I've posted a number of pieces today while I'm attending the CANA Annual Council in Herndon, VA. This afternoon our Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns gave a terrific address and it is posted here:
http://www.canaconvocation.org/downloads/docs/Pastoral_Call_2009.pdf
One of the aspects of CANA life that I didn't see often in pecusa is numerical growth. At last year's council in Akron, Ohio we heard that CANA had grown to 70 congregations. At this council we heard that we have 85 congregations with the possibility that we will have 100 by year's end. This is strong growth and it is the kind of numerical growth that we are seeing all over the new province in North America (the ACNA).
We have also focused on spiritual growth. You can get a sense of this in the postings below on the CANA Council by BabyBlue.
There is a spirit of unity among attendees that I never experienced in pecusa. We are united at the foot of the cross and for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is encouraging to be with other Christians who share biblical values and a biblical sense of mission.
In contrast I heard one person speak about the emptiness of the recent General Convention in Anaheim. There were fewer people at GC09 than in year's past, fewer exhibitors in the exhibit hall and no sense of joy. You'd think that the liberals would be giddy with all the legislation that they passed, but instead the sense of the speaker was that there was suppressed anger rather than joy.
I also heard that at General Seminary in NYC there is an $8 million budget supported by an anticipated $5 million in revenue. This is after Seabury Western announced that they are closing their doors, EDS has downsized, and Bexley Hall is on life support (SW and BH were not discussed at the CANA Council and GTS was not mentioned in a public meeting).
The feeling of the CANA Council is upbeat, joyous and thankfulness for God's good work in our midst this year pervades the assembly. There is also great anticipation for what we expect God to do as we move forward in CANA and the ACNA. Tommorrow we will hold our closing worship that will include several ordinations. We praise and thank God for the growing ministry that He is entrusting to us.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Update from the CANA Council Day 2
From BabyBlue Online (blog):
Friday, July 31, 2009
I'm here at the 2009 CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) Council meeting at the Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, VA. We've had meetings and gatherings and teachings as well as the Bishop of CANA's pastoral address today. There is a wide-variety of folks here (talk about full inclusion!) - from low church evangelicals to high church Anglo Catholics, women who are nuns and women who are ordained clergy, lots of military chaplains (that's a ministry that is just exploding in CANA), midwesterners and southerners and westerners and every thing in between - church planters looking at architecture plans at the Scott-Long Booth to delegates hovering over the book table, seminars on healing and seminars on art, Trinity School for Ministry is here as well as many others who have ministry booths lining the halls going into the main church nave. The parking lot is packed with cars with plates from all over the country - there's far more blending in rather than staying in comfortable huddles as relationships continue to be built and expanded. It really does feel like a family now - and the family is growing!
One of the most interesting things to watch is how CANA will be folded in to ACNA. I've been doing a lot of thinking about that. For us in Virginia, we've seen CANA as a lifeboat - but not the Love Boat. The question is - when will we hit land? Is land far off - or will it come in sight soon? This is one of the major questions. There seems a lot of energy to move into the Anglican Church of North America (CANA is not a church, but is it a diocese?). But if it's a diocese then what are the districts that are springing up, following the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) model? Are those future dioceses in ACNA or are they more like regions or deaneries you'd find in a diocese? This is a time to ask questions - and realize that answers aren't going to be discovered by someone else. The answers are nearer than that - in fact, they may be as close as the person sitting next to you.
Friday, July 31, 2009
I'm here at the 2009 CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) Council meeting at the Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, VA. We've had meetings and gatherings and teachings as well as the Bishop of CANA's pastoral address today. There is a wide-variety of folks here (talk about full inclusion!) - from low church evangelicals to high church Anglo Catholics, women who are nuns and women who are ordained clergy, lots of military chaplains (that's a ministry that is just exploding in CANA), midwesterners and southerners and westerners and every thing in between - church planters looking at architecture plans at the Scott-Long Booth to delegates hovering over the book table, seminars on healing and seminars on art, Trinity School for Ministry is here as well as many others who have ministry booths lining the halls going into the main church nave. The parking lot is packed with cars with plates from all over the country - there's far more blending in rather than staying in comfortable huddles as relationships continue to be built and expanded. It really does feel like a family now - and the family is growing!
One of the most interesting things to watch is how CANA will be folded in to ACNA. I've been doing a lot of thinking about that. For us in Virginia, we've seen CANA as a lifeboat - but not the Love Boat. The question is - when will we hit land? Is land far off - or will it come in sight soon? This is one of the major questions. There seems a lot of energy to move into the Anglican Church of North America (CANA is not a church, but is it a diocese?). But if it's a diocese then what are the districts that are springing up, following the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) model? Are those future dioceses in ACNA or are they more like regions or deaneries you'd find in a diocese? This is a time to ask questions - and realize that answers aren't going to be discovered by someone else. The answers are nearer than that - in fact, they may be as close as the person sitting next to you.
Rowan’s Reflections: Unpacking the Archbishop’s Statement
From the Anglican Communion Institute via BabyBlue:
Written by: Dr NT Wright (in collaboration with ACI and Fulcrum)
Thursday, July 30th, 2009
Introduction
1. In the two days since the Archbishop released his ‘Reflections’ on TEC’s General Convention, they have already generated widely differing responses. We always knew, say some conservatives, that the ABC was a hopeless liberal, and this has confirmed it. Not so, declare many horrified radicals: he has obviously sold out to the conservatives. Some have warmly welcomed the statement and hailed it as paving the way forward. Cautious voices in between are trying to discern strengths and weaknesses. In my view, there is much to welcome, and much whose implications need further unpacking. The two main sections of this paper deal with these two aspects.
2. I have tried to bear in mind that the Archbishop is himself not only an Instrument of Unity but the one which has to hold on to everything at this moment. Lambeth 2008 didn’t say much (apart from what the ABC himself said); the status of ACC and Primates are under question in various quarters; it is up to him. He therefore has an obligation to maintain as broad a conversation as possible, and that is continually to be seen in his statement. As often (for instance in his poems, and in his recent book on Dostoevsky) the Archbishop’s writing challenges its readers to pause, to ponder, to think things through. One commentator has suggested that he employs a characteristically British habit of inviting the reader to draw the really important conclusions and giving them the space to do so. This piece is an attempt to take up that challenge and invitation.
Points to Welcome
3. The ABC rightly indicates that the Communion is indeed already broken. In (2) he speaks of ‘the broken bridges [from TEC] into the life of other Anglican provinces’ as the existing reality, and stresses that GenCon 09 has done nothing to repair these broken bridges. Though his explanatory clause ‘very serious anxieties have already been expressed’ is (perhaps deliberately) imprecise, the whole passage indicates, as the Primates did in 2003, that the breach has already occurred. We are not, then, looking now at TEC choosing for the first time to ‘walk apart’, but at the recognition that they did so some time ago and have done nothing to indicate a willingness to rejoin the larger Communion. This is all the more the case if it is indeed true, as the Presiding Bishop has said, that the new Resolutions were ‘descriptive’, that is, stating what is already the case: that is a way of saying, in fact, what some of us thought at the time, that the supposed ‘moratoria’ of GenCon 06 were never binding. This is what the ABC means, in the penultimate section of the whole document, by saying that the different priorities identified by different parts of the Anglican family ‘are bound to have consequences’. For too long TEC, and various other parts of the Communion, have spoken and acted as though there were no consequences. The ABC has now made it clear that this is not the case.
4. Once we penetrate the complex language, the ABC is also eventually clear that the great majority at GenCon voted, in effect if not in so many words, against the two relevant moratoria. ‘The repeated request for moratoria . . . has clearly not found universal favour’ is a roundabout but ultimately unambiguous way of saying ‘the majority voted against the moratoria’. This puts in a different light the reference in the first paragraph to ‘an insistence at the highest level’ (i.e. a letter from the Presiding Bishop) that the relevant resolutions ‘do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria’. That may be true in a strict legal sense, though many will see this as an example of typical TEC behaviour, a grandmother’s-footsteps game of creeping forwards without being noticed. But the resolutions that were passed clearly had the effect (a) of reminding people that the way was in fact open all along to the episcopal appointment of non-celibate homosexuals, and (b) of reminding people that rites for public same-sex blessings could indeed be developed. The ABC is now clearly if tacitly saying, throughout the document, that there is no reasonable likelihood, at any point in many years to come, that TEC will in fact turn round and embrace the moratoria ex animo, still less the theology which underlies the Communion’s constant and often-repeated stance on sexual behaviour. Nor is there any reasonable likelihood that TEC will in fact be able to embrace the Covenant when it attains its final form a few months from now. That is the reality with which the Reflections deal.
5. Section 2 of the ABC’s Reflections addresses the presenting double-headed issue of same-sex blessings and the ordination (not simply the consecration as bishops) of non-celibate homosexuals. Here he basically reaffirms the church’s traditional stance, articulated in Lambeth 1.10 from 1998 but universally held, prior to that, whenever the point had been raised. First, the church cannot sanction or bless same-sex unions. Second, since the ordained ministry carries a necessarily representative function for the life of the church, those who order their lives this way cannot fulfil this representative role – cannot, in other words, be ordained. This is perhaps the strongest statement that the ABC has yet made of the Church’s position, and it should be noted carefully that he refers to the whole ordained ministry, i.e. deacons and priests and not just bishops. This has of course always been the official position of the whole Anglican Communion, repeated again and again by Lambeth Conferences, ACC and Primates and never overturned, for instance, in the Church of England’s General Synod. The ABC’s clear statement indicates once again that the two moratoria here expressed (with the second one actually strengthened) should be explicit prerequisites of Covenant membership. However much people may protest – and they have and will – that in some cases this is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, that is not an argument that the position is wrong, but a challenge to the way the church’s order and discipline currently functions. Creating ‘facts on the ground’ which fly in the face of the church’s well-known official teaching does not, as some suppose, generate a moral high ground; it is a form of dishonesty. If people want to object, they should argue the point, not assume it.
6. An aside at this point: some in TEC insist that their theological position has in fact been argued, and that the rest of the Communion is ignoring these arguments. As far as I can discern, there are two main arguments routinely used.
(i) First, the supposed modern and scientific discovery of a personal ‘identity’ characterised by sexual preference, which then generates a set of ‘rights’. The Archbishop has commented on ‘rights’ in this connection. Without entering into discussion of the scientific evidence, it must be said that the Christian notion of personal identity has never before been supposed to be rooted in desires of whatever sort. Indeed, desires are routinely brought under the constraints of ‘being in Christ’. This quite new notion of an ‘identity’ found not only within oneself but within one’s emotional and physical desires needs to be articulated on the basis of scripture and tradition, and this to my mind has not been done.
(ii) This leads to the second point, the appeal to baptism. It is now routinely said in TEC that all the baptised should have access to all the sacraments, on the apparent grounds that baptism indicates God’s acceptance of people as they are. This appears to ignore the New Testament teaching about baptism, that it constitutes a dying to self and sin and a rising to new life with Christ, specifically characterised by a holiness and renewed humanity in which certain habits and styles of life are left behind. From the first century until very recently it was universally understood that this included sexual immorality, and that that included homosexual behaviour. To try to use a supposedly ‘baptismal’ theology to overturn the universal Christian tradition of the meaning of baptism, and with it the universal and biblically-rooted appeal for sexual holiness, is a bold move. Most theologians will think that the first argument above (the proposal of an ‘identity’) is not strong enough to justify it. God’s welcome is always a transforming welcome, as the ABC has elsewhere stressed.
7. Section 2 contains strong and important warnings against personal prejudice and bigotry. The ABC does not spell out the difference between prejudice and bigotry on the one hand and a principled, thought-out moral stance on the other, but he clearly indicates that the two must be sharply separated. It is most welcome that he indicates the Church’s calling to a genuinely prophetic lifestyle: ‘if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline’. No indeed. One of the most astonishing volte-faces in my lifetime has been the change from a liberalism which sought to be counter-cultural, anti-establishment, ‘agin the government’, protesting against the drift of society, and the present would-be liberalism which insists that because society has now drifted in a new direction the church should follow where that culture, the new ‘establishment’, and now even the government, are going. The ABC is far too good a theologian to be taken in by that.
