her concern or disagreement with same-sex marriage, based upon Biblical teachings? What I am suggesting is that said Priest could be charged with "abandonment of communion" once these changes go through.
Once BO33 is repealed, and once the amendments are made to the liturgy, those become part and parcel of the "Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship" of TEO. That being accomplished, any clergy who disagree with same-sex blessings or marriages, or who refuse to perform one, could theoretically be charged and inhibited, and even defrocked, for "abandonment of communion." Given the scorched-earth policies of 815 under the High Priestess, the mind boggles at how far she may be planning to go once these amendments are in place. In other words, the ability of those who espouse an "inside strategy", to fight the apostasies of TEO from within, may suddenly find that their legs have been cut from beneath them when they are forcibly removed from their Episcopal posts and careers.
One need only remember the treachery shown by TEO if there is any doubt of the lengths to which they will go to consolidate their power. Remember that TEO forced the Diocese of Virginia to renege on a stand-still agreement and institute litigation against eleven parishes and their individual Priests, Wardens and Vestries. Remember that TEO in Connecticut, through its captive Bishop, walked into a church office, confiscated computers and records, changed the locks, and forcibly threw a congregation and priest out. Remember that TEO in central New York has accused Fr. Matt Kennedy and his congregation of theft in its quest to seize every asset that congregation had. Remember other accusations of dishonesty and theft levelled against clergy who dared defy TEO. Remember those events, and it is not at all difficult to imagine where the High Priestess and her minions might go with these new amendments.
What can those who remain in TEO do? I fear, ultimately very little can be done. The LGBT forces and their allies have been consolidating in anticipation of this moment for a long time. The best hope to stymie them is to talk with convention Deputies from your Diocese and show them the big, horrifying picture into which they are walking. They will be told that the LGBT resolutions are all about "fairness and equality", but they will not be shown how those will be used in combination with disciplinary cannons to canonically execute any orthodox resistance. Demand of them some serious thought and analysis of where this whole thing is going, and demand of them that they go into this convention with their eyes wide open.
And always, ever remember, that ACNA, among other options, is out there for orthodox Anglicans when they have finally had enough. God will not abandon His faithful. Stand Firm.
END
by David C. Trimble
http://stillonpatrol.typepad.com/still_on_patrol/2009/05/coming-attractions-gencon-09-off-the-deep-end.html
May 26, 2009
As more pre-convention information is floated into the electronic ether, the shape and face of the upcoming triennial General Convention of the Episcopal Church is becoming ever more clear. And it is not a pretty sight.
One proposed resolution, DO13, seems to say it all in regard to illustrating TEO's view of the world. This resolution in its opening paragraph seeks that the General Convention affirm TEO's membership in the Anglican Communion and support of whatever it was that happened at Lambeth 2008. (Does this include the boycott and non-participation of many orthodox Bishops? Hmmm.) In its second paragraph, the resolution also seeks affirmation of TEO's "distinctive polity and charism" that "requires" TEO to include LGBT persons "in all orders of the ministry." Yes, TEO business as usual - we want to hold on to the brand-name "Anglican", but we don't want to play by the rules while doing so.
The LGBT agenda will be fully realized at GenCon 09. No fewer than eight resolutions have been filed so far seeking in various forms that GenCon 06 Resolution BO33 either be rescinded outright, or a declaration be made that no one is bound by it. No fewer than four resolutions have been submitted directing the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music to develop rites and blessings for same-sex unions and present them at GenCon 12. Some reference inclusion of such rites in the "occasional Services" book, but others seem to intend actual inclusion in the Book of Common Prayer. Another resolution, CO28, seeks that all marriage rites be revised to use gender-neutral language.
What else? CO01 seeks to amend Title III, Canon 1, Section 2 to include "gender identity or expression of gender identity" as prohibited bases for discrimination in admission to the discernment process for entry into the ministry. CO61 echoes this proposal. CO04 seeks affirmation that there is no restriction on a Diocesan Bishop allowing blessings of same-sex marriages. CO25 seeks that parish priests be required to register civil unions along with marriages. And CO55 generally seeks support for people in same gender relationships.
Another set of resolutions seek to codify TEO's political activism on behalf ofLGBT causes. CO23 proposes a rejection of the proposition that same-sex unions have a detrimental effect on traditional marriage, seeks an effort to repeal the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, and an effort to campaign against state level anti-same-sex marriage laws. CO48 seeks support for the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a substantial broadening of Federal anti-discrimination laws to include all of the LGBT proposals. DO12 is similar but less specific.
I have little doubt there will be many more such resolutions by the time the Convention convenes in Anaheim. My prediction is that all of this agenda will be passed in some form or fashion, and TEO on the far side of the Convention will be working to amend the BCP and/or Book of Occasional Services to include same-sex rites, and to render all language gender-neutral. BO33 from GenCon 06 is toast, despite Rowan Williams' warnings to the contrary. And TEO will have become what will be essentially a political action committee for the LGBT legislative agenda in Congress and state legislatures.
It is in another aspect of this General Convention that this all takes on a more sinister appearance. Remember the amendments being proposed to the Title IV disciplinary Canons? What is being presented as a needed reorganization of the disciplinary Canons into a format similar to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and/or other professional disciplinary codes, is also being contemplated by TEO leadership as making it far easier for them to impose church discipline on orthodox Bishops and clergy, thus completing their iron-fisted grip on the national church. The overall, abiding intent of the proposed amendments is to make it easier for the national church to push discipline and conformity with their view of what TEO should be.
A very good example may be found in a very small change to the "abandonment of communion" canon. As you probably know by now, the "abandonment of communion" canon is the one most frequently applied by the High Priestess to try to take out her enemies from the orthodox side of the aisle. "Abandonment of Communion" is now defined by three different actions: (1) an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of this Church, or (2) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with same, or (3) by exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than this Church. Because (2) and(3) are fairly well-defined, clause (1), the "open renunciation" clause, is the one usually used by the Priestess.
Now let's look at the Title IV amendment to this section. It adds a fourth way to abandon communion: "(iv) IN ANY OTHER WAY." (my emphasis). Does anyone see any opportunity for abuse with this wide-open amendment? Add to this the knowledge that clergy can be charged with abandonment even for matters within what they teach locally, i.e., in their sermons, in Bible Study or Sunday School class, or in private discussions with parishioners, the possibilities for being charged with "abandonment of communion" suddenly become endless. What if a Priest expresses his or her concern or disagreement with same-sex marriage, based upon Biblical teachings? What I am suggesting is that said Priest could be charged with "abandonment of communion" once these changes go through.
Once BO33 is repealed, and once the amendments are made to the liturgy, those become part and parcel of the "Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship" of TEO. That being accomplished, any clergy who disagree with same-sex blessings or marriages, or who refuse to perform one, could theoretically be charged and inhibited, and even defrocked, for "abandonment of communion." Given the scorched-earth policies of 815 under the High Priestess, the mind boggles at how far she may be planning to go once these amendments are in place. In other words, the ability of those who espouse an "inside strategy", to fight the apostasies of TEO from within, may suddenly find that their legs have been cut from beneath them when they are forcibly removed from their Episcopal posts and careers.
One need only remember the treachery shown by TEO if there is any doubt of the lengths to which they will go to consolidate their power. Remember that TEO forced the Diocese of Virginia to renege on a stand-still agreement and institute litigation against eleven parishes and their individual Priests, Wardens and Vestries. Remember that TEO in Connecticut, through its captive Bishop, walked into a church office, confiscated computers and records, changed the locks, and forcibly threw a congregation and priest out. Remember that TEO in central New York has accused Fr. Matt Kennedy and his congregation of theft in its quest to seize every asset that congregation had. Remember other accusations of dishonesty and theft levelled against clergy who dared defy TEO. Remember those events, and it is not at all difficult to imagine where the High Priestess and her minions might go with these new amendments.
What can those who remain in TEO do? I fear, ultimately very little can be done. The LGBT forces and their allies have been consolidating in anticipation of this moment for a long time. The best hope to stymie them is to talk with convention Deputies from your Diocese and show them the big, horrifying picture into which they are walking. They will be told that the LGBT resolutions are all about "fairness and equality", but they will not be shown how those will be used in combination with disciplinary cannons to canonically execute any orthodox resistance. Demand of them some serious thought and analysis of where this whole thing is going, and demand of them that they go into this convention with their eyes wide open.