8. Section 3, on the global and local decision-making processes, is a great strength.
(i) Though the ABC does not say so, this is basically a combination of the very heart of the Windsor Report and the one really good section of the Kuala Lumpur Report (Communion, Conflict and Hope, para. 104). At this point the ABC is simply articulating what the Windsor Continuation Group had said clearly before, during and after Lambeth 08.
(ii) The ABC here does three vital things and then homes in on the key point. (a) He insists that this is not (as is often sneeringly said) about bureaucratic or centralized ‘control’; (b) he warns against churches becoming ‘imprisoned in their own cultural environment’ (cognate with the point at the end of my previous paragraph); (c) he broadens the question so as to make it clear that this applies equally to issues such as lay presidency or inviting the unbaptized to receive Holy Communion.
(iii) The key point then is this (his paragraph 13): though some things can indeed be decided by a local church, the decision as to which things can be decided locally is not itself one that can be taken locally. And the criteria upon which the global church can decide this all-important question are (as in Kuala Lumpur) ‘intensity, substance and extent’. This really needs spelling out, but within the ABC’s document, and for that matter the present one, this can be left for another occasion.
9. Within the same section, the ABC makes the vital point that in our ongoing ecumenical work is it vital that our partners know ‘who speaks for the body they are relating to’. If many Anglicans don’t see why these presenting issues should matter, the same is not true for our ecumenical partners, particularly among the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. What is at stake, as well as Anglican identity and ecclesial density (i.e. being a church with a high doctrine of Communion, rather than a loose federation), is ecumenical credibility.
10. Many will not regard the language of a ‘two-track’ Communion as a strength. Some have objected that this is forcing apart what ought to be held together. Others, conversely, have sneered that ‘two-track’ sounds like a vote for pluralism pure and simple, a kind of ecclesial version of ’70s pop-psych ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’: you go your way, we go ours, and we’re both just fine as we are. But the ‘two-track’ option is not intended as an indifferentist, shoulder-shrugging thing (though no doubt some who find themselves in the incipient Track Two will want to see it like that). To say ‘two-tier’, as some have done at earlier stages in the discussion, implies that the two are still ‘tiers’ of the same thing, whereas ‘tracks’ may be going in quite different directions. And it is one ‘track’ rather than the other which will possess the coherence to work together in full solidarity, not least in ecumenical relationships.
11. Finally, the ABC recognises that one of the most urgent questions concerns those within TEC who have remained loyal to TEC itself and yet fully intend also to remain loyal to the rest of the Communion. Having already mentioned in paragraph 2 ‘a significant minority of bishops’ who have clearly said they intend to remain within the Communion’s consensus, he returns to them towards the end. His paragraph 25 is tantalisingly brief where many will want it to be elaborated and explicated, but there can be no doubt that here he holds the door wide open for such people ‘to be free to adopt the Covenant’. How this might work out we must consider below.
Discernment and Further Questions
12. Sex and ‘rights’. In relation to Section 2, someone, sooner or later, needs to spell out further (wearisome though it will be) the difference between (a) the ‘human dignity and civil liberty’ of those with homosexual and similar instincts and (b) their ‘rights’, as practising let alone ordained Christians, to give physical expression to those instincts. As the Pope has pointed out, the language of ‘human rights’ has now been downgraded in public discourse to the special pleading of every interest-group. The church has never acknowledged that powerful sexual instincts, which almost all human beings have, generate a prima facie ‘right’ that these instincts receive physical expression. Indeed, the church has always insisted that self-control is part of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’. All are called to chastity and, within that, some are called to celibacy; but a call to celibacy is not the same thing as discovering that one has a weak or negligible sexual drive. The call to the self-control of chastity is for all: for the heterosexually inclined who, whether married or not, are regularly and powerfully attracted to many different potential partners, just as much as for those with different instincts.
13. The depth of the problem.
(i) Apparent Caution: We should be careful to read the ABC’s cautious words in paragraphs 22 and 24 in the light of the crucial paragraph 2 (see above). The ABC says ‘it would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions’ [i.e. on signing up to the Covenant] ‘had already been made’; and he warns against speaking ‘in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication’. He also speaks of the ‘twofold ecclesial reality’ as a ‘possibility’ in the ‘middle distance’.
(ii) The Reality: But, as he himself has indicated, key decisions have been made (obviously not yet in terms of voting on the Covenant, but certainly in terms of taking stances which will lead directly to such votes); schism has already happened; and not just a twofold, but a confusing and pluriform ecclesial reality, is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact.
(iii) Confrontation Already Exists: Warning against ‘a competitive hostility between the two’ tracks may seem somewhat unrealistic to many in TEC and Canada who have lost churches, livelihoods and in some cases their Holy Orders – and, we should in all fairness stress, to others who, though theologically orthodox themselves, have been sniped at or sneered at by those who use the ‘orthodox’ label as a pretext for personal gripes or power-games. Speaking of an ‘ideal’ whereby both ‘Tracks’ ‘should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency’, will sound idealistic at best when several loud voices in TEC are saying that what God is calling them to is to spread the ‘gospel’ of ‘inclusivity’, and several other voices are saying that God is calling them to resist precisely this.
(iv) Mutual Respect? Pleading for ‘mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions’ will seem straightforwardly unreal both to those who are fed up being called hopeless liberals by unthinking conservatives and to those who are fed up being called hopeless conservatives by unthinking liberals. ‘Deeply held theological convictions’ of course characterize plenty of other groups, not least (for instance) serious Muslim theologians. I respect such convictions, while still believing it proper to argue against them. This kind of plea could simply park the question, insisting (in good Anglican style) that we treat everyone as being in reality what they are in profession, but seeming to ignore the call, to bishops in particular, to guard the faith, teach the truth and refute error. Did Athanasius respect the ‘deeply held theological convictions’ of Arius and his followers? Perhaps he did; certainly he took them seriously enough to refute them vigorously. If the separation of two ‘Tracks’ generated, at last, a full-scale theological and exegetical discussion of disputed points, rather than emotive sniping, we might all be better served in the long run.
14. Representation on Ecumenical bodies. In paragraphs 9, 15 and 23 the ABC speaks of certain people being unable to represent the Communion’s voice in ecumenical encounters. He does not say who he means or how this is now to be worked out (as it must be very quickly if major ecumenical work is to proceed). Presumably the end of paragraphs 10 and 14 are a reference to the dangers inherent in TEC’s position, but again he does not spell this out (no doubt because it isn’t only TEC that faces this danger). In particular, the membership of the newly constituted international Faith and Order Advisory Group raises some questions, particularly (see below) if this group is to advise on the future role of the Instruments and the future structural shape of the Communion. So, too, the Joint Standing Committee as presently constituted includes people who, according to the Archbishop’s own analysis, have gone with the decision to move away from the rest of the Communion.
15. ‘In Communion’? A pressing question in all of this must be: who, both during this process and at its end, will be ‘in Communion’ with whom? Once Tracks One and Two have been identified, will there be mutual recognition of ministries? Presumably not if Track One is committed to Paragraph 8 of the Archbishop’s paper while Track Two is committed to demolishing it. Will communicants be welcome across the gap between the Tracks? If the Covenant becomes the gold standard, and if ACNA sign up as they may well, will the rest of the Communion (including of course the C of E) be ‘in communion’ with ACNA? These are difficult and uncomfortable questions. But they will certainly emerge; there is already a motion on the subject slated for General Synod in February 2010, though by then all sorts of things may look different.
16. No Delay. As this process continues to unfold, there is one major problem with a proposal to put all the eggs into the Covenant basket. (I had always understood that the Covenant was not designed to deal with the post-2003 problem, but rather to head off quite different problems that might arise in the future. I remain wary of trying, now, to put all the weight for the full sorting-out of the 2003 problem on to the Covenant, especially on to one brief, dense and inevitably controversial section of it, and particularly when the final drafting of that section is in the hands of a very small group, albeit then reporting to the ABC.) Now that GenCon 09 has happened, even if the Covenant is completed within a few months TEC will assuredly say that it can’t consider it until 2012, and that such consideration could only be preliminary, looking to a more definite decision in 2015. This delaying tactic – twelve years from 2003, when the crisis really began! – must be seen for what it is, and headed off. The obvious way to do this is to declare that ‘Track One’ is open, right away, to Covenant signatories, and only Covenant signatories. How precisely that could be done (granted that the Joint Standing Committee, for instance, includes some from TEC and other sympathetic provinces) remains a question. But it needs to be done, and done quickly. I offer some suggestions on all this in the conclusion below.
17. Section 4 of the Covenant. Picking up the point just made: Section 4 of the Covenant needs to proceed swiftly to its final form. This process is far too important to be left to a small group advising the Archbishop. When the Archbishop receives the group’s work, he should consult with key Communion representatives to ensure that there are no remaining hidden problems. In this process, any reduction or limiting of Section 4 (clearly the hope of the majority in TEC, not least those who pushed the ACC to postpone a decision) will be a large step away from the mind of the Communion as the ABC has himself expressed it, and would have the effect of nullifying all that he has said in his Reflections.
18. Retuning the Instruments? A further problem, not too far down the line, is contained in the ABC’s brief references to a restructuring or reworking of the Instruments themselves.
(i) New Cross-Track ‘instruments’? In paragraph 24 he speaks of hoping and working for ‘the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage’. What might these be? Clearly not the Lambeth Conference, the ACC and the Primates. They, we must assume, will be Track One institutions; if they are not, the whole point (not least the whole ecumenical point) will be lost. So do we need some new institutions to enable the two tracks to talk to one another and to work together on shared ‘mission and service’ projects? This would constitute an unprecedented kind of internal ecumenism, fraught with frustrations and bad memories; yet perhaps it needs to be attempted.
(ii) The existing Institutions: And what about the existing Institutions? Paragraph 26 speaks of the present structures needing ‘serious rethinking in the near future’. This, presumably, will be a task for the newly constituted international Faith and Order Advisory Group – though, since some of that Group come from parts of the Communion which now appear likely to be in Track Two, that raises other difficult questions. (Why was the group chosen and named just before General Convention?) But the thought of the complex discussions that might swirl around any reshaping of Lambeth, ACC and Primates, and any ‘covering-both-tracks’ new institutions, is daunting. We already have a highly confusing situation both globally and nationally, with the ACO and Lambeth sitting uncomfortably side by side and with the shape and role of the existing Instruments remaining unclear. We need, if anything, to simplify and clarify, not to create more complexity. Complexity simply hands power to those with time on their hands and with well-developed skills in political manipulation.
Conclusion
19. Having worked very carefully through the Archbishop’s Reflections several times, having read what several others have said, and having had various conversations, I can understand the frustrations of those who wanted something more obviously crisp and clear. Yet at the heart of this document are two things which the Communion has badly needed to hear, hedged about with all kinds of assurances which make it clear that this is neither a knee-jerk reaction nor a mere statement of prejudice: a strong reaffirmation of the Anglican position on sexual behaviour, and a strong insistence on the Windsor point that global issues cannot be decided locally – and that the decision as to what is global and what is local cannot itself be decided locally. The ‘so what’ of all this needs now to be drawn out, and in my view this needs to happen more or less at once, not postponed until Section 4 of the Covenant is redrafted and ratified. In particular, the Communion Partner bishops, and parishes and individuals who take that stance, need to be assured that what is said rather briefly in paragraph 25 does indeed apply, and will indeed apply, to them, and that ways will be found very quickly to turn that into a reality.
20. How then can this ‘so what’ become a reality? We remind ourselves again that the ABC has no juridical authority outside his own Province, and that he is aware of himself being involved in the danger of trying, as a local Primate, to decide things for the whole Communion. Yet, as Archbishop of Canterbury, he carries within the whole Communion immense moral and pastoral authority, rooted in his exposition of scripture and articulation of the whole Christian tradition; and this, as he himself has insisted, is the real heart of all authority within the body of Christ. Too often in recent times legal and juridical ‘authority’ has been used, and perhaps abused, in the place of the genuine apostolic authority of the word of God and prayer. It is thus up to the Archbishop himself to move swiftly to implement what he himself has said, counting on support from bishops around his own Province and the whole Communion. The Covenant (which the ABC has repeatedly affirmed as the new instrument of our unity and common life) needs to be completed and offered to all Anglicans for signature. Those within TEC who sign it need appropriate Communion recognition and relatedness – if bishops, a Primatial relationship, if parishes or individuals, an episcopal relationship. Ways by which this can be done have been worked out by the Communion Partner bishops, and it is with them, first and foremost, that the Archbishop must work towards the necessary and urgent solutions. What now follows are some suggestions for how this might be attempted.
21. A Way Forward?
(i) How do ‘Communion Partners’ sign on? The question presses, as in the ABC’s paragraph 25, as to how dioceses, parishes and individuals within TEC will be able to sign the Covenant and thus not only align themselves, but be recognised by the wider Communion as aligning themselves, with that wider Communion itself. The ABC is certainly here referring to the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, and to the parishes and individuals who take the same line that they do. As the ABC says, ‘there should be a clear answer to this question’, and actually the ABC himself is now the main person, if not the only person, in a position to give a clear and authoritative answer. But some proposals here may perhaps help.
(ii) The Anaheim Statement: In his second paragraph, the Archbishop notes that a substantial minority have indicated their dissent from the position taken by TEC as a whole. The document they have produced (‘the Anaheim Statement’) could now form something of a bridge between the present confusion and the not-too-distant future when the full Covenant will be available for signature. Some reports indicate that bishops who voted with the majority in Gen Con are now realising the predicament they’ve put themselves in and are starting to sign up to Anaheim instead.
(iii) What about Parishes and Individuals? But here’s the problem: it is one thing for bishops and their dioceses to be ‘Communion Partners’, recognised by Lambeth and the wider Communion as full ‘Track One’ members. (That carries its own problems, but if the diocese is the primary unit, as the ABC has insisted, it is clearly possible.) But how a parish in a non-signing diocese, or an individual in a non-signing parish or diocese, can become a ‘Track One’ Anglican, recognised as such globally, remains to be seen. Many in that position neither want nor intend to join a movement like ACNA, nor should they be put in a position where they have no other option. But a way forward must be found.
(iv) Getting from Here to There: Covenant Sections 1-3. The Covenant, when completed, will provide a line in the sand. However, we do not need to wait until Section 4 is redrafted. The first three sections are already completed and agreed, and they (especially Section Three) already prohibit the kinds of things which General Convention has done, and which many TEC bishops are doing. These three sections could be signed and adopted right away by CP bishops and dioceses as a signal of their intent.
(v) Getting from Here to There: Anaheim. The Anaheim Statement itself could also function as a preliminary rallying point around which more may gather than had initially been supposed. Perhaps, indeed, signing this statement, along with Sections 1-3 of the Covenant, could function, ahead of the availability of the final version of the Covenant, as a prerequisite for participation, from this moment on, in representative Anglican functions and bodies and, not least, in bodies that deal with the Covenant itself and the future of the Instruments. That would give actual and practical expression to what the ABC has now said. Indeed, unless something like this is implemented at once it will be hard to sustain trust in the ongoing process.
(vi) Interim Structures? We need some interim structures to get us from where we are to where we need to be – and not only in TEC, but also in Canada and perhaps elsewhere. But we need these now, not in six months, let alone six years. The Communion Partner bishops should perhaps restate their willingness to provide, with the permission of the relevant Diocesan, alternative episcopal relationship and cover for parishes in Dioceses whose bishops might find their relation to the wider Communion to have changed. The now largely discredited ‘DEPO’ system (‘Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight’) may have been a signpost, albeit one that didn’t seem to be capable of working well at the time, towards some kind of a solution. Issues of polity should, if possible, be dealt with at a provincial, not a global, level.
(vii) Urgent meetings? Ideally, the CP bishops, and perhaps some of the Rectors, should meet with the Archbishop to discuss some kind of a revived DEPO. The ABC could then invite others, including both representatives of TEC leadership on the one hand and ACNA on the other, to further meetings to work out agreements that would avoid future confusions or accusations. There is a need, perhaps, for a call to mutual respect, and maturity of decision-making, in recognition of where things now stand. There is no point pretending things are otherwise than they are. We have come to the tipping point, and wisdom suggests that all involved take counsel in recognition of that.
(viii) What about ACNA? All this raises, then, the question of ACNA itself (and, indeed, other would-be Anglican bodies). Without some kind of clear steer on the issues just raised, we can expect that ACNA will continue to attract individuals, congregations and perhaps even dioceses. This is, indeed, already happening. However, though the situation on the ground is often confused, ACNA has expressed a clear willingness to work with the Communion Partner bishops towards whatever greater good may come. And ACNA itself has shown itself eager to sign the Covenant when it is complete. All this will go into the melting pot of whatever new alignments the Communion will discover over the coming months. It is important that bridges, not fences, be built during this period.
22. These are only suggestions, designed to help those on the ground not only to think through the issues but to take concrete and immediate steps. I have said many times that, for all those involved in this whole messy situation, the main priority at the moment is prayer. That remains my conviction and my plea. Prayer for the church; for our beloved Communion and the many other Christians with whom we seek to deepen fellowship; for Archbishop Rowan; for wisdom, courage, clarity and vision; for God’s glory, the extension of his kingdom, and the power of the gospel and the Spirit at work in hearts, lives, communities and throughout our world.
Written by: Dr NT Wright (in collaboration with ACI and Fulcrum)
Thursday, July 30th, 2009
Introduction
1. In the two days since the Archbishop released his ‘Reflections’ on TEC’s General Convention, they have already generated widely differing responses. We always knew, say some conservatives, that the ABC was a hopeless liberal, and this has confirmed it. Not so, declare many horrified radicals: he has obviously sold out to the conservatives. Some have warmly welcomed the statement and hailed it as paving the way forward. Cautious voices in between are trying to discern strengths and weaknesses. In my view, there is much to welcome, and much whose implications need further unpacking. The two main sections of this paper deal with these two aspects.
2. I have tried to bear in mind that the Archbishop is himself not only an Instrument of Unity but the one which has to hold on to everything at this moment. Lambeth 2008 didn’t say much (apart from what the ABC himself said); the status of ACC and Primates are under question in various quarters; it is up to him. He therefore has an obligation to maintain as broad a conversation as possible, and that is continually to be seen in his statement. As often (for instance in his poems, and in his recent book on Dostoevsky) the Archbishop’s writing challenges its readers to pause, to ponder, to think things through. One commentator has suggested that he employs a characteristically British habit of inviting the reader to draw the really important conclusions and giving them the space to do so. This piece is an attempt to take up that challenge and invitation.
Points to Welcome
3. The ABC rightly indicates that the Communion is indeed already broken. In (2) he speaks of ‘the broken bridges [from TEC] into the life of other Anglican provinces’ as the existing reality, and stresses that GenCon 09 has done nothing to repair these broken bridges. Though his explanatory clause ‘very serious anxieties have already been expressed’ is (perhaps deliberately) imprecise, the whole passage indicates, as the Primates did in 2003, that the breach has already occurred. We are not, then, looking now at TEC choosing for the first time to ‘walk apart’, but at the recognition that they did so some time ago and have done nothing to indicate a willingness to rejoin the larger Communion. This is all the more the case if it is indeed true, as the Presiding Bishop has said, that the new Resolutions were ‘descriptive’, that is, stating what is already the case: that is a way of saying, in fact, what some of us thought at the time, that the supposed ‘moratoria’ of GenCon 06 were never binding. This is what the ABC means, in the penultimate section of the whole document, by saying that the different priorities identified by different parts of the Anglican family ‘are bound to have consequences’. For too long TEC, and various other parts of the Communion, have spoken and acted as though there were no consequences. The ABC has now made it clear that this is not the case.
4. Once we penetrate the complex language, the ABC is also eventually clear that the great majority at GenCon voted, in effect if not in so many words, against the two relevant moratoria. ‘The repeated request for moratoria . . . has clearly not found universal favour’ is a roundabout but ultimately unambiguous way of saying ‘the majority voted against the moratoria’. This puts in a different light the reference in the first paragraph to ‘an insistence at the highest level’ (i.e. a letter from the Presiding Bishop) that the relevant resolutions ‘do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria’. That may be true in a strict legal sense, though many will see this as an example of typical TEC behaviour, a grandmother’s-footsteps game of creeping forwards without being noticed. But the resolutions that were passed clearly had the effect (a) of reminding people that the way was in fact open all along to the episcopal appointment of non-celibate homosexuals, and (b) of reminding people that rites for public same-sex blessings could indeed be developed. The ABC is now clearly if tacitly saying, throughout the document, that there is no reasonable likelihood, at any point in many years to come, that TEC will in fact turn round and embrace the moratoria ex animo, still less the theology which underlies the Communion’s constant and often-repeated stance on sexual behaviour. Nor is there any reasonable likelihood that TEC will in fact be able to embrace the Covenant when it attains its final form a few months from now. That is the reality with which the Reflections deal.
5. Section 2 of the ABC’s Reflections addresses the presenting double-headed issue of same-sex blessings and the ordination (not simply the consecration as bishops) of non-celibate homosexuals. Here he basically reaffirms the church’s traditional stance, articulated in Lambeth 1.10 from 1998 but universally held, prior to that, whenever the point had been raised. First, the church cannot sanction or bless same-sex unions. Second, since the ordained ministry carries a necessarily representative function for the life of the church, those who order their lives this way cannot fulfil this representative role – cannot, in other words, be ordained. This is perhaps the strongest statement that the ABC has yet made of the Church’s position, and it should be noted carefully that he refers to the whole ordained ministry, i.e. deacons and priests and not just bishops. This has of course always been the official position of the whole Anglican Communion, repeated again and again by Lambeth Conferences, ACC and Primates and never overturned, for instance, in the Church of England’s General Synod. The ABC’s clear statement indicates once again that the two moratoria here expressed (with the second one actually strengthened) should be explicit prerequisites of Covenant membership. However much people may protest – and they have and will – that in some cases this is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, that is not an argument that the position is wrong, but a challenge to the way the church’s order and discipline currently functions. Creating ‘facts on the ground’ which fly in the face of the church’s well-known official teaching does not, as some suppose, generate a moral high ground; it is a form of dishonesty. If people want to object, they should argue the point, not assume it.
6. An aside at this point: some in TEC insist that their theological position has in fact been argued, and that the rest of the Communion is ignoring these arguments. As far as I can discern, there are two main arguments routinely used.
(i) First, the supposed modern and scientific discovery of a personal ‘identity’ characterised by sexual preference, which then generates a set of ‘rights’. The Archbishop has commented on ‘rights’ in this connection. Without entering into discussion of the scientific evidence, it must be said that the Christian notion of personal identity has never before been supposed to be rooted in desires of whatever sort. Indeed, desires are routinely brought under the constraints of ‘being in Christ’. This quite new notion of an ‘identity’ found not only within oneself but within one’s emotional and physical desires needs to be articulated on the basis of scripture and tradition, and this to my mind has not been done.
(ii) This leads to the second point, the appeal to baptism. It is now routinely said in TEC that all the baptised should have access to all the sacraments, on the apparent grounds that baptism indicates God’s acceptance of people as they are. This appears to ignore the New Testament teaching about baptism, that it constitutes a dying to self and sin and a rising to new life with Christ, specifically characterised by a holiness and renewed humanity in which certain habits and styles of life are left behind. From the first century until very recently it was universally understood that this included sexual immorality, and that that included homosexual behaviour. To try to use a supposedly ‘baptismal’ theology to overturn the universal Christian tradition of the meaning of baptism, and with it the universal and biblically-rooted appeal for sexual holiness, is a bold move. Most theologians will think that the first argument above (the proposal of an ‘identity’) is not strong enough to justify it. God’s welcome is always a transforming welcome, as the ABC has elsewhere stressed.