And always, ever remember, that ACNA, among other options, is out there for orthodox Anglicans when they have finally had enough. God will not abandon His faithful. Stand Firm.
END
FT. WORTH: Rump Diocesan Bishop Makes Last Ditch Appeal to Orthodox Anglicans
Via VirtueOnline:
THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH
Thc Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr. D.D.,
Provisional Bishop of Fort Worth
May 26, 2009
Dear Father _____________
In this Paschal season. I greet you in the Name of Jesus Christ crucified and risen. 1 also greet you as a brother in Christ and rejoice that no issues or divisions within the body of Christ are as strong or defining as the bond and covenant that the living God establishes in the waters of Holy Baptism.
I want to begin by thanking you for your service as a priest or deacon in the Episcopal Church. I know that many have benefited from your devoted service and the effect of your faithful ministry continues in the lives you have touched.
I know that many of you have searched your hearts and conscience and have come to a decision to join with Bishop Iker to realign your allegiance with Anglicans in the Southern Cone.
It is not my intention in writing you this letter to trespass upon your conscience in this mailer or to offer any new arguments or words of persuasion.
However, before I begin to exercise certain canonical responsibilities regarding the status of those who have left the Episcopal Church. 1 feel compelled to offer to meet with you. if you wish, for a conversation related to your own discernment and decision.
Since the convention of the Diocese of Fort Worth in November the primates have met, the Anglican Consultative Council has met, and legal decisions, have been rendered in several jurisdictions in the United States which may well impact and inform realities here in Texas.
In fairness to you, 1 would like to be absolutely sure that your decision to leave the Episcopal Church is final and that your conscience and soul are at peace. If that is in fact the case, then any canonical action that I am forced to perform as Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth will simply be the declaration of a reality that exists.
If on the other hand, there is still an open ended space for further discernment, I stand ready to be available to consult and pray deeply with you about your relationship to the Episcopal Church. If you would like to have a conversation with me, you can be assured that the content of the conversation will be held in confidence.
I am preserving the following dates for appointments: I have afternoons free on June 9, 10. 12 and 15. If I do not hear from you by return mail, 1 will assume that you have made your decision. Please know that 1 join with you in Christ's prayer that all may be one and in the hope that this present season of brokenness in Christ's one body will be healed by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
Faithfully yours,
The Right Reverend Edwin F. Gulick, Jr.
Provisional Bishop of Fort Worth
3550 Southwest Loop 820,
Fort Worth, TX 76133
phone 817 921.4533
fax 817 926.8278
email edofw@att.net
www.episcopaldiocesefortworth.org
A Diocese of the Episcopal Church
THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH
Thc Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr. D.D.,
Provisional Bishop of Fort Worth
May 26, 2009
Dear Father _____________
In this Paschal season. I greet you in the Name of Jesus Christ crucified and risen. 1 also greet you as a brother in Christ and rejoice that no issues or divisions within the body of Christ are as strong or defining as the bond and covenant that the living God establishes in the waters of Holy Baptism.
I want to begin by thanking you for your service as a priest or deacon in the Episcopal Church. I know that many have benefited from your devoted service and the effect of your faithful ministry continues in the lives you have touched.
I know that many of you have searched your hearts and conscience and have come to a decision to join with Bishop Iker to realign your allegiance with Anglicans in the Southern Cone.
It is not my intention in writing you this letter to trespass upon your conscience in this mailer or to offer any new arguments or words of persuasion.
However, before I begin to exercise certain canonical responsibilities regarding the status of those who have left the Episcopal Church. 1 feel compelled to offer to meet with you. if you wish, for a conversation related to your own discernment and decision.
Since the convention of the Diocese of Fort Worth in November the primates have met, the Anglican Consultative Council has met, and legal decisions, have been rendered in several jurisdictions in the United States which may well impact and inform realities here in Texas.
In fairness to you, 1 would like to be absolutely sure that your decision to leave the Episcopal Church is final and that your conscience and soul are at peace. If that is in fact the case, then any canonical action that I am forced to perform as Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth will simply be the declaration of a reality that exists.
If on the other hand, there is still an open ended space for further discernment, I stand ready to be available to consult and pray deeply with you about your relationship to the Episcopal Church. If you would like to have a conversation with me, you can be assured that the content of the conversation will be held in confidence.
I am preserving the following dates for appointments: I have afternoons free on June 9, 10. 12 and 15. If I do not hear from you by return mail, 1 will assume that you have made your decision. Please know that 1 join with you in Christ's prayer that all may be one and in the hope that this present season of brokenness in Christ's one body will be healed by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
Faithfully yours,
The Right Reverend Edwin F. Gulick, Jr.
Provisional Bishop of Fort Worth
3550 Southwest Loop 820,
Fort Worth, TX 76133
phone 817 921.4533
fax 817 926.8278
email edofw@att.net
www.episcopaldiocesefortworth.org
A Diocese of the Episcopal Church
VANCOUVER, BC: Day 4 - Trial of ANiC Parishes v Diocese of New Westminster
From the ACiC via VirtueOnline:
by Cheryl Chang
May 28, 2009
In God, whose word I praise, in God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can mortal man do to me?
(Ps 56:4)
Today was a short day in court, ending just after noon, which although surprising, was a great relief. The Rev David Short, rector of St John's Shaughnessy since 1993, was on the stand for only a couple of hours when many of us were expecting more than a full day.
David was born in Africa, where his father was serving as an Anglican priest and where his grandfather had also served as an Anglican priest. His father later became a bishop in the Diocese of Sydney so David was raised in Africa and Australia. He grew up knowing that he belonged to a global group of churches that no matter where you were in the world, you believed the same faith.
He described the difference between "communion" - the spiritual and personal reality that exists when we put our faith in Christ and are united with God and with all those who believe the same faith - and "Communion" - which relates to the structures that have evolved to promote and protect our faith. He discussed how the Solemn Declaration of 1893 and the Windsor Report reflect that understanding.
He explained how, when he arrived in Vancouver to attend Regent College in 1991, he found St John's to be of the same character as Anglican churches in Sydney, "liturgically centrist, broadly speaking... evangelical" and with a number of ministries both in and outside the parish.
He discussed his involvement with the synods, clergy conferences and as regional dean for several years, as well as reaction to Bishop Ingham's book, Mansions of the Spirit and the pastoral issues it raised in the congregation. He said the vote of the diocesan Synod in 2001 "shocked" him after the clear position taken by the House of Bishops in 1997 and the Lambeth Conference in1998. After the 2001 vote, a number of conservative clergy in the diocese met with Bishop Ingham to indicate the depth of their concern and that this was a "no go area" for them. Just before the 2002 Synod, he delivered a legal opinion to Bishop Ingham that said because the issue of same-sex blessings is an issue of doctrine, it was only within the jurisdiction of the General Synod and any motion would be ultra vires (beyond the authority of the diocesan synod).
He discussed the conscience clause offered by Bishop Ingham, saying that such clauses are only for issues of "conscience" that Christians can legitimately disagree on. Where the Scripture is clear, it cannot be a "conscience (clause) issue" between believers. He had tried to explain to the bishop, that because of the Lambeth resolution and his understanding of scripture, this was a matter that would violate his conscience. He said, "It goes to our understanding that our unity in the church is based on the doctrine of the church." To sign a conscience clause would make "our mission incoherent to other Christians". David said that he and two others went to see the then Metropolitan, Archbishop David Crawley, but "he was not sympathetic to our view".
After the vote in June 2002, a number of synod delegates and observers walked out to visibly demonstrate the depth of the crisis. He said it was "like a train hitting a fork in the track and the train continuing but splitting in two and going down both tracks". That group met in one of the churches and formed the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW). They felt the diocese had broken communion and they needed to find a way to reconnect with the Communion. They resolved to seek alternative episcopal oversight, ideally from the Canadian House of Bishops (HOB). He discussed some of the highlights (and low lights) of the years spent appealing to the HOB, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates - including the offer by (then) Bishop Terry Buckle to provide alternative episcopal oversight which was opposed by Bishop Ingham, and the canonical charges brought against him which he thought was "a medieval way of dealing with a deep theological divide. I was saddened and didn't feel this was an appropriate way to deal with it."