7. Section 2 contains strong and important warnings against personal prejudice and bigotry. The ABC does not spell out the difference between prejudice and bigotry on the one hand and a principled, thought-out moral stance on the other, but he clearly indicates that the two must be sharply separated. It is most welcome that he indicates the Church’s calling to a genuinely prophetic lifestyle: ‘if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline’. No indeed. One of the most astonishing volte-faces in my lifetime has been the change from a liberalism which sought to be counter-cultural, anti-establishment, ‘agin the government’, protesting against the drift of society, and the present would-be liberalism which insists that because society has now drifted in a new direction the church should follow where that culture, the new ‘establishment’, and now even the government, are going. The ABC is far too good a theologian to be taken in by that.
8. Section 3, on the global and local decision-making processes, is a great strength.
(i) Though the ABC does not say so, this is basically a combination of the very heart of the Windsor Report and the one really good section of the Kuala Lumpur Report (Communion, Conflict and Hope, para. 104). At this point the ABC is simply articulating what the Windsor Continuation Group had said clearly before, during and after Lambeth 08.
(ii) The ABC here does three vital things and then homes in on the key point. (a) He insists that this is not (as is often sneeringly said) about bureaucratic or centralized ‘control’; (b) he warns against churches becoming ‘imprisoned in their own cultural environment’ (cognate with the point at the end of my previous paragraph); (c) he broadens the question so as to make it clear that this applies equally to issues such as lay presidency or inviting the unbaptized to receive Holy Communion.
(iii) The key point then is this (his paragraph 13): though some things can indeed be decided by a local church, the decision as to which things can be decided locally is not itself one that can be taken locally. And the criteria upon which the global church can decide this all-important question are (as in Kuala Lumpur) ‘intensity, substance and extent’. This really needs spelling out, but within the ABC’s document, and for that matter the present one, this can be left for another occasion.
9. Within the same section, the ABC makes the vital point that in our ongoing ecumenical work is it vital that our partners know ‘who speaks for the body they are relating to’. If many Anglicans don’t see why these presenting issues should matter, the same is not true for our ecumenical partners, particularly among the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. What is at stake, as well as Anglican identity and ecclesial density (i.e. being a church with a high doctrine of Communion, rather than a loose federation), is ecumenical credibility.
10. Many will not regard the language of a ‘two-track’ Communion as a strength. Some have objected that this is forcing apart what ought to be held together. Others, conversely, have sneered that ‘two-track’ sounds like a vote for pluralism pure and simple, a kind of ecclesial version of ’70s pop-psych ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’: you go your way, we go ours, and we’re both just fine as we are. But the ‘two-track’ option is not intended as an indifferentist, shoulder-shrugging thing (though no doubt some who find themselves in the incipient Track Two will want to see it like that). To say ‘two-tier’, as some have done at earlier stages in the discussion, implies that the two are still ‘tiers’ of the same thing, whereas ‘tracks’ may be going in quite different directions. And it is one ‘track’ rather than the other which will possess the coherence to work together in full solidarity, not least in ecumenical relationships.
11. Finally, the ABC recognises that one of the most urgent questions concerns those within TEC who have remained loyal to TEC itself and yet fully intend also to remain loyal to the rest of the Communion. Having already mentioned in paragraph 2 ‘a significant minority of bishops’ who have clearly said they intend to remain within the Communion’s consensus, he returns to them towards the end. His paragraph 25 is tantalisingly brief where many will want it to be elaborated and explicated, but there can be no doubt that here he holds the door wide open for such people ‘to be free to adopt the Covenant’. How this might work out we must consider below.
Discernment and Further Questions
12. Sex and ‘rights’. In relation to Section 2, someone, sooner or later, needs to spell out further (wearisome though it will be) the difference between (a) the ‘human dignity and civil liberty’ of those with homosexual and similar instincts and (b) their ‘rights’, as practising let alone ordained Christians, to give physical expression to those instincts. As the Pope has pointed out, the language of ‘human rights’ has now been downgraded in public discourse to the special pleading of every interest-group. The church has never acknowledged that powerful sexual instincts, which almost all human beings have, generate a prima facie ‘right’ that these instincts receive physical expression. Indeed, the church has always insisted that self-control is part of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’. All are called to chastity and, within that, some are called to celibacy; but a call to celibacy is not the same thing as discovering that one has a weak or negligible sexual drive. The call to the self-control of chastity is for all: for the heterosexually inclined who, whether married or not, are regularly and powerfully attracted to many different potential partners, just as much as for those with different instincts.
13. The depth of the problem.
(i) Apparent Caution: We should be careful to read the ABC’s cautious words in paragraphs 22 and 24 in the light of the crucial paragraph 2 (see above). The ABC says ‘it would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions’ [i.e. on signing up to the Covenant] ‘had already been made’; and he warns against speaking ‘in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication’. He also speaks of the ‘twofold ecclesial reality’ as a ‘possibility’ in the ‘middle distance’.
(ii) The Reality: But, as he himself has indicated, key decisions have been made (obviously not yet in terms of voting on the Covenant, but certainly in terms of taking stances which will lead directly to such votes); schism has already happened; and not just a twofold, but a confusing and pluriform ecclesial reality, is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact.
(iii) Confrontation Already Exists: Warning against ‘a competitive hostility between the two’ tracks may seem somewhat unrealistic to many in TEC and Canada who have lost churches, livelihoods and in some cases their Holy Orders – and, we should in all fairness stress, to others who, though theologically orthodox themselves, have been sniped at or sneered at by those who use the ‘orthodox’ label as a pretext for personal gripes or power-games. Speaking of an ‘ideal’ whereby both ‘Tracks’ ‘should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency’, will sound idealistic at best when several loud voices in TEC are saying that what God is calling them to is to spread the ‘gospel’ of ‘inclusivity’, and several other voices are saying that God is calling them to resist precisely this.
(iv) Mutual Respect? Pleading for ‘mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions’ will seem straightforwardly unreal both to those who are fed up being called hopeless liberals by unthinking conservatives and to those who are fed up being called hopeless conservatives by unthinking liberals. ‘Deeply held theological convictions’ of course characterize plenty of other groups, not least (for instance) serious Muslim theologians. I respect such convictions, while still believing it proper to argue against them. This kind of plea could simply park the question, insisting (in good Anglican style) that we treat everyone as being in reality what they are in profession, but seeming to ignore the call, to bishops in particular, to guard the faith, teach the truth and refute error. Did Athanasius respect the ‘deeply held theological convictions’ of Arius and his followers? Perhaps he did; certainly he took them seriously enough to refute them vigorously. If the separation of two ‘Tracks’ generated, at last, a full-scale theological and exegetical discussion of disputed points, rather than emotive sniping, we might all be better served in the long run.
14. Representation on Ecumenical bodies. In paragraphs 9, 15 and 23 the ABC speaks of certain people being unable to represent the Communion’s voice in ecumenical encounters. He does not say who he means or how this is now to be worked out (as it must be very quickly if major ecumenical work is to proceed). Presumably the end of paragraphs 10 and 14 are a reference to the dangers inherent in TEC’s position, but again he does not spell this out (no doubt because it isn’t only TEC that faces this danger). In particular, the membership of the newly constituted international Faith and Order Advisory Group raises some questions, particularly (see below) if this group is to advise on the future role of the Instruments and the future structural shape of the Communion. So, too, the Joint Standing Committee as presently constituted includes people who, according to the Archbishop’s own analysis, have gone with the decision to move away from the rest of the Communion.
15. ‘In Communion’? A pressing question in all of this must be: who, both during this process and at its end, will be ‘in Communion’ with whom? Once Tracks One and Two have been identified, will there be mutual recognition of ministries? Presumably not if Track One is committed to Paragraph 8 of the Archbishop’s paper while Track Two is committed to demolishing it. Will communicants be welcome across the gap between the Tracks? If the Covenant becomes the gold standard, and if ACNA sign up as they may well, will the rest of the Communion (including of course the C of E) be ‘in communion’ with ACNA? These are difficult and uncomfortable questions. But they will certainly emerge; there is already a motion on the subject slated for General Synod in February 2010, though by then all sorts of things may look different.
16. No Delay. As this process continues to unfold, there is one major problem with a proposal to put all the eggs into the Covenant basket. (I had always understood that the Covenant was not designed to deal with the post-2003 problem, but rather to head off quite different problems that might arise in the future. I remain wary of trying, now, to put all the weight for the full sorting-out of the 2003 problem on to the Covenant, especially on to one brief, dense and inevitably controversial section of it, and particularly when the final drafting of that section is in the hands of a very small group, albeit then reporting to the ABC.) Now that GenCon 09 has happened, even if the Covenant is completed within a few months TEC will assuredly say that it can’t consider it until 2012, and that such consideration could only be preliminary, looking to a more definite decision in 2015. This delaying tactic – twelve years from 2003, when the crisis really began! – must be seen for what it is, and headed off. The obvious way to do this is to declare that ‘Track One’ is open, right away, to Covenant signatories, and only Covenant signatories. How precisely that could be done (granted that the Joint Standing Committee, for instance, includes some from TEC and other sympathetic provinces) remains a question. But it needs to be done, and done quickly. I offer some suggestions on all this in the conclusion below.
17. Section 4 of the Covenant. Picking up the point just made: Section 4 of the Covenant needs to proceed swiftly to its final form. This process is far too important to be left to a small group advising the Archbishop. When the Archbishop receives the group’s work, he should consult with key Communion representatives to ensure that there are no remaining hidden problems. In this process, any reduction or limiting of Section 4 (clearly the hope of the majority in TEC, not least those who pushed the ACC to postpone a decision) will be a large step away from the mind of the Communion as the ABC has himself expressed it, and would have the effect of nullifying all that he has said in his Reflections.
18. Retuning the Instruments? A further problem, not too far down the line, is contained in the ABC’s brief references to a restructuring or reworking of the Instruments themselves.
(i) New Cross-Track ‘instruments’? In paragraph 24 he speaks of hoping and working for ‘the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage’. What might these be? Clearly not the Lambeth Conference, the ACC and the Primates. They, we must assume, will be Track One institutions; if they are not, the whole point (not least the whole ecumenical point) will be lost. So do we need some new institutions to enable the two tracks to talk to one another and to work together on shared ‘mission and service’ projects? This would constitute an unprecedented kind of internal ecumenism, fraught with frustrations and bad memories; yet perhaps it needs to be attempted.
(ii) The existing Institutions: And what about the existing Institutions? Paragraph 26 speaks of the present structures needing ‘serious rethinking in the near future’. This, presumably, will be a task for the newly constituted international Faith and Order Advisory Group – though, since some of that Group come from parts of the Communion which now appear likely to be in Track Two, that raises other difficult questions. (Why was the group chosen and named just before General Convention?) But the thought of the complex discussions that might swirl around any reshaping of Lambeth, ACC and Primates, and any ‘covering-both-tracks’ new institutions, is daunting. We already have a highly confusing situation both globally and nationally, with the ACO and Lambeth sitting uncomfortably side by side and with the shape and role of the existing Instruments remaining unclear. We need, if anything, to simplify and clarify, not to create more complexity. Complexity simply hands power to those with time on their hands and with well-developed skills in political manipulation.
Conclusion
19. Having worked very carefully through the Archbishop’s Reflections several times, having read what several others have said, and having had various conversations, I can understand the frustrations of those who wanted something more obviously crisp and clear. Yet at the heart of this document are two things which the Communion has badly needed to hear, hedged about with all kinds of assurances which make it clear that this is neither a knee-jerk reaction nor a mere statement of prejudice: a strong reaffirmation of the Anglican position on sexual behaviour, and a strong insistence on the Windsor point that global issues cannot be decided locally – and that the decision as to what is global and what is local cannot itself be decided locally. The ‘so what’ of all this needs now to be drawn out, and in my view this needs to happen more or less at once, not postponed until Section 4 of the Covenant is redrafted and ratified. In particular, the Communion Partner bishops, and parishes and individuals who take that stance, need to be assured that what is said rather briefly in paragraph 25 does indeed apply, and will indeed apply, to them, and that ways will be found very quickly to turn that into a reality.
20. How then can this ‘so what’ become a reality? We remind ourselves again that the ABC has no juridical authority outside his own Province, and that he is aware of himself being involved in the danger of trying, as a local Primate, to decide things for the whole Communion. Yet, as Archbishop of Canterbury, he carries within the whole Communion immense moral and pastoral authority, rooted in his exposition of scripture and articulation of the whole Christian tradition; and this, as he himself has insisted, is the real heart of all authority within the body of Christ. Too often in recent times legal and juridical ‘authority’ has been used, and perhaps abused, in the place of the genuine apostolic authority of the word of God and prayer. It is thus up to the Archbishop himself to move swiftly to implement what he himself has said, counting on support from bishops around his own Province and the whole Communion. The Covenant (which the ABC has repeatedly affirmed as the new instrument of our unity and common life) needs to be completed and offered to all Anglicans for signature. Those within TEC who sign it need appropriate Communion recognition and relatedness – if bishops, a Primatial relationship, if parishes or individuals, an episcopal relationship. Ways by which this can be done have been worked out by the Communion Partner bishops, and it is with them, first and foremost, that the Archbishop must work towards the necessary and urgent solutions. What now follows are some suggestions for how this might be attempted.
21. A Way Forward?
(i) How do ‘Communion Partners’ sign on? The question presses, as in the ABC’s paragraph 25, as to how dioceses, parishes and individuals within TEC will be able to sign the Covenant and thus not only align themselves, but be recognised by the wider Communion as aligning themselves, with that wider Communion itself. The ABC is certainly here referring to the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, and to the parishes and individuals who take the same line that they do. As the ABC says, ‘there should be a clear answer to this question’, and actually the ABC himself is now the main person, if not the only person, in a position to give a clear and authoritative answer. But some proposals here may perhaps help.
(ii) The Anaheim Statement: In his second paragraph, the Archbishop notes that a substantial minority have indicated their dissent from the position taken by TEC as a whole. The document they have produced (‘the Anaheim Statement’) could now form something of a bridge between the present confusion and the not-too-distant future when the full Covenant will be available for signature. Some reports indicate that bishops who voted with the majority in Gen Con are now realising the predicament they’ve put themselves in and are starting to sign up to Anaheim instead.
(iii) What about Parishes and Individuals? But here’s the problem: it is one thing for bishops and their dioceses to be ‘Communion Partners’, recognised by Lambeth and the wider Communion as full ‘Track One’ members. (That carries its own problems, but if the diocese is the primary unit, as the ABC has insisted, it is clearly possible.) But how a parish in a non-signing diocese, or an individual in a non-signing parish or diocese, can become a ‘Track One’ Anglican, recognised as such globally, remains to be seen. Many in that position neither want nor intend to join a movement like ACNA, nor should they be put in a position where they have no other option. But a way forward must be found.
(iv) Getting from Here to There: Covenant Sections 1-3. The Covenant, when completed, will provide a line in the sand. However, we do not need to wait until Section 4 is redrafted. The first three sections are already completed and agreed, and they (especially Section Three) already prohibit the kinds of things which General Convention has done, and which many TEC bishops are doing. These three sections could be signed and adopted right away by CP bishops and dioceses as a signal of their intent.
(v) Getting from Here to There: Anaheim. The Anaheim Statement itself could also function as a preliminary rallying point around which more may gather than had initially been supposed. Perhaps, indeed, signing this statement, along with Sections 1-3 of the Covenant, could function, ahead of the availability of the final version of the Covenant, as a prerequisite for participation, from this moment on, in representative Anglican functions and bodies and, not least, in bodies that deal with the Covenant itself and the future of the Instruments. That would give actual and practical expression to what the ABC has now said. Indeed, unless something like this is implemented at once it will be hard to sustain trust in the ongoing process.
(vi) Interim Structures? We need some interim structures to get us from where we are to where we need to be – and not only in TEC, but also in Canada and perhaps elsewhere. But we need these now, not in six months, let alone six years. The Communion Partner bishops should perhaps restate their willingness to provide, with the permission of the relevant Diocesan, alternative episcopal relationship and cover for parishes in Dioceses whose bishops might find their relation to the wider Communion to have changed. The now largely discredited ‘DEPO’ system (‘Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight’) may have been a signpost, albeit one that didn’t seem to be capable of working well at the time, towards some kind of a solution. Issues of polity should, if possible, be dealt with at a provincial, not a global, level.
(vii) Urgent meetings? Ideally, the CP bishops, and perhaps some of the Rectors, should meet with the Archbishop to discuss some kind of a revived DEPO. The ABC could then invite others, including both representatives of TEC leadership on the one hand and ACNA on the other, to further meetings to work out agreements that would avoid future confusions or accusations. There is a need, perhaps, for a call to mutual respect, and maturity of decision-making, in recognition of where things now stand. There is no point pretending things are otherwise than they are. We have come to the tipping point, and wisdom suggests that all involved take counsel in recognition of that.
(viii) What about ACNA? All this raises, then, the question of ACNA itself (and, indeed, other would-be Anglican bodies). Without some kind of clear steer on the issues just raised, we can expect that ACNA will continue to attract individuals, congregations and perhaps even dioceses. This is, indeed, already happening. However, though the situation on the ground is often confused, ACNA has expressed a clear willingness to work with the Communion Partner bishops towards whatever greater good may come. And ACNA itself has shown itself eager to sign the Covenant when it is complete. All this will go into the melting pot of whatever new alignments the Communion will discover over the coming months. It is important that bridges, not fences, be built during this period.
22. These are only suggestions, designed to help those on the ground not only to think through the issues but to take concrete and immediate steps. I have said many times that, for all those involved in this whole messy situation, the main priority at the moment is prayer. That remains my conviction and my plea. Prayer for the church; for our beloved Communion and the many other Christians with whom we seek to deepen fellowship; for Archbishop Rowan; for wisdom, courage, clarity and vision; for God’s glory, the extension of his kingdom, and the power of the gospel and the Spirit at work in hearts, lives, communities and throughout our world.
The CANA Council kicks off today
HERNDON, Va. (July 27, 2009) – This week, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America will hold its annual council meeting featuring as keynote speakers Dr. Steve Garber of the Washington Institute for Faith, Vocation, and Culture and the Most Rev’d Ignatius Kattey, Regional Archbishop of the Church of Nigeria. The Rev’d Canon Julian Dobbs also will be a featured speaker, addressing the challenge of Islam to Christians in the U.S. As CANA continues to grow throughout the United States and serve as a leading voice in the orthodox Christian movement, speakers will tackle tough issues such as:
Threats to religious freedom
The growth of Islam in the U.S.
The future of CANA and the Anglican Church in North America
Caring for the poor and the jobless
Raising up new Anglican leaders and planting churches
“Since CANA continues to grow both spiritually and in the number of congregations, we must address the issues we face in modern society to ensure that orthodox Anglicanism remains a sanctuary for those wishing to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and experience profound transformation through Him,” said the Rt. Rev’d Martyn Minns, Missionary Bishop of CANA, who will give a Friday address to the Council on the growth of CANA and orthodox Anglicanism in the U.S.
CANA Council is an annual gathering of clergy and lay delegates from member parishes across the county. The meeting will take place at CANA’s headquarters located at Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, Va., from July 30 – August 1, 2009. The Council will conclude with a festival Eucharist on Saturday that will include the ordination of several new CANA chaplains. More details can be found on the CANA website at www.canaconvocation.org.
The Convocation of Anglicans in North America currently consists of more than 75 congregations and 160 clergy in 21 states. CANA was established in 2005 to provide a means by which Anglicans living in the USA who were alienated by the actions and decisions of The Episcopal Church could continue to live out their faith without compromising their core convictions. Created as a missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria, about a dozen of the congregations are primarily expatriate Nigerians. CANA is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America, an emerging Anglican province that includes about 700 congregations.
PM UPDATE: What a day - a full day! The CANA Council continues to grow and this year the council seemed to move from "What's it all about?" to "We are family" - it did feel much more like a family this year, with not only reunions with friends from the past, but also lots of new faces - some I met at the ACNA Conference last month and other who have come into CANA since last year, as well as others who are in the process of transferring in.
The Legislation Session is not until Saturday morning when the real "news" will be made. Today was much more like Day One of a family reunion and meeting all the new members. Of course, much of the buzz is how we will work out being part of ACNA, not only as CANA but also as districts and individual parishes as well.
Daryl Fenton from Archbishop Bob Duncan's office is here and when I met up with him I said, "Ah, one of the Jedi!"
I don't think he's ever been called that before.
Tomorrow is CANA Bishop, Martyn Minns' "State of CANA" address. Kevin Kalsen of AnglicanTV is also here and we'll aim to put his videos. I will try to do some as well, so stay tuned!
Threats to religious freedom
The growth of Islam in the U.S.
The future of CANA and the Anglican Church in North America
Caring for the poor and the jobless
Raising up new Anglican leaders and planting churches
“Since CANA continues to grow both spiritually and in the number of congregations, we must address the issues we face in modern society to ensure that orthodox Anglicanism remains a sanctuary for those wishing to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and experience profound transformation through Him,” said the Rt. Rev’d Martyn Minns, Missionary Bishop of CANA, who will give a Friday address to the Council on the growth of CANA and orthodox Anglicanism in the U.S.
CANA Council is an annual gathering of clergy and lay delegates from member parishes across the county. The meeting will take place at CANA’s headquarters located at Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, Va., from July 30 – August 1, 2009. The Council will conclude with a festival Eucharist on Saturday that will include the ordination of several new CANA chaplains. More details can be found on the CANA website at www.canaconvocation.org.
The Convocation of Anglicans in North America currently consists of more than 75 congregations and 160 clergy in 21 states. CANA was established in 2005 to provide a means by which Anglicans living in the USA who were alienated by the actions and decisions of The Episcopal Church could continue to live out their faith without compromising their core convictions. Created as a missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria, about a dozen of the congregations are primarily expatriate Nigerians. CANA is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America, an emerging Anglican province that includes about 700 congregations.
PM UPDATE: What a day - a full day! The CANA Council continues to grow and this year the council seemed to move from "What's it all about?" to "We are family" - it did feel much more like a family this year, with not only reunions with friends from the past, but also lots of new faces - some I met at the ACNA Conference last month and other who have come into CANA since last year, as well as others who are in the process of transferring in.
The Legislation Session is not until Saturday morning when the real "news" will be made. Today was much more like Day One of a family reunion and meeting all the new members. Of course, much of the buzz is how we will work out being part of ACNA, not only as CANA but also as districts and individual parishes as well.
Daryl Fenton from Archbishop Bob Duncan's office is here and when I met up with him I said, "Ah, one of the Jedi!"
I don't think he's ever been called that before.
Tomorrow is CANA Bishop, Martyn Minns' "State of CANA" address. Kevin Kalsen of AnglicanTV is also here and we'll aim to put his videos. I will try to do some as well, so stay tuned!
Anglican leader's concern for unity reflects Vatican concerns
Via BabyBlue:
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Vatican concerns about how some recent decisions of the U.S. Episcopal Church will impact the search for full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity are echoed in a reflection by Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion.
Writing July 27 about the Episcopal Church's recent general convention, Archbishop Williams repeatedly referred to the need to keep in mind the ecumenical implications of local church decisions in addition to their impact on the unity of the Anglican Communion as a whole.
Archbishop Williams' reflection, titled "Communion, Covenant and Our Anglican Future," was published on the archbishop's Web site at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502.
In a statement July 29, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity noted Archbishop Williams' concern for maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion through common faith and practice based on Scripture and tradition.