He talked about the Primates' meetings and the Windsor Report and how he and a few others met with 14 to 18 Global South primates in Dar es Salaam, just prior to the Primates' meeting in 2007. At that meeting, the Chairman asked Archbishop Venables if he was willing to provide oversight for ANiC parishes and he replied that he would have to consult with his House of Bishops, but he was willing. They affirmed they would support him in this. After the Canadian General Synod meeting in 2007, David came to the conclusion that there would be no Canadian solution forthcoming and St John's voted in February 2008 to accept the episcopal oversight of Bishop Don Harvey under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Greg Venables and the province of the Southern Cone. He affirmed that Archbishop Venables' oversight was intended to be temporary until one of a number of things happens: "Either unity breaks out... one or the other side turns to another view... or the [new North American] province is recognized".
He discussed the difference in the way the issue of women's ordination was dealt with by the Communion, where all four instruments of unity were consulted and found a way forward, whereas all four instruments of unity have said "don't proceed" with same-sex blessings.
Cross examination dealt with questions relating to the bishop's jurisdiction, David's status as a priest being dependant upon Bishop Harvey's status, and the Dar es Salaam meeting David attended was not one of the four instruments of unity - to which David replied, "No, but to have 70-80% of the communion represented by those primates is not insignificant". Although Mr. Macintosh insisted that David was seeking a bishop "who thought like you did", David remained steadfast that he sought a bishop who "was in communion" (with the global Anglican Communion) and who held the doctrine of the Church, not one who agreed with his personal views.
Mr. Macintosh went on to ask about the diocesan assessments not paid by St John's since 2002, asking if David was aware they were $2.3 million. David thought that was very high since in 2002, St John's was paying about $110,000 - which would amount to $660,000 over six years. Mr Macintosh asked whether St John's had contributed to the Residential Schools Claim (RSC) and David explained that the diocesan portion of the RSC had been paid from the diocesan New Development Fund, a fund which St John's and all the parishes had paid into for many years. The subsequent diocesan fund-raising was to replenish the New Development Fund, but because communion was breached, St John's did not contribute. However, parishioners were informed that they could contribute if they wished to.
Further questions touched on the Legal and Canonical Commission Report and the contrary legal opinion provided to the bishop prior to the 2002 vote, the conscience clause issues, Bishop Ingham's demands to affirm his canonical obedience, and an earlier comment he made about the trust. In response to his final question, "There's no declaration of trust?", David replied, "Apart from the Solemn Declaration and all that makes us Anglican?". Mr Macintosh advised he had no further questions at that point.
The trial has been adjourned until Monday morning when the diocese and Bishop will begin presenting their evidence. Bishop Ingham will be on the stand on Monday morning.
It is important to be aware that most of the evidence in this "expedited trial", is actually contained in some 75+ affidavits which have been filed with the court. The testimony in court is merely to give the judge some overview and sense of the people involved, but is in no way to be considered "all" of the evidence before the court.
Please continue to pray as our legal team prepares to cross-examine the diocese's witnesses next week, and as they prepare for the closing arguments the following week.
Your sister in Christ,
Cheryl Chang
Additional information on the court case is posted to the ANiC website.
by Cheryl Chang
May 28, 2009
In God, whose word I praise, in God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can mortal man do to me?
(Ps 56:4)
Today was a short day in court, ending just after noon, which although surprising, was a great relief. The Rev David Short, rector of St John's Shaughnessy since 1993, was on the stand for only a couple of hours when many of us were expecting more than a full day.
David was born in Africa, where his father was serving as an Anglican priest and where his grandfather had also served as an Anglican priest. His father later became a bishop in the Diocese of Sydney so David was raised in Africa and Australia. He grew up knowing that he belonged to a global group of churches that no matter where you were in the world, you believed the same faith.
He described the difference between "communion" - the spiritual and personal reality that exists when we put our faith in Christ and are united with God and with all those who believe the same faith - and "Communion" - which relates to the structures that have evolved to promote and protect our faith. He discussed how the Solemn Declaration of 1893 and the Windsor Report reflect that understanding.
He explained how, when he arrived in Vancouver to attend Regent College in 1991, he found St John's to be of the same character as Anglican churches in Sydney, "liturgically centrist, broadly speaking... evangelical" and with a number of ministries both in and outside the parish.
He discussed his involvement with the synods, clergy conferences and as regional dean for several years, as well as reaction to Bishop Ingham's book, Mansions of the Spirit and the pastoral issues it raised in the congregation. He said the vote of the diocesan Synod in 2001 "shocked" him after the clear position taken by the House of Bishops in 1997 and the Lambeth Conference in1998. After the 2001 vote, a number of conservative clergy in the diocese met with Bishop Ingham to indicate the depth of their concern and that this was a "no go area" for them. Just before the 2002 Synod, he delivered a legal opinion to Bishop Ingham that said because the issue of same-sex blessings is an issue of doctrine, it was only within the jurisdiction of the General Synod and any motion would be ultra vires (beyond the authority of the diocesan synod).
He discussed the conscience clause offered by Bishop Ingham, saying that such clauses are only for issues of "conscience" that Christians can legitimately disagree on. Where the Scripture is clear, it cannot be a "conscience (clause) issue" between believers. He had tried to explain to the bishop, that because of the Lambeth resolution and his understanding of scripture, this was a matter that would violate his conscience. He said, "It goes to our understanding that our unity in the church is based on the doctrine of the church." To sign a conscience clause would make "our mission incoherent to other Christians". David said that he and two others went to see the then Metropolitan, Archbishop David Crawley, but "he was not sympathetic to our view".
After the vote in June 2002, a number of synod delegates and observers walked out to visibly demonstrate the depth of the crisis. He said it was "like a train hitting a fork in the track and the train continuing but splitting in two and going down both tracks". That group met in one of the churches and formed the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW). They felt the diocese had broken communion and they needed to find a way to reconnect with the Communion. They resolved to seek alternative episcopal oversight, ideally from the Canadian House of Bishops (HOB). He discussed some of the highlights (and low lights) of the years spent appealing to the HOB, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates - including the offer by (then) Bishop Terry Buckle to provide alternative episcopal oversight which was opposed by Bishop Ingham, and the canonical charges brought against him which he thought was "a medieval way of dealing with a deep theological divide. I was saddened and didn't feel this was an appropriate way to deal with it."
He talked about the Primates' meetings and the Windsor Report and how he and a few others met with 14 to 18 Global South primates in Dar es Salaam, just prior to the Primates' meeting in 2007. At that meeting, the Chairman asked Archbishop Venables if he was willing to provide oversight for ANiC parishes and he replied that he would have to consult with his House of Bishops, but he was willing. They affirmed they would support him in this. After the Canadian General Synod meeting in 2007, David came to the conclusion that there would be no Canadian solution forthcoming and St John's voted in February 2008 to accept the episcopal oversight of Bishop Don Harvey under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Greg Venables and the province of the Southern Cone. He affirmed that Archbishop Venables' oversight was intended to be temporary until one of a number of things happens: "Either unity breaks out... one or the other side turns to another view... or the [new North American] province is recognized".
He discussed the difference in the way the issue of women's ordination was dealt with by the Communion, where all four instruments of unity were consulted and found a way forward, whereas all four instruments of unity have said "don't proceed" with same-sex blessings.
Cross examination dealt with questions relating to the bishop's jurisdiction, David's status as a priest being dependant upon Bishop Harvey's status, and the Dar es Salaam meeting David attended was not one of the four instruments of unity - to which David replied, "No, but to have 70-80% of the communion represented by those primates is not insignificant". Although Mr. Macintosh insisted that David was seeking a bishop "who thought like you did", David remained steadfast that he sought a bishop who "was in communion" (with the global Anglican Communion) and who held the doctrine of the Church, not one who agreed with his personal views.
Mr. Macintosh went on to ask about the diocesan assessments not paid by St John's since 2002, asking if David was aware they were $2.3 million. David thought that was very high since in 2002, St John's was paying about $110,000 - which would amount to $660,000 over six years. Mr Macintosh asked whether St John's had contributed to the Residential Schools Claim (RSC) and David explained that the diocesan portion of the RSC had been paid from the diocesan New Development Fund, a fund which St John's and all the parishes had paid into for many years. The subsequent diocesan fund-raising was to replenish the New Development Fund, but because communion was breached, St John's did not contribute. However, parishioners were informed that they could contribute if they wished to.