The Vatican office "supports the archbishop in his desire to strengthen these bonds of communion, and to articulate more fully the relationship between the local and the universal within the church," the statement said.
"It is our prayer that the Anglican Communion, even in this difficult situation, may find a way to maintain its unity and its witness to Christ as a worldwide communion," it added.
The Episcopal Church's general convention adopted two resolutions that may further strain relations within the Anglican Communion and with the Catholic Church: One affirmed that all ordained ministries, including the office of bishop, are open to all the baptized, including gays and lesbians; the other called for the collection and development of theological resources for the blessing of same-sex unions.
Last year the Lambeth Conference, a gathering of leaders from around the Anglican Communion, strongly urged all members of the communion to respect moratoriums on ordaining openly gay bishops and on blessing same-sex unions.
After their general convention, the leaders of the Episcopal Church wrote to Archbishop Williams, saying that their resolutions do not signal the end of the moratoriums, but rather describe the position of the U.S. church.
Pope Benedict XVI and his top ecumenical officer have said the Episcopal Church's position on homosexuality and its ordination of women as priests and bishops make full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity appear impossible.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told the Lambeth Conference last year that what is at stake "is nothing other than our faithfulness to Christ himself."
While recognizing the Episcopalians' desire to respond to what they see as a pastoral need, he said the Catholic Church is convinced that its teaching that homosexual activity is sinful "is well-founded in the Old and in the New Testament" as well as in Christian tradition.
And, the cardinal said, the Catholic Church also believes the fact that Christ chose only men to be his apostles means the church is not authorized to ordain women.
Responding to challenges posed by modern sensitivities requires solutions that are clearly in line with the teaching of the Gospel and of Christian tradition, recognized not only by Roman Catholics, but also by the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, Cardinal Kasper had said.
In his reflection July 27, Archbishop Williams said the Anglican Communion clearly opposes prejudice against homosexual people and denounces any attempt to limit their civil liberties.
But, the archbishop said, "if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the church to change its discipline."
"In the light of the way in which the church has consistently read the Bible for the last 2,000 years," he said, any major change in church practice must have "a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding," as well as take into account "the teachings of ecumenical partners."
Recognizing the authority of and particular circumstances faced by local churches, the archbishop still insisted that a local church needs "some way of including in its discernment the judgment of the wider church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognizable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe."
Accepting major changes to church discipline and practice without the consensus of the entire communion, he said, "would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent 'community of Christian communities.'"
Archbishop Williams' reflection theorized that the future of the Anglican Communion may involve two styles of relationships: one that fully shares "a vision of how the church should be and behave," and another less formal style of associated churches that work together in areas of common agreement.
Anglican Communion representatives to ecumenical and interfaith dialogues would be drawn only from members who fully share the communion's vision and teachings so that the Anglicans' ecumenical partners would know who they are talking to at the dialogue meetings, he said.
END
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Vatican concerns about how some recent decisions of the U.S. Episcopal Church will impact the search for full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity are echoed in a reflection by Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion.
Writing July 27 about the Episcopal Church's recent general convention, Archbishop Williams repeatedly referred to the need to keep in mind the ecumenical implications of local church decisions in addition to their impact on the unity of the Anglican Communion as a whole.
Archbishop Williams' reflection, titled "Communion, Covenant and Our Anglican Future," was published on the archbishop's Web site at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502.
In a statement July 29, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity noted Archbishop Williams' concern for maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion through common faith and practice based on Scripture and tradition.
The Vatican office "supports the archbishop in his desire to strengthen these bonds of communion, and to articulate more fully the relationship between the local and the universal within the church," the statement said.
"It is our prayer that the Anglican Communion, even in this difficult situation, may find a way to maintain its unity and its witness to Christ as a worldwide communion," it added.
The Episcopal Church's general convention adopted two resolutions that may further strain relations within the Anglican Communion and with the Catholic Church: One affirmed that all ordained ministries, including the office of bishop, are open to all the baptized, including gays and lesbians; the other called for the collection and development of theological resources for the blessing of same-sex unions.
Last year the Lambeth Conference, a gathering of leaders from around the Anglican Communion, strongly urged all members of the communion to respect moratoriums on ordaining openly gay bishops and on blessing same-sex unions.
After their general convention, the leaders of the Episcopal Church wrote to Archbishop Williams, saying that their resolutions do not signal the end of the moratoriums, but rather describe the position of the U.S. church.
Pope Benedict XVI and his top ecumenical officer have said the Episcopal Church's position on homosexuality and its ordination of women as priests and bishops make full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity appear impossible.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told the Lambeth Conference last year that what is at stake "is nothing other than our faithfulness to Christ himself."
While recognizing the Episcopalians' desire to respond to what they see as a pastoral need, he said the Catholic Church is convinced that its teaching that homosexual activity is sinful "is well-founded in the Old and in the New Testament" as well as in Christian tradition.
And, the cardinal said, the Catholic Church also believes the fact that Christ chose only men to be his apostles means the church is not authorized to ordain women.
Responding to challenges posed by modern sensitivities requires solutions that are clearly in line with the teaching of the Gospel and of Christian tradition, recognized not only by Roman Catholics, but also by the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, Cardinal Kasper had said.
In his reflection July 27, Archbishop Williams said the Anglican Communion clearly opposes prejudice against homosexual people and denounces any attempt to limit their civil liberties.
But, the archbishop said, "if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the church to change its discipline."
"In the light of the way in which the church has consistently read the Bible for the last 2,000 years," he said, any major change in church practice must have "a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding," as well as take into account "the teachings of ecumenical partners."
Recognizing the authority of and particular circumstances faced by local churches, the archbishop still insisted that a local church needs "some way of including in its discernment the judgment of the wider church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognizable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe."
Accepting major changes to church discipline and practice without the consensus of the entire communion, he said, "would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent 'community of Christian communities.'"
Archbishop Williams' reflection theorized that the future of the Anglican Communion may involve two styles of relationships: one that fully shares "a vision of how the church should be and behave," and another less formal style of associated churches that work together in areas of common agreement.
Anglican Communion representatives to ecumenical and interfaith dialogues would be drawn only from members who fully share the communion's vision and teachings so that the Anglicans' ecumenical partners would know who they are talking to at the dialogue meetings, he said.
END
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams speaks of 'two-tier' church
From The L.A. Times via BabyBlue:
He outlines a different role for the Episcopal Church within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By Duke Helfand
9:54 PM PDT, July 27, 2009
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams suggested Monday that the Episcopal Church might have to accept a different role within the worldwide Anglican Communion amid U.S. leaders' decision to lift a de facto ban on gay bishops and to consider rites of blessing for same-sex unions.
Williams outlined his concerns in a statement to leaders throughout the communion, saying "very serious anxieties have already been expressed" among the 77 million Anglicans. The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, adopted the new policies during a 10-day convention in Anaheim that ended July 17.
"It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are -- two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out," Williams wrote.
Tensions between the U.S. church and global Anglicans have mounted since the 2003 consecration of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. That led to the departure of dozens of churches and four dioceses, including one in Central California.
The church's presiding bishop, the Most. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, did not respond to Williams' letter Monday, a spokeswoman said.
But Jefferts Schori and another senior church leader tried to allay Anglican fears during the recent convention. In a letter to Williams and the communion's 38 other worldwide regional leaders, they described the resolution on gay bishops as "more descriptive than prescriptive in nature." They said the measure did not repeal an earlier ban on such ordinations, but instead reaffirmed commitments made by U.S. church laws, which bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"In adopting this resolution, it is not our desire to give offense," they wrote. "We remain keenly aware of the concerns and sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in other churches across the communion."
Episcopalians greeted Williams' letter with a range of emotions. Some criticized him, saying his proposals would relegate their church to second-class status. Others said they were gratified that Williams, who attended part of the recent convention, condemned persecution of gays and lesbians and recognized the U.S. church's commitment to the global communion.
"Now the question is, how do we proceed together as Anglicans across the globe," said Rebecca Wilson, communications director for the Chicago Consultation, an advocacy group that supports the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the worldwide communion.
He outlines a different role for the Episcopal Church within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
By Duke Helfand
9:54 PM PDT, July 27, 2009
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams suggested Monday that the Episcopal Church might have to accept a different role within the worldwide Anglican Communion amid U.S. leaders' decision to lift a de facto ban on gay bishops and to consider rites of blessing for same-sex unions.
Williams outlined his concerns in a statement to leaders throughout the communion, saying "very serious anxieties have already been expressed" among the 77 million Anglicans. The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, adopted the new policies during a 10-day convention in Anaheim that ended July 17.
"It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are -- two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out," Williams wrote.
Tensions between the U.S. church and global Anglicans have mounted since the 2003 consecration of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. That led to the departure of dozens of churches and four dioceses, including one in Central California.
The church's presiding bishop, the Most. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, did not respond to Williams' letter Monday, a spokeswoman said.
But Jefferts Schori and another senior church leader tried to allay Anglican fears during the recent convention. In a letter to Williams and the communion's 38 other worldwide regional leaders, they described the resolution on gay bishops as "more descriptive than prescriptive in nature." They said the measure did not repeal an earlier ban on such ordinations, but instead reaffirmed commitments made by U.S. church laws, which bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"In adopting this resolution, it is not our desire to give offense," they wrote. "We remain keenly aware of the concerns and sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in other churches across the communion."
Episcopalians greeted Williams' letter with a range of emotions. Some criticized him, saying his proposals would relegate their church to second-class status. Others said they were gratified that Williams, who attended part of the recent convention, condemned persecution of gays and lesbians and recognized the U.S. church's commitment to the global communion.
"Now the question is, how do we proceed together as Anglicans across the globe," said Rebecca Wilson, communications director for the Chicago Consultation, an advocacy group that supports the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the worldwide communion.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Doing the theology
In the Integrity response to Rowan Williams Susan Russell laments that the ABC hasn't taken proper notice of the theological work that has already been done on the full inclusion of active homosexuals in the life of the Communion (see her post below). Perhaps the ABC is only reflecting on the shabby theology that Integrity et al has produced to this point. To Set Our Hope on Christ is the case in point. It was commissioned by pecusa and recognized almost immediately upon release by liberals and conservatives alike as a poor work of theology.
Rowan Williams has already commented on the inferior quality of theological reflection by Bishop John Spong. The theological underpinnings of Integrity's case aren't any better than Spong's Jr. High theology (as it was characterized by the ABC). So, when the Integrity crowd can produce some serious theology I'm sure the ABC, who generally stands on their side, will recognize it. At this point it seems likely that the Anglican Communion will soon devolve into a two-tier system with provinces like pecusa being downgraded in both place and authority. pecusa has placed autonomy over communion as the ABC has said and will be recognized in the gentle British way to be the heretics and apostates that they are. I wonder how many pecusa bishops are still opining that nothing has really changed in pecusa from GC09?
Rowan Williams has already commented on the inferior quality of theological reflection by Bishop John Spong. The theological underpinnings of Integrity's case aren't any better than Spong's Jr. High theology (as it was characterized by the ABC). So, when the Integrity crowd can produce some serious theology I'm sure the ABC, who generally stands on their side, will recognize it. At this point it seems likely that the Anglican Communion will soon devolve into a two-tier system with provinces like pecusa being downgraded in both place and authority. pecusa has placed autonomy over communion as the ABC has said and will be recognized in the gentle British way to be the heretics and apostates that they are. I wonder how many pecusa bishops are still opining that nothing has really changed in pecusa from GC09?
Two Tiers, One Cheer - Rowan Williams' Reflections on the Future of the Anglican Communion
Via VirtueOnline:
By Charles Raven
SPREAD
July 28, 2009
After having taken a rather long pause for thought, the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday released his considered response to the decisions of the Episcopal Church at its General Convention, which rejected his personal plea for moderation and pressed ahead to officially authorise liturgies for the blessing of those in same sex unions and the ordination of those in such partnerships.