Further questions touched on the Legal and Canonical Commission Report and the contrary legal opinion provided to the bishop prior to the 2002 vote, the conscience clause issues, Bishop Ingham's demands to affirm his canonical obedience, and an earlier comment he made about the trust. In response to his final question, "There's no declaration of trust?", David replied, "Apart from the Solemn Declaration and all that makes us Anglican?". Mr Macintosh advised he had no further questions at that point.
The trial has been adjourned until Monday morning when the diocese and Bishop will begin presenting their evidence. Bishop Ingham will be on the stand on Monday morning.
It is important to be aware that most of the evidence in this "expedited trial", is actually contained in some 75+ affidavits which have been filed with the court. The testimony in court is merely to give the judge some overview and sense of the people involved, but is in no way to be considered "all" of the evidence before the court.
Please continue to pray as our legal team prepares to cross-examine the diocese's witnesses next week, and as they prepare for the closing arguments the following week.
Your sister in Christ,
Cheryl Chang
Additional information on the court case is posted to the ANiC website.
Day 3 - Trial of ANiC Parishes v Diocese of New Westminster
From the ACiC via VirtueOnline:
May 27, 2009
Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good. His love endures forever. (Psalm 136:1)
Bishop Ron Ferris
Today, Bishop Ron Ferris continued his cross-examination in the morning. Mr Macintosh began sparring once again on whether or not certain canons could have been used in a certain way to challenge Bishop Ingham's "decision" to implement the blessing of same sex unions. Mr Justice Kelleher objected to Mr Macintosh's approach of asking Bishop Ferris to agree with his statement or opinion, and when Bishop Ferris disagreed, then saying "Well, you're not a canon lawyer".
That ended that line of questioning and Mr Macintosh then went on to see if Bishop Ron was aware of any "strategy" of ANiC to "take other parishes out of the Anglican Church of Canada". Bishop Ron advised he is not aware of any such strategy and that ANiC has always made clear in public statements and on their website that we only assist parishes that approach us or invite us to come and speak.
In answer to a question about the tension between faith and teaching vs "social relevance", Bishop Ron responded "A priest or bishop has to serve his faith and God, and if relevance results from that faithfulness, that is good". When questioning Bishop Ron about a statement in his affidavit referring to the diocese's attempts "to evict faithful Anglican congregations from their buildings, (most especially the Chinese Anglican congregations)", Mr Macintosh tried to get Bishop Ron to say that, "clergy aside", Bishop Ingham had never actually evicted any congregation and that the congregations were welcome to stay. Bishop Ron responded that clergy are part of the congregation, and just as there is "constructive dismissal", so he saw there could be "constructive eviction", and pointed out that if the diocese had simply consented, there could be two groups functioning in the diocese. Mr Macintosh ended his cross-examination by pointing out that none of the congregations or priests were ever asked to do same sex blessings.
Mrs Linda Seale
Linda Seale, a churchwarden from St Matthew's was next on the stand. She has attended St Matthew's continuously since 1979, having been baptized in the United Church but was "largely unchurched" until she met her husband and began attending an Anglican church. She was married in the Anglican Church and her sons were baptized in Anglican churches as well. She has been active in the parish of St Matthew's and was involved in researching and assisted with the writing of the church history for its centennial in 2000. In addition, she has held various leadership roles over the years.
Linda said her reaction to being "out of communion" as a result of the diocese's actions in 2002 and 2003, was "grief", saying it was troubling at a deep spiritual level and raised "concerns about our theology and what we commonly believe".
She shared information about the parish's statistics (members - approx. 571, average Sunday Attendance - 200-300 people, and some of their 70+ ministries) and their worship, explaining they offer both traditional and contemporary services on Sundays.
The original property was built and paid for by parishioners in 1900 and a new building was built on land purchased in the 1970's, and completed in 1977. Money for this new building came from parishioners and they had a $200,000 bank loan as well as an interest bearing loan of $44,000 from the diocese (although at a lower rate than the bank loan). Both loans were paid off by the parishioners.
After the parish grew rapidly in the 70s and 80s, the diocese required the parish to incorporate when they wanted to get a bank loan to expand their building, to insulate the diocese from any liability. The incorporation occurred, and a mortgage was obtained and paid off by 2003, again paid off with funds from the parishioners.
Linda then recounted an incident she found distressing. Following a week-long conference in 1994 led by Bishop Ingham, she expressed her concerns to him that his teaching at the conference appeared to promote pluralism. She asked him how this related to John 14:6 where Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". In response, Bishop Ingham had replied that there are some things you had to let go of. Linda said she was "shocked" that a bishop could say such a thing.
She then described some of the events subsequent to the vote in 2002, including a period where a number of parishioners took turns sleeping at the church after Bishop Ingham, without notice to the congregation, changed the locks at St Martin's in North Vancouver and replaced all the Trustees. She described other events leading up to the vote to accept the oversight of Bishop Don Harvey, under the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone in February 2008 and the subsequent imposition of Canon 15 on their parish in the summer of 2008, which precipitated this lawsuit.
During cross-examination, Linda was questioned about the process the Bishop undertook in the lead-up to the vote in 2002: including withholding his consent twice previously (1998 and 2001), the twinning parishes/dialogue process, appointing a legal and canonical commission, and meetings with clergy about the conscience clause. Mr Macintosh then went on to question about the withholding of assessments after the vote in 2002 (suggesting they amounted to $793,000, although Linda was unable to confirm that figure), and about monies that went to the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) coalition. He further said that the parish had not paid a portion of the residential schools claim accepted by the Diocese of New Westminster. Linda pointed out that assessments are voluntary as were the residential school claim fundraising pledges and that St Matthew's never made such a pledge.
After mentioning that (then) Bishop Buckle had tied his 2003 offer of episcopal oversight to jurisdiction, and that he would need full power to appoint priests, Mr Macintosh went on to point out that Bishop Ingham had appointed conservative priests for the parishes, no priest or parish had been asked to do same sex blessings, and people in the congregation had come and gone over the years. Finally, he confirmed that Canon 15 had only been imposed after St Matthew's advised it had "left the Anglican Church of Canada", but Linda pointed out that they referred to it as "realignment".
Mrs Gail Stevenson
Gail Stevenson became a member of St John's Shaughnessy 68 years ago when she was baptized in a "small brown wooden building" at age 5. She attended York House School, which was then associated with the parish, and attended the church without her family. Her 4 children were all married at St John's and all of her 13 grandchildren were baptized in the Anglican Church, 9 of them at St John's. Her mother eventually became an active member of the parish after being "fascinated by the powerful place of faith" that she saw in Gail and came to St John's to discover it. Her parents and sister-in-law are laid to rest in the memorial garden. Gail was active in many ministries over the years and currently serves in the prayer ministry and a Bible study.
Her parents contributed to the new church building, built in memory of those who had died in WWII, and Gail was one of the first group of communicants in the new church. She and her husband have been faithful donors over the years.
She recalled Rev Harry Robinson's world renowned ministry which she described as "very powerful, very transforming and very Biblical". Visitors to Vancouver - especially from Toronto and England –would come to St John's because of his preaching. She said the ministry carried on under Rev David Short, describing it as "a seamless transition... very evangelical, very Biblically based".
She was "disturbed" by Bishop Ingham's preaching on Easter Sunday in 1994. She read his book, Mansions of the Spirit and found his teaching "foreign to what I had learned". She found that the scriptures and coming to a living faith brought "freedom" and was distressed by anything that took that freedom away. She said, "The prospect of remaining in a diocese that blesses same-sex unions is not workable. The tenets of faith have changed. It's like a marriage that is no longer working. You can't be together because the divisions are too great." She described the division as "heartbreaking, sad and tragic. I never thought we would come to something like this."
On cross-examination, Mr Macintosh pointed out that the CPR gave $50,000 to St John's for the building fund but sat down after Gail was unable to confirm that or answer questions about assessments and residential school settlements. He also got her to confirm that she highly endorsed the clergy appointments at St John's.
Mr Peter Y G Pang
Court ended early when Mr Macintosh chose not to cross-examine the third witness on the stand, Mr Peter Y G Pang, a parishioner from Church of the Good Shepherd, the largest Chinese Anglican church in Canada.
In his direct examination, Peter gave a powerful testimony of his life of faith. Born in 1943 in Saba, a state in the federation of Malaysia, he was taught and encouraged in his life of faith by Anglican missionaries from the UK, after they helped him overcome his "inferiority complex", resulting from years of bullying because he was left with a physical handicap from a bout with polio as a child.
He shared his passion for the bible and the Anglican Church, saying, "When I read the Bible, God speaks to me, whispers to me ". He said the Bible is the guide and authority for his life, "inspired by God... God-breathed... that is what I have been taught in the Anglican Church". He finds the liturgy "a treasure, systematic and orderly", particularly in the Book of Common Prayer and described the Anglican Church as "universal and catholic - wherever I go, I can feel at home". While living in Malaysia, he was able to travel and study in New Zealand, spent a month in England and ended up in Canada in 1988. "But, wherever I went, I felt I could fit in easily; it [the Anglican Church] is my home and I can communicate with everyone I meet." He emphasized the Anglican Communion was like a big family. He found his church home at Good Shepherd because it was "a very Bible-based church" that concentrated "on preaching the gospel and this is what I love." He was blessed to take two mission teams to Saba, one in 1992 and another in 2002, to share the gospel.
He discussed his interaction with the diocese, first as a lay delegate to Synod in 1992 and again in 1998 when he spoke "very passionately against the blessing of same-sex unions" because he it was "against the teaching of scripture and against the will of God" and further "that it would be a departure from Anglican theology". If passed, he felt it would be difficult for him to witness for Christ.
After the 2002 vote, a group of parishioners from Good Shepherd visited Bishop Ingham to attempt reconciliation and to share their pain with the person they considered their chief pastor. At the same time, he said, they wanted to listen to the bishop. It was also very important for them "to tell him that, even though we don't accept the blessing of same-sex unions, we are not against homosexuals, not against those who live together outside marriage. We are just ministers of God and we are sinners ourselves and there is no basis for us to reject anyone." After the bishop explained how this is like the issue of slavery where the church changed its mind, and that the diocese is a very diverse family with different views, he said "I hope you can stay, but if you cannot stay and you have to leave, you have to leave the property behind." Peter was devastated that the bishop would seem "more concerned about the property than his flock" and that he did not plead with them or show a loving attitude toward them.
Peter discussed the importance of being "in the world and not of it", saying that when the apostles came out from the upper room, they turned the world upside down. "I am worried that we will be turned upside down by the world."
He said that he voted to join the Southern Cone in 2008, "Firstly, because it is Anglican. I am Anglican. I want to belong to an Anglican Church and the Anglican Communion." Finally, he praised Bishop Don, who had also been to Saba and experienced what Peter had experienced, saying, "He is a person who loves the church, who loves the congregation... He has sacrificed a lot to be with us. I know by joining ANiC, the kind of pastoring I will receive."
We praise God for His faithful servants who testified today and for all those who upheld them in prayer. Christ was held high.
Tomorrow, Rev David Short will be on the stand from 10:00 am. Please pray for him as we expect it to be a long day for him and he has not been well in the last two weeks.
Thanks for your partnership in the gospel,
Cheryl Chang
Additional information on the court case is posted to the ANiC website http://anglicannetwork.ca/legal_updates_0509.htm - including links to the Diocese of New Westminster daily statements as well as media articles.
May 27, 2009
Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good. His love endures forever. (Psalm 136:1)
Bishop Ron Ferris
Today, Bishop Ron Ferris continued his cross-examination in the morning. Mr Macintosh began sparring once again on whether or not certain canons could have been used in a certain way to challenge Bishop Ingham's "decision" to implement the blessing of same sex unions. Mr Justice Kelleher objected to Mr Macintosh's approach of asking Bishop Ferris to agree with his statement or opinion, and when Bishop Ferris disagreed, then saying "Well, you're not a canon lawyer".
That ended that line of questioning and Mr Macintosh then went on to see if Bishop Ron was aware of any "strategy" of ANiC to "take other parishes out of the Anglican Church of Canada". Bishop Ron advised he is not aware of any such strategy and that ANiC has always made clear in public statements and on their website that we only assist parishes that approach us or invite us to come and speak.
In answer to a question about the tension between faith and teaching vs "social relevance", Bishop Ron responded "A priest or bishop has to serve his faith and God, and if relevance results from that faithfulness, that is good". When questioning Bishop Ron about a statement in his affidavit referring to the diocese's attempts "to evict faithful Anglican congregations from their buildings, (most especially the Chinese Anglican congregations)", Mr Macintosh tried to get Bishop Ron to say that, "clergy aside", Bishop Ingham had never actually evicted any congregation and that the congregations were welcome to stay. Bishop Ron responded that clergy are part of the congregation, and just as there is "constructive dismissal", so he saw there could be "constructive eviction", and pointed out that if the diocese had simply consented, there could be two groups functioning in the diocese. Mr Macintosh ended his cross-examination by pointing out that none of the congregations or priests were ever asked to do same sex blessings.
Mrs Linda Seale
Linda Seale, a churchwarden from St Matthew's was next on the stand. She has attended St Matthew's continuously since 1979, having been baptized in the United Church but was "largely unchurched" until she met her husband and began attending an Anglican church. She was married in the Anglican Church and her sons were baptized in Anglican churches as well. She has been active in the parish of St Matthew's and was involved in researching and assisted with the writing of the church history for its centennial in 2000. In addition, she has held various leadership roles over the years.
Linda said her reaction to being "out of communion" as a result of the diocese's actions in 2002 and 2003, was "grief", saying it was troubling at a deep spiritual level and raised "concerns about our theology and what we commonly believe".
She shared information about the parish's statistics (members - approx. 571, average Sunday Attendance - 200-300 people, and some of their 70+ ministries) and their worship, explaining they offer both traditional and contemporary services on Sundays.
The original property was built and paid for by parishioners in 1900 and a new building was built on land purchased in the 1970's, and completed in 1977. Money for this new building came from parishioners and they had a $200,000 bank loan as well as an interest bearing loan of $44,000 from the diocese (although at a lower rate than the bank loan). Both loans were paid off by the parishioners.
After the parish grew rapidly in the 70s and 80s, the diocese required the parish to incorporate when they wanted to get a bank loan to expand their building, to insulate the diocese from any liability. The incorporation occurred, and a mortgage was obtained and paid off by 2003, again paid off with funds from the parishioners.
Linda then recounted an incident she found distressing. Following a week-long conference in 1994 led by Bishop Ingham, she expressed her concerns to him that his teaching at the conference appeared to promote pluralism. She asked him how this related to John 14:6 where Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". In response, Bishop Ingham had replied that there are some things you had to let go of. Linda said she was "shocked" that a bishop could say such a thing.
She then described some of the events subsequent to the vote in 2002, including a period where a number of parishioners took turns sleeping at the church after Bishop Ingham, without notice to the congregation, changed the locks at St Martin's in North Vancouver and replaced all the Trustees. She described other events leading up to the vote to accept the oversight of Bishop Don Harvey, under the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone in February 2008 and the subsequent imposition of Canon 15 on their parish in the summer of 2008, which precipitated this lawsuit.
During cross-examination, Linda was questioned about the process the Bishop undertook in the lead-up to the vote in 2002: including withholding his consent twice previously (1998 and 2001), the twinning parishes/dialogue process, appointing a legal and canonical commission, and meetings with clergy about the conscience clause. Mr Macintosh then went on to question about the withholding of assessments after the vote in 2002 (suggesting they amounted to $793,000, although Linda was unable to confirm that figure), and about monies that went to the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) coalition. He further said that the parish had not paid a portion of the residential schools claim accepted by the Diocese of New Westminster. Linda pointed out that assessments are voluntary as were the residential school claim fundraising pledges and that St Matthew's never made such a pledge.
After mentioning that (then) Bishop Buckle had tied his 2003 offer of episcopal oversight to jurisdiction, and that he would need full power to appoint priests, Mr Macintosh went on to point out that Bishop Ingham had appointed conservative priests for the parishes, no priest or parish had been asked to do same sex blessings, and people in the congregation had come and gone over the years. Finally, he confirmed that Canon 15 had only been imposed after St Matthew's advised it had "left the Anglican Church of Canada", but Linda pointed out that they referred to it as "realignment".