Despite a deeply unconvincing attempt by the Presiding Bishop to claim that the moratorium on such steps is actually still in place on the basis that the resolutions were descriptive rather than prescriptive (so why bother passing them?), this action was rightly seen as having destroyed any hopes of maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion and has elicited from the Archbishop an unusually lucid damage limitation exercise, helpfully presented in twenty-six numbered paragraphs set out like theses.
At first reading, those who hold to classical Anglican teaching might be inclined to give 'three cheers' since the Archbishop appears to give a strong affirmation of traditional biblical teaching on sexuality and accepts that some form of institutional distance from revisionist Churches may be necessary.
Specifically, he recommends that the Anglican Communion should now accept the likelihood that it will have to operate as a two tier body, a core made up of those Churches which can coalesce around the Anglican Covenant and a less 'intensely' engaged cluster of Churches for whom local autonomy takes priority. On the specific presenting issue of sexuality he unambiguously aligns himself with the orthodox core and it is encouraging to find the erstwhile campaigner and theologian of the gay lesbian movement writing :
8. ...a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires'
and :
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity...
In an English context, this is a remarkable statement from someone so close to the liberal establishment and may help to restrain a government in its dying days increasingly determined to promote gay rights at the expense of the rights of conscience and free speech.
So it is very much to be welcomed that Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury has now managed to so distance himself from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales and advocate of 'gay ordination' (one cheer.), but the two tier strategy will not work because it reflects the deeper problem of the Archbishop's flawed theology of revelation. His characteristic reticence to speak of the Bible as God's Word reflects a persistent theological difficulty in speaking about the authority of Christian doctrine (see my article 'Shadow Gospel'), which only the GAFCON movement has begun to seriously address at a Communion wide level.
It is in this area of authority, ultimately Scriptural authority, that the Anglican Communion struggles when confronted by the 'new religion' of TEC and its associates. The Anglican Church of North America's (ACNA) Presiding Bishop Robert Duncan made it clear in his recent open letter 'Two Cities, One Choice' that the Communion's difficulties arise through trying to hold together fundamentally opposed visions of Christianity. Reflecting on the ACNA launch in Bedford, Texas, and TEC's General Convention in Anaheim , California, shortly afterwards he observed that:
'In the last month, the contrasting behaviors and values of the religious leaders who met in these two small cities made each a symbol of Anglicanism's inescapable choice. The two Anglican Churches in the United States represent two cities. Jerusalem and Babylon come to mind as the Scriptural cities which are enduring symbols of choices to be made by God's people.'
In contrast, for Rowan Williams the issue is not primarily about faithfulness to apostolic truth, but the willingness to intensify relationships within the given institutional structures. So he writes:
22. ... For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way [The Anglican Covenant], or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness - existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces.
The Archbishop's new found commitment to orthodoxy in sexual matters does not therefore flow from an understanding of the difference between teachings which are intrinsically right or wrong, but is to do with his understanding of proper process:
23. This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.
This emphasis on process rather than substance has been a weakness of the Windsor Covenant strategy from the start. It can only deal with symptoms. It cannot deal with the underlying chronic infection of false teaching. What Presiding Bishop Bob Duncan sees as 'Babylon' - the realm of those who reject God's rule - becomes in Rowan Williams' ecclesiology simply an alternative style:
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are - two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. .. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency.
At this point, I'm beginning to have doubts about the title of this piece. Should I even have given one cheer? It now becomes clear that what appeared to be surprisingly unambiguous statements by Rowan Williams on sexuality actually open up a deeper level of ambiguity. He affirms them not out of personal conviction (this would be an astonishing reversal), but because he is committed to an institutional process and adapts accordingly. If the clear teaching of Scripture can simply be reduced to a matter of style and the biblical discipline of excommunication is dubbed 'apocalyptic', where could the 'intensifying' of Anglican Covenant relationships eventually lead under Rowan Williams' leadership?
Depressed revisionists who believe that Rowan has betrayed the cause should read Susan Russell's perceptive comment on behalf of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA and cheer up. She takes the long view and argues 'we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want. And as we continue to move forward in mission and ministry with those who embrace historic Anglican comprehensiveness, we believe those "outer darkness" threats are going to ring more and more hollow until they fade away altogether.' Some pieces on the chess board may have to go, but this will be in order all the more thoroughly to subvert the orthodox in the long run.
There is a subtle trap for the orthodox here. The Archbishop is speaking their language, but not for their reasons. If they support this proposal for a two-tier Communion they will have implicitly abandoned the claim to guard apostolic truth and will be progressively neutralised through interminable indaba. Only the GAFCON movement has the theological backbone to rescue the Communion because the Jerusalem Declaration is willing to state not only the positives, but also the necessary negatives - of the reality of false teaching and the need to reject the authority of those who deny the faith, in word or deed.
END
By Charles Raven
SPREAD
July 28, 2009
After having taken a rather long pause for thought, the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday released his considered response to the decisions of the Episcopal Church at its General Convention, which rejected his personal plea for moderation and pressed ahead to officially authorise liturgies for the blessing of those in same sex unions and the ordination of those in such partnerships.
Despite a deeply unconvincing attempt by the Presiding Bishop to claim that the moratorium on such steps is actually still in place on the basis that the resolutions were descriptive rather than prescriptive (so why bother passing them?), this action was rightly seen as having destroyed any hopes of maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion and has elicited from the Archbishop an unusually lucid damage limitation exercise, helpfully presented in twenty-six numbered paragraphs set out like theses.
At first reading, those who hold to classical Anglican teaching might be inclined to give 'three cheers' since the Archbishop appears to give a strong affirmation of traditional biblical teaching on sexuality and accepts that some form of institutional distance from revisionist Churches may be necessary.
Specifically, he recommends that the Anglican Communion should now accept the likelihood that it will have to operate as a two tier body, a core made up of those Churches which can coalesce around the Anglican Covenant and a less 'intensely' engaged cluster of Churches for whom local autonomy takes priority. On the specific presenting issue of sexuality he unambiguously aligns himself with the orthodox core and it is encouraging to find the erstwhile campaigner and theologian of the gay lesbian movement writing :
8. ...a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires'
and :
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity...
In an English context, this is a remarkable statement from someone so close to the liberal establishment and may help to restrain a government in its dying days increasingly determined to promote gay rights at the expense of the rights of conscience and free speech.
So it is very much to be welcomed that Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury has now managed to so distance himself from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales and advocate of 'gay ordination' (one cheer.), but the two tier strategy will not work because it reflects the deeper problem of the Archbishop's flawed theology of revelation. His characteristic reticence to speak of the Bible as God's Word reflects a persistent theological difficulty in speaking about the authority of Christian doctrine (see my article 'Shadow Gospel'), which only the GAFCON movement has begun to seriously address at a Communion wide level.
It is in this area of authority, ultimately Scriptural authority, that the Anglican Communion struggles when confronted by the 'new religion' of TEC and its associates. The Anglican Church of North America's (ACNA) Presiding Bishop Robert Duncan made it clear in his recent open letter 'Two Cities, One Choice' that the Communion's difficulties arise through trying to hold together fundamentally opposed visions of Christianity. Reflecting on the ACNA launch in Bedford, Texas, and TEC's General Convention in Anaheim , California, shortly afterwards he observed that:
'In the last month, the contrasting behaviors and values of the religious leaders who met in these two small cities made each a symbol of Anglicanism's inescapable choice. The two Anglican Churches in the United States represent two cities. Jerusalem and Babylon come to mind as the Scriptural cities which are enduring symbols of choices to be made by God's people.'
In contrast, for Rowan Williams the issue is not primarily about faithfulness to apostolic truth, but the willingness to intensify relationships within the given institutional structures. So he writes:
22. ... For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way [The Anglican Covenant], or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness - existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces.
The Archbishop's new found commitment to orthodoxy in sexual matters does not therefore flow from an understanding of the difference between teachings which are intrinsically right or wrong, but is to do with his understanding of proper process:
23. This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.
This emphasis on process rather than substance has been a weakness of the Windsor Covenant strategy from the start. It can only deal with symptoms. It cannot deal with the underlying chronic infection of false teaching. What Presiding Bishop Bob Duncan sees as 'Babylon' - the realm of those who reject God's rule - becomes in Rowan Williams' ecclesiology simply an alternative style:
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are - two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. .. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency.
At this point, I'm beginning to have doubts about the title of this piece. Should I even have given one cheer? It now becomes clear that what appeared to be surprisingly unambiguous statements by Rowan Williams on sexuality actually open up a deeper level of ambiguity. He affirms them not out of personal conviction (this would be an astonishing reversal), but because he is committed to an institutional process and adapts accordingly. If the clear teaching of Scripture can simply be reduced to a matter of style and the biblical discipline of excommunication is dubbed 'apocalyptic', where could the 'intensifying' of Anglican Covenant relationships eventually lead under Rowan Williams' leadership?
Depressed revisionists who believe that Rowan has betrayed the cause should read Susan Russell's perceptive comment on behalf of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA and cheer up. She takes the long view and argues 'we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want. And as we continue to move forward in mission and ministry with those who embrace historic Anglican comprehensiveness, we believe those "outer darkness" threats are going to ring more and more hollow until they fade away altogether.' Some pieces on the chess board may have to go, but this will be in order all the more thoroughly to subvert the orthodox in the long run.
There is a subtle trap for the orthodox here. The Archbishop is speaking their language, but not for their reasons. If they support this proposal for a two-tier Communion they will have implicitly abandoned the claim to guard apostolic truth and will be progressively neutralised through interminable indaba. Only the GAFCON movement has the theological backbone to rescue the Communion because the Jerusalem Declaration is willing to state not only the positives, but also the necessary negatives - of the reality of false teaching and the need to reject the authority of those who deny the faith, in word or deed.
END
Integrity Press Release: response to ABC
via Stand Firm:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement this morning entitled "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future" and subtitled: Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion. In it, +Rowan Williams does what he believes he is called to do as an "Instrument of Unity" for the whole communion: He trys to keep as many as possible at the table doing the work of the gospel. Integrity does not envy him that task.
Integrity regrets the Archbishop's categorization of TEC's commitment to full inclusion of the LGBT baptized as a "rights" issue rather than a "theological" issue -- believing that it falls sadly short of recognizing all the theological reflection that has both moved and motivated this church over the years.
"We are frankly tired of being told we 'haven't done the theology,'" said Integrity President Susan Russell, "when the truth is that there are those in our wider Anglican family who do not agree with the theology we have done. But what we can do is keep doing it. We can keep reaching out. We can keep working together with our communion partners on mission and ministry all over this Worldwide Anglican Family of ours with those who will work with us. And we can stay in conversation with those who won't.
Because we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want. And as we continue to move forward in mission and ministry with those who embrace historic Anglican comprehensiveness, we believe those "outer darkness" threats are going to ring more and more hollow until they fade away altogether.
And meanwhile, we can live into the liberated-for-mission message our General Convention sent home from Anaheim and bless those who come to us asking for the church's blessing on their already-blessed-by-God relationships and raising up into ALL orders of ministry those who God calls into vocations of deacon, priest and bishop.
Because, as the closing word's of +Rowan Williams' statement assure us:
If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right.
But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.
As American Anglicans, we've "rethought structures" before (see also: "1789" and the birth American Episcopal Church) and lived to tell about it! And -- at the end of the day -- that may in fact be the good news and great hope we have to offer our worldwide Anglican Communion family as we move forward together into God's future."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement this morning entitled "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future" and subtitled: Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion. In it, +Rowan Williams does what he believes he is called to do as an "Instrument of Unity" for the whole communion: He trys to keep as many as possible at the table doing the work of the gospel. Integrity does not envy him that task.
Integrity regrets the Archbishop's categorization of TEC's commitment to full inclusion of the LGBT baptized as a "rights" issue rather than a "theological" issue -- believing that it falls sadly short of recognizing all the theological reflection that has both moved and motivated this church over the years.