Mrs Gail Stevenson
Gail Stevenson became a member of St John's Shaughnessy 68 years ago when she was baptized in a "small brown wooden building" at age 5. She attended York House School, which was then associated with the parish, and attended the church without her family. Her 4 children were all married at St John's and all of her 13 grandchildren were baptized in the Anglican Church, 9 of them at St John's. Her mother eventually became an active member of the parish after being "fascinated by the powerful place of faith" that she saw in Gail and came to St John's to discover it. Her parents and sister-in-law are laid to rest in the memorial garden. Gail was active in many ministries over the years and currently serves in the prayer ministry and a Bible study.
Her parents contributed to the new church building, built in memory of those who had died in WWII, and Gail was one of the first group of communicants in the new church. She and her husband have been faithful donors over the years.
She recalled Rev Harry Robinson's world renowned ministry which she described as "very powerful, very transforming and very Biblical". Visitors to Vancouver - especially from Toronto and England –would come to St John's because of his preaching. She said the ministry carried on under Rev David Short, describing it as "a seamless transition... very evangelical, very Biblically based".
She was "disturbed" by Bishop Ingham's preaching on Easter Sunday in 1994. She read his book, Mansions of the Spirit and found his teaching "foreign to what I had learned". She found that the scriptures and coming to a living faith brought "freedom" and was distressed by anything that took that freedom away. She said, "The prospect of remaining in a diocese that blesses same-sex unions is not workable. The tenets of faith have changed. It's like a marriage that is no longer working. You can't be together because the divisions are too great." She described the division as "heartbreaking, sad and tragic. I never thought we would come to something like this."
On cross-examination, Mr Macintosh pointed out that the CPR gave $50,000 to St John's for the building fund but sat down after Gail was unable to confirm that or answer questions about assessments and residential school settlements. He also got her to confirm that she highly endorsed the clergy appointments at St John's.
Mr Peter Y G Pang
Court ended early when Mr Macintosh chose not to cross-examine the third witness on the stand, Mr Peter Y G Pang, a parishioner from Church of the Good Shepherd, the largest Chinese Anglican church in Canada.
In his direct examination, Peter gave a powerful testimony of his life of faith. Born in 1943 in Saba, a state in the federation of Malaysia, he was taught and encouraged in his life of faith by Anglican missionaries from the UK, after they helped him overcome his "inferiority complex", resulting from years of bullying because he was left with a physical handicap from a bout with polio as a child.
He shared his passion for the bible and the Anglican Church, saying, "When I read the Bible, God speaks to me, whispers to me ". He said the Bible is the guide and authority for his life, "inspired by God... God-breathed... that is what I have been taught in the Anglican Church". He finds the liturgy "a treasure, systematic and orderly", particularly in the Book of Common Prayer and described the Anglican Church as "universal and catholic - wherever I go, I can feel at home". While living in Malaysia, he was able to travel and study in New Zealand, spent a month in England and ended up in Canada in 1988. "But, wherever I went, I felt I could fit in easily; it [the Anglican Church] is my home and I can communicate with everyone I meet." He emphasized the Anglican Communion was like a big family. He found his church home at Good Shepherd because it was "a very Bible-based church" that concentrated "on preaching the gospel and this is what I love." He was blessed to take two mission teams to Saba, one in 1992 and another in 2002, to share the gospel.
He discussed his interaction with the diocese, first as a lay delegate to Synod in 1992 and again in 1998 when he spoke "very passionately against the blessing of same-sex unions" because he it was "against the teaching of scripture and against the will of God" and further "that it would be a departure from Anglican theology". If passed, he felt it would be difficult for him to witness for Christ.
After the 2002 vote, a group of parishioners from Good Shepherd visited Bishop Ingham to attempt reconciliation and to share their pain with the person they considered their chief pastor. At the same time, he said, they wanted to listen to the bishop. It was also very important for them "to tell him that, even though we don't accept the blessing of same-sex unions, we are not against homosexuals, not against those who live together outside marriage. We are just ministers of God and we are sinners ourselves and there is no basis for us to reject anyone." After the bishop explained how this is like the issue of slavery where the church changed its mind, and that the diocese is a very diverse family with different views, he said "I hope you can stay, but if you cannot stay and you have to leave, you have to leave the property behind." Peter was devastated that the bishop would seem "more concerned about the property than his flock" and that he did not plead with them or show a loving attitude toward them.
Peter discussed the importance of being "in the world and not of it", saying that when the apostles came out from the upper room, they turned the world upside down. "I am worried that we will be turned upside down by the world."
He said that he voted to join the Southern Cone in 2008, "Firstly, because it is Anglican. I am Anglican. I want to belong to an Anglican Church and the Anglican Communion." Finally, he praised Bishop Don, who had also been to Saba and experienced what Peter had experienced, saying, "He is a person who loves the church, who loves the congregation... He has sacrificed a lot to be with us. I know by joining ANiC, the kind of pastoring I will receive."
We praise God for His faithful servants who testified today and for all those who upheld them in prayer. Christ was held high.
Tomorrow, Rev David Short will be on the stand from 10:00 am. Please pray for him as we expect it to be a long day for him and he has not been well in the last two weeks.
Thanks for your partnership in the gospel,
Cheryl Chang
Additional information on the court case is posted to the ANiC website http://anglicannetwork.ca/legal_updates_0509.htm - including links to the Diocese of New Westminster daily statements as well as media articles.
PENNSYLVANIA: Global South Bishop Denied Pulpit
This was our experience at St. Andrew's in Vestal when Bishop Robert Duncan was visiting family in our parish. Bishop Skip Adams denied Bishop Duncan permission to preach in our church. Inclusivity in the DCNY did extend to Marcus Borg, a heretical writer who was sponsered by the DCNY and spoke to the DCNY clergy as well as at a public meeting at Syracuse University. ed.
The Silence of The PA Standing Committee
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
5/28/2009
The Episcopal Church claims it is an inclusive church.
It lies.
If it is inclusive, it does so in a very narrow sense. It includes lesbitransgays and other assorted sexualities to its table of diversity, but it doesn't want orthodox believers. In fact, they are not only unwelcome, they are barely tolerated when they do come. Orthodox priests graduating from seminaries like Trinity School for Ministry are definitely not welcome in the nation's liberal Episcopal diocesan pulpits.
Recently, the evangelical Bishop of Bolivia, The Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons came to Philadelphia to worship at the Church of the Good Samaritan, a thriving, suburban evangelical parish of 2,000 members (ASA 800), in a dying diocese torn apart by the now departed Bishop Charles E. Bennison whose penchant for self destruction only matches his hatred for orthodox Episcopalians whether local, national or international.
In fact, Good Sam, as it is known affectionately, is one of the top two largest parishes in the diocese. It continues to grow even as other parishes, liberal, pansexual and revisionist, slowly die and close their doors.
Good Sam grows because it has a firm fix on what the gospel is and attracts students from nearby universities and young families from numerous neighborhoods. It also has a thriving missions outreach and has supported missionaries to the country of Bolivia and its bishop, The Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons.
Recently, when the Bolivian Bishop came to this parish, he was denied access to the pulpit to preach and perform Eucharistically. He allegedly poses a threat to the PA Standing Committee who thought he would stand up and say the parish should leave the Episcopal Church. (The Diocese of Bolivia is a member of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone whose archbishop Gregory Venables has taken a number of Episcopal dioceses under his ecclesiastical wing and is in impaired communion with TEC.)
However, when I spoke to Bishop Lyons, it was clear he had no interest in or intention of talking about the state of the Anglican Communion nor did he have anything to say about whether the this parish should stay or leave TEC. His sole purpose was to minister the Word of God to the people of the parish. The Standing Committee denied him that right.
This is not the first time archbishops and bishops have been denied access to pulpits. When he was rector of the Church of the Good Samaritan parish, The Rev. Gregory Brewer was told that four visiting archbishops from the Global South would not be permitted to preach or administer Holy Communion. Instead, they were allowed to give brief reports to the congregation on the growth of their respective provinces. An uninclusive action if ever there was one.
VOL wrote the following letter to the PA Standing Committee asking for an explanation for their rejection.
5/18/2009
To all Members of the Standing Committee and concerned Episcopalians of the Diocese of Pennsylvania:
Recently, the Bishop of the Diocese of Bolivia, The Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons was denied the right to preach and perform Eucharistic functions at the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli, PA. Bishop Lyons is an orthodox bishop and Good Samaritan is an orthodox parish.
It is ironic that an heretical bishop like Jack Spong is invited to preach at the cathedral, that the diocese has a significant number of gay and lesbian priests, even a Wiccan priest, but a person of orthodox faith, who came is denied the right to come from several thousand miles away, is denied the right to perform the Eucharist and is only allowed to give a brief testimony of his work and ministry in this parish.
The Episcopal Church prides itself on being an inclusive church, recognizing all baptized believers, especially and including LGBTQ folkpersons. The Church of the Good Samaritan has never said it would leave The Episcopal Church, wishing to remain faithful to the gospel even as TEC accepts the full inclusion of non-celibate pansexuals to its ranks.
Virtueonline, the Anglican Communion's most widely read orthodox Anglican Online News Service read by more than 4 million readers in 212 countries, is asking why the Standing Committee refused to allow Bishop Lyons to officiate at this parish.
We await your response.
David W. Virtue DD
VIRTUEONLINE
VOL has not heard back from one member of the Standing Committee and no explanation has been garnered from anyone in office as to why the Bishop of Bolivia was denied the right to perform ecclesiastical functions at an Episcopal parish known for its orthodoxy.
Inclusivity, it would appear, goes only one way and only so far. If you are a faithful believing congregation, please know that your day in The Episcopal Church may well be over. You have no future in The Episcopal Church except for your check book. The Episcopal Church's vaunted inclusivity is narrow and uninclusive. There will never be another orthodox bishop who will garner consents from the liberal and revisionist HOB. The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence (SC) was the last one.
This summer General Convention will almost certainly pass a resolution affirming the right of dioceses to perform rites for same sex blessings. This, initially, will be optional as was Women's Ordination, but in time it will be mandatory. That is also a given.
END
For another view of Episcopal inclusivity click here:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10539
The Silence of The PA Standing Committee
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
5/28/2009
The Episcopal Church claims it is an inclusive church.
It lies.
If it is inclusive, it does so in a very narrow sense. It includes lesbitransgays and other assorted sexualities to its table of diversity, but it doesn't want orthodox believers. In fact, they are not only unwelcome, they are barely tolerated when they do come. Orthodox priests graduating from seminaries like Trinity School for Ministry are definitely not welcome in the nation's liberal Episcopal diocesan pulpits.
Recently, the evangelical Bishop of Bolivia, The Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons came to Philadelphia to worship at the Church of the Good Samaritan, a thriving, suburban evangelical parish of 2,000 members (ASA 800), in a dying diocese torn apart by the now departed Bishop Charles E. Bennison whose penchant for self destruction only matches his hatred for orthodox Episcopalians whether local, national or international.
In fact, Good Sam, as it is known affectionately, is one of the top two largest parishes in the diocese. It continues to grow even as other parishes, liberal, pansexual and revisionist, slowly die and close their doors.
Good Sam grows because it has a firm fix on what the gospel is and attracts students from nearby universities and young families from numerous neighborhoods. It also has a thriving missions outreach and has supported missionaries to the country of Bolivia and its bishop, The Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons.
Recently, when the Bolivian Bishop came to this parish, he was denied access to the pulpit to preach and perform Eucharistically. He allegedly poses a threat to the PA Standing Committee who thought he would stand up and say the parish should leave the Episcopal Church. (The Diocese of Bolivia is a member of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone whose archbishop Gregory Venables has taken a number of Episcopal dioceses under his ecclesiastical wing and is in impaired communion with TEC.)
However, when I spoke to Bishop Lyons, it was clear he had no interest in or intention of talking about the state of the Anglican Communion nor did he have anything to say about whether the this parish should stay or leave TEC. His sole purpose was to minister the Word of God to the people of the parish. The Standing Committee denied him that right.
This is not the first time archbishops and bishops have been denied access to pulpits. When he was rector of the Church of the Good Samaritan parish, The Rev. Gregory Brewer was told that four visiting archbishops from the Global South would not be permitted to preach or administer Holy Communion. Instead, they were allowed to give brief reports to the congregation on the growth of their respective provinces. An uninclusive action if ever there was one.
VOL wrote the following letter to the PA Standing Committee asking for an explanation for their rejection.
5/18/2009
To all Members of the Standing Committee and concerned Episcopalians of the Diocese of Pennsylvania:
Recently, the Bishop of the Diocese of Bolivia, The Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons was denied the right to preach and perform Eucharistic functions at the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli, PA. Bishop Lyons is an orthodox bishop and Good Samaritan is an orthodox parish.
It is ironic that an heretical bishop like Jack Spong is invited to preach at the cathedral, that the diocese has a significant number of gay and lesbian priests, even a Wiccan priest, but a person of orthodox faith, who came is denied the right to come from several thousand miles away, is denied the right to perform the Eucharist and is only allowed to give a brief testimony of his work and ministry in this parish.
The Episcopal Church prides itself on being an inclusive church, recognizing all baptized believers, especially and including LGBTQ folkpersons. The Church of the Good Samaritan has never said it would leave The Episcopal Church, wishing to remain faithful to the gospel even as TEC accepts the full inclusion of non-celibate pansexuals to its ranks.
Virtueonline, the Anglican Communion's most widely read orthodox Anglican Online News Service read by more than 4 million readers in 212 countries, is asking why the Standing Committee refused to allow Bishop Lyons to officiate at this parish.
We await your response.
David W. Virtue DD
VIRTUEONLINE
VOL has not heard back from one member of the Standing Committee and no explanation has been garnered from anyone in office as to why the Bishop of Bolivia was denied the right to perform ecclesiastical functions at an Episcopal parish known for its orthodoxy.
Inclusivity, it would appear, goes only one way and only so far. If you are a faithful believing congregation, please know that your day in The Episcopal Church may well be over. You have no future in The Episcopal Church except for your check book. The Episcopal Church's vaunted inclusivity is narrow and uninclusive. There will never be another orthodox bishop who will garner consents from the liberal and revisionist HOB. The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence (SC) was the last one.
This summer General Convention will almost certainly pass a resolution affirming the right of dioceses to perform rites for same sex blessings. This, initially, will be optional as was Women's Ordination, but in time it will be mandatory. That is also a given.
END
For another view of Episcopal inclusivity click here:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10539
The Latest Forrester Tally
The latest according to the BibleBeltBlogger and Stand Firm is:
No... 38 Bishops...51 Standing Committees
Yes...14 25
From VirtueOnline:
The current tally:
YES... 17 Bishops 25 SC
NO... 50 Bishops 52 SC
Unknown... 25 Bishops 27 SC
Non-voting... 10 Bishops 0 SC
Voted but not revealed... 9 Bishops 7 SC
(as of 5/28/09)
Votes needed for Consent...52 Bishops 56 SC
Total TEC Dioceses... 111
No... 38 Bishops...51 Standing Committees
Yes...14 25
From VirtueOnline:
The current tally:
YES... 17 Bishops 25 SC
NO... 50 Bishops 52 SC
Unknown... 25 Bishops 27 SC
Non-voting... 10 Bishops 0 SC
Voted but not revealed... 9 Bishops 7 SC
(as of 5/28/09)
Votes needed for Consent...52 Bishops 56 SC
Total TEC Dioceses... 111
NORTHERN MICHIGAN: House of Bishops Repudiates Forrester to be Bishop
Posted by David Virtue at VirtueOnline on 2009/5/28 15:30:00:
Special Report
By David W. Virtue with Mary Ann Mueller
www.virtueonline.org
5/28/2009
A majority of The House of Bishops has turned its collective back on the Rev. Thew Forrester even though all the votes have not been cast, nor are all the cast votes known. 50 bishops have said no, 25 bishops have yet to declare their votes but they cannot swing the vote in his favor. He is one vote short of becoming the next Bishop of Northern Michigan.
52 Standing Committees have also said no.
According to a VOL tally the current bishop-elect does not have enough un-cast votes left to allow him to wear the title "Rt. Rev." before his name.
He will not be able to add the consecration as an Episcopal bishop to his resume list of ordinations which includes the Diaconate, The Episcopal priesthood and that of a lay Buddhist.
Three besetting issues tripped Forrester up. They are his Buddhist ties, that he was the only candidate for bishop raising procedural questions and rewriting Prayer Book services including baptismal rites.
All U.S. Episcopal dioceses were directly contacted by VOL staff.
Special Report
By David W. Virtue with Mary Ann Mueller
www.virtueonline.org
5/28/2009
A majority of The House of Bishops has turned its collective back on the Rev. Thew Forrester even though all the votes have not been cast, nor are all the cast votes known. 50 bishops have said no, 25 bishops have yet to declare their votes but they cannot swing the vote in his favor. He is one vote short of becoming the next Bishop of Northern Michigan.
52 Standing Committees have also said no.
According to a VOL tally the current bishop-elect does not have enough un-cast votes left to allow him to wear the title "Rt. Rev." before his name.
He will not be able to add the consecration as an Episcopal bishop to his resume list of ordinations which includes the Diaconate, The Episcopal priesthood and that of a lay Buddhist.
Three besetting issues tripped Forrester up. They are his Buddhist ties, that he was the only candidate for bishop raising procedural questions and rewriting Prayer Book services including baptismal rites.
All U.S. Episcopal dioceses were directly contacted by VOL staff.
ACI Email Controversy: Louie Lectures, +Howe Responds
from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith
There's a kind of M.C. Escher quality to my posting from the HoB/D a message from Louie Crew, who a couple of years ago had private correspondence of his with Kenneth Kearon leaked to the public, tut-tutting the complaint lodged with Bishops Chane and Bruno on the matter of the ACI emails being leaked.
Here's what Louie wrote earlier this evening:
PRIVATE correspondence with bishops? Then why were they circulating it to clergy and/or lay folk? It was not a bishop who leaked this material.
If the correspondence were private among bishops, no one else would ever have seen it. Instead, some over-zealous member of their group sent it to encourage other schismatics, and was so fervent that the person did not even carefully check the email addresses of the persons to whom it was sent.
They were not concerned to keep the correspondence private among the bishops, but are concerned that the rest of us now know their plots.
Nor are are the three complainants generous in not pushing for a trial. They know that they would lose in a trial; besides, smearing costs less and provides a smoke screen to distract attention from their own malice and forethought.
This reminds me of the "hot tub chat" Bishop Jack Iker had with Archbishop George Carey. He was so excited that he sent a report broadly, more broadly than he intended. See http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/2ikerabc.html.
Beware: what is connived in secret shall be made known from the house tops.
Louie
Bishop Howe responded this way (and, btw, granted permission for me to post):
Dear Louie,
I am saddened by this rant. It was clearly private correspondence between a number of bishops, the ACI lawyer, and the theologians who are part of the Anglican Communion Institute, and in some cases some of the clergy who are part of the Communion Partners Association.
We had been working for some time on the "Bishops' Statement on Church Polity." It had been written prior to the release of the third draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant. We were attempting to determine whether it needed to be modified in any way - or even if we wanted to release it - in the light of the Ridley draft.
I am offended by your calling us schismatics. We have never sided with those who have chosen to leave The Episcopal Church. We have repeatedly stated our commitment to remain within and loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC.
Our "plot" was to publish a paper, which we were nearly ready to publish, and which we did publish very promptly after all of this was made public. The paper argues, we think with inarguable facts and numerous citations, that the polity and structure of TEC is hierarchical up to the level of the diocese, but that the sense in which the Presiding Bishop, the General Convention, or the Executive Council are "over" the bishops and dioceses of TEC is extremely limited.
You may disagree with this. Let's argue it out.
The Presiding Bishop may inhibit me and issue a presentment to me if she determines that I have violated the constitution and/or canons of TEC (or for several other reasons), and that is a significant sense in which she has authority over me.
But in absolutely no other sense is she "over" the diocese of Central Florida. She may not even visit here in an official capacity, or do sacramental ministry here, without my invitation and permission.
The paper (have you read it?) argues that our constitution, canons, and history are very clearly those of a voluntary association of bishops and dioceses.
Our charge that the clergy involved in publishing what they knew to be private correspondence was not that the content of what they published harmed us; we were about to publish it ourselves. But it is that clergy publishing private correspondence between bishops and others was unethical, to an extent illegal, and a matter of conduct unbecoming to the clergy of this church.
We are not bringing formal legal charges, either ecclesiastically or in secular courts - at least not at this time - but we are registering complaints with the bishops of the clergy involved. They have not behaved in a gentlemanly/gentlewomanly or Christian manner.
It may well have been the careless mistake of one of us that this material was initially sent to an unintended third party. We do not know this, and only a very expensive diagnosis of all of our computers would give proof positive whether this was the case or whether the emails were apprehended in some more nefarious way. We are not prepared to take this additional step at this time.
To have some on this list accuse that we are attempting to "bring down" TEC is appalling. We are committed to precisely the opposite.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
There's a kind of M.C. Escher quality to my posting from the HoB/D a message from Louie Crew, who a couple of years ago had private correspondence of his with Kenneth Kearon leaked to the public, tut-tutting the complaint lodged with Bishops Chane and Bruno on the matter of the ACI emails being leaked.
Here's what Louie wrote earlier this evening:
PRIVATE correspondence with bishops? Then why were they circulating it to clergy and/or lay folk? It was not a bishop who leaked this material.
If the correspondence were private among bishops, no one else would ever have seen it. Instead, some over-zealous member of their group sent it to encourage other schismatics, and was so fervent that the person did not even carefully check the email addresses of the persons to whom it was sent.
They were not concerned to keep the correspondence private among the bishops, but are concerned that the rest of us now know their plots.
Nor are are the three complainants generous in not pushing for a trial. They know that they would lose in a trial; besides, smearing costs less and provides a smoke screen to distract attention from their own malice and forethought.
This reminds me of the "hot tub chat" Bishop Jack Iker had with Archbishop George Carey. He was so excited that he sent a report broadly, more broadly than he intended. See http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/2ikerabc.html.
Beware: what is connived in secret shall be made known from the house tops.
Louie
Bishop Howe responded this way (and, btw, granted permission for me to post):
Dear Louie,
I am saddened by this rant. It was clearly private correspondence between a number of bishops, the ACI lawyer, and the theologians who are part of the Anglican Communion Institute, and in some cases some of the clergy who are part of the Communion Partners Association.
We had been working for some time on the "Bishops' Statement on Church Polity." It had been written prior to the release of the third draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant. We were attempting to determine whether it needed to be modified in any way - or even if we wanted to release it - in the light of the Ridley draft.
I am offended by your calling us schismatics. We have never sided with those who have chosen to leave The Episcopal Church. We have repeatedly stated our commitment to remain within and loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC.
Our "plot" was to publish a paper, which we were nearly ready to publish, and which we did publish very promptly after all of this was made public. The paper argues, we think with inarguable facts and numerous citations, that the polity and structure of TEC is hierarchical up to the level of the diocese, but that the sense in which the Presiding Bishop, the General Convention, or the Executive Council are "over" the bishops and dioceses of TEC is extremely limited.
You may disagree with this. Let's argue it out.
The Presiding Bishop may inhibit me and issue a presentment to me if she determines that I have violated the constitution and/or canons of TEC (or for several other reasons), and that is a significant sense in which she has authority over me.
But in absolutely no other sense is she "over" the diocese of Central Florida. She may not even visit here in an official capacity, or do sacramental ministry here, without my invitation and permission.
The paper (have you read it?) argues that our constitution, canons, and history are very clearly those of a voluntary association of bishops and dioceses.
Our charge that the clergy involved in publishing what they knew to be private correspondence was not that the content of what they published harmed us; we were about to publish it ourselves. But it is that clergy publishing private correspondence between bishops and others was unethical, to an extent illegal, and a matter of conduct unbecoming to the clergy of this church.
We are not bringing formal legal charges, either ecclesiastically or in secular courts - at least not at this time - but we are registering complaints with the bishops of the clergy involved. They have not behaved in a gentlemanly/gentlewomanly or Christian manner.
It may well have been the careless mistake of one of us that this material was initially sent to an unintended third party. We do not know this, and only a very expensive diagnosis of all of our computers would give proof positive whether this was the case or whether the emails were apprehended in some more nefarious way. We are not prepared to take this additional step at this time.
To have some on this list accuse that we are attempting to "bring down" TEC is appalling. We are committed to precisely the opposite.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)