"We are frankly tired of being told we 'haven't done the theology,'" said Integrity President Susan Russell, "when the truth is that there are those in our wider Anglican family who do not agree with the theology we have done. But what we can do is keep doing it. We can keep reaching out. We can keep working together with our communion partners on mission and ministry all over this Worldwide Anglican Family of ours with those who will work with us. And we can stay in conversation with those who won't.
Because we recognize that those who have been waiting for the casting-out-of-TEC-into-outer-darkness are not getting what they want. And as we continue to move forward in mission and ministry with those who embrace historic Anglican comprehensiveness, we believe those "outer darkness" threats are going to ring more and more hollow until they fade away altogether.
And meanwhile, we can live into the liberated-for-mission message our General Convention sent home from Anaheim and bless those who come to us asking for the church's blessing on their already-blessed-by-God relationships and raising up into ALL orders of ministry those who God calls into vocations of deacon, priest and bishop.
Because, as the closing word's of +Rowan Williams' statement assure us:
If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right.
But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.
As American Anglicans, we've "rethought structures" before (see also: "1789" and the birth American Episcopal Church) and lived to tell about it! And -- at the end of the day -- that may in fact be the good news and great hope we have to offer our worldwide Anglican Communion family as we move forward together into God's future."
Whimpers from across the ocean
From the Dean and President of Nashotah House (seminary) via TitusOneNine:
Monday, July 27, 2009
A number of literary sayings crossed my mind when I saw that the Archbishop of Canterbury has (finally, today) issued a statement in response to the actions of the Episcopal Church's General Convention, which ended ten days ago. The first thought that came to me was a paraphrase of T.S. Eliot's line, "This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper." Because, although I pray that I am wrong, there isn't nearly enough in Rowan Williams' statement to reassure me that this isn't the Anglican Communion's fate. Indeed, the very weakness (and studied ambiguity) of Dr. Williams' statement may be a factor in pushing the Communion toward that end.
Regarding the Archbishop's delay in issuing his response, I have no doubt that he has spent most of the past ten days laboring and consulting with trusted advisers on this statement. It might well be the defining statement of his career. But when it comes to the actual effect this statement might have on the Communion he is supposed to lead, the saying that comes to mind is, "The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse." The statement is thoroughly considered, carefully crafted, finely nuanced--and, in the end, says very little and accomplishes even less.
When a sizable majority in both houses of the Episcopal Church's General Convention passed resolutions ending restraint in the matter of consecrating non-celibate homosexuals to the episcopate and agreeing to provide a "generous pastoral response" (i.e., blessing marriages) for gay and lesbian couples, it was not a matter of making merely hypothetical statements. There are bishops and deputies who are coming away from the General Convention intending to act on those resolutions.
There is nothing in Rowan Williams' statement that would deter those in the liberal camp from acting on those resolutions; and his words are cold comfort to conservatives who have been deeply wounded by their passage, and who will be further wounded and alienated when their intent is carried out.
To be sure, the statement from Canterbury could say something. When Rowan starts down the path of "there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance" it could mean that his relationship to the Episcopal church has suffered damage, just as the fabric of the Communion has been torn by the Episcopal church's unilateral actions. It could even mean that he is going to turn around next week and recognize the Anglican Church in North America and/or the Communion Partner dioceses as a separate ecclesial reality. It could mean all that--but I would be astounded if it did.
Of course, the Covenant to which Rowan alludes could be in place and could be already defining the "Anglican Future" with which Rowan seems concerned. Except that--oh, my--Rowan himself saw to it that the Covenant didn't make it out of the Jamaica conference, but was given to the Joint Standing Committee, from which it will almost certainly emerge as a gelding and not a stallion.
On second thought, I am going to go back to my first thought: This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper.
posted by Robert S. Munday @ 9:13 PM
Monday, July 27, 2009
A number of literary sayings crossed my mind when I saw that the Archbishop of Canterbury has (finally, today) issued a statement in response to the actions of the Episcopal Church's General Convention, which ended ten days ago. The first thought that came to me was a paraphrase of T.S. Eliot's line, "This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper." Because, although I pray that I am wrong, there isn't nearly enough in Rowan Williams' statement to reassure me that this isn't the Anglican Communion's fate. Indeed, the very weakness (and studied ambiguity) of Dr. Williams' statement may be a factor in pushing the Communion toward that end.
Regarding the Archbishop's delay in issuing his response, I have no doubt that he has spent most of the past ten days laboring and consulting with trusted advisers on this statement. It might well be the defining statement of his career. But when it comes to the actual effect this statement might have on the Communion he is supposed to lead, the saying that comes to mind is, "The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse." The statement is thoroughly considered, carefully crafted, finely nuanced--and, in the end, says very little and accomplishes even less.
When a sizable majority in both houses of the Episcopal Church's General Convention passed resolutions ending restraint in the matter of consecrating non-celibate homosexuals to the episcopate and agreeing to provide a "generous pastoral response" (i.e., blessing marriages) for gay and lesbian couples, it was not a matter of making merely hypothetical statements. There are bishops and deputies who are coming away from the General Convention intending to act on those resolutions.
There is nothing in Rowan Williams' statement that would deter those in the liberal camp from acting on those resolutions; and his words are cold comfort to conservatives who have been deeply wounded by their passage, and who will be further wounded and alienated when their intent is carried out.
To be sure, the statement from Canterbury could say something. When Rowan starts down the path of "there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance" it could mean that his relationship to the Episcopal church has suffered damage, just as the fabric of the Communion has been torn by the Episcopal church's unilateral actions. It could even mean that he is going to turn around next week and recognize the Anglican Church in North America and/or the Communion Partner dioceses as a separate ecclesial reality. It could mean all that--but I would be astounded if it did.
Of course, the Covenant to which Rowan alludes could be in place and could be already defining the "Anglican Future" with which Rowan seems concerned. Except that--oh, my--Rowan himself saw to it that the Covenant didn't make it out of the Jamaica conference, but was given to the Joint Standing Committee, from which it will almost certainly emerge as a gelding and not a stallion.
On second thought, I am going to go back to my first thought: This is the way the Communion dies, not with a bang but a whimper.
posted by Robert S. Munday @ 9:13 PM
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
From the Diocese of Albany
Reflections on The 76th General Convention (Part I of II)
By Bishop William Love
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
It is wonderful to be home. The Albany Deputation and I returned home late Saturday night, July 18th, after having spent 13 days (including travel time) in Anaheim, CA, attending the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church. I am very thankful for and appreciative of each member of our Deputation, all of whom did an outstanding job representing not only the Diocese of Albany, but also the conservative orthodox voice still in The Episcopal Church. Although clearly in the minority, we spoke with conviction, but also with love and charity. The Albany Deputation was represented by Fr. Scott Garno, The Rev. Canon Robert Haskell, Mother Ellen Neufeld, Fr. John Scott, Dave Beaulac, Debbie Fish, Sue Ellen Ruetsch and Beth Strickland. While not part of the official deputation, Fr. Chip Strickland (our Diocesan Chancellor) and Sarah Garno also attended and were a real blessing, supporting the team in a variety of ways. Fr. Chip did an excellent job in his daily updates, helping to keep each of you informed about what was occurring at General Convention.
In writing this, I have struggled with knowing how much detail to add versus just giving my reflections. Recognizing that not everyone will have access to as much information as others, I have decided to err on the side of those who may need more background information. For those who don’t need as much information, please forgive me if I am covering things you already know. While I encourage you to read this in its entirety, the last couple of pages contain my thoughts about the potential impact some of the actions of the 76th General Convention may have on the Diocese of Albany and the larger Church.
For those who may not be familiar with the legislative process of the General Convention, it is made up of two Houses, The House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. Currently any bishop active or retired has a seat, voice and vote in the House of Bishops. The House of Deputies is comprised of eight representatives (4 clergy and 4 laity) from each of the 110 dioceses (foreign and domestic) making up The Episcopal Church. For any piece of legislation to be enacted, it must receive a majority affirmative vote in both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.
By the end of the tenth and final day of General Convention, if the report I heard is accurate, (personally I lost count), we had dealt with over 400 separate resolutions. Many were passed, some defeated, and all the rest referred back to committee either to die in committee or be brought back at some future time. Many of the resolutions, although important to those who moved them, in the grand scheme of things will have little if any impact especially in areas of national and international affairs. Consequently we spent a great deal of time debating and voting on resolutions that will do little more than provide a written record in the Convention Journal of the mood and opinion of the majority of those attending the 76th General Convention.
With that said, there were resolutions and pieces of legislation that do impact us as a Diocese, as well as impacting The Episcopal Church at large and the wider Anglican Communion. While I can’t reference each of them, I will try to touch on some of the more significant resolutions. The two resolutions that ultimately captured the most headlines and will most likely have the greatest impact on The Episcopal Church’s relationship with the wider Anglican Communion are D025 and C056. Both resolutions deal with different aspects of the ongoing debate concerning those individuals living in homosexual relationships. The text of these two resolutions, B033 from the 75th General Convention in 2009, and the Anaheim Statement (House of Bishops minority report on D025 and C056) is included at the very end of this statement.
The first three resolves of D025 speak of The Episcopal Church’s desire to remain part of and “live into the highest degree of communion possible” with the wider Anglican Communion. The fourth resolve reaffirms the value of “listening to the experience of homosexual persons,” and The Episcopal Church’s commitment to that process. Unfortunately, based on the actions of this church, I believe we don’t seem quite as committed to listening to our brothers and sisters in Christ within The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, and the wider Body of Christ who in good conscience cannot support or embrace homosexual relationships (making a clear distinction between individuals of homosexual orientation and homosexual relationships or lifestyles). The fifth and sixth resolves speak of the part homosexuals living in life long committed relationships have played in the life and ministry of the Church, stating that “God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.” The final resolve acknowledges the ongoing division over these issues within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, stating that we “are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.”
Unlike B033 (passed at the 2006 General Convention) which urged The Episcopal Church to “exercise restraint” in giving further consents to any bishops “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church,” D025 makes no mention of “exercising restraint” and essentially opens the door for the election and consent of future bishops “whose manner of life” would present a challenge to the wider church, as has already been witnessed by the repeated requests of the vast majority of the Primates of the wider Anglican Communion not to ordain individuals living in homosexual relationships or to bless such relationships.
Resolution C056 calls for the “Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops [to] collect and develop theological and liturgical resources” for the blessing of same gender relationships, and report to the 77th General Convention. In addition it states, “That bishops, particularly in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral responses to meet the needs of members of this Church.”
There is great concern by many to include myself, that D025 and C056, while not officially calling for the repeal of B033 (as some had wanted), does in effect repudiate B033 by allowing for the ordination of individuals living in homosexual relationships; calling for the development of liturgies for the blessing of homosexual relationships; and for officially authorizing bishops to “provide generous pastoral responses” i.e. allow for the blessing of homosexual relationships in whatever form that might take. All of these are in direct opposition to that which was asked of us in the Windsor Report, not to mention by the four Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Consultative Council, and Lambeth Conference). While proclaiming our desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion, D025 and C056 make it clear that it will be on our terms. Actions speak louder than words.
B033, as imperfect as it was, offered enough to keep the Archbishop of Canterbury from breaking ties with The Episcopal Church. It is still yet to be seen, what impact the passage of D025 and C056 will have regarding The Episcopal Church’s future relationship with Archbishop Rowan Williams and the wider Anglican Communion. Addressing the 76th General Convention, the Archbishop cautioned against making “decisions…that could push us further apart.” Unfortunately, with the passage of these two resolutions, The Episcopal Church has done exactly what the Archbishop cautioned us not to do. Twenty two of the 37 other Provinces of the Anglican Communion have already declared themselves to be in a state of impaired or broken communion with the majority of The Episcopal Church. Others, to include the Archbishop of Canterbury, may very well follow as a result of the above actions. Time will tell.
There has been an ongoing call throughout the Anglican Communion, for The Episcopal Church to provide “clarity” as to what it truly believes and its response to that which has been asked of it by the wider Anglican Communion regarding the issues which divide us. The passage of D025 and C056 would seem to provide the clarity that many have been asking for. However, the spin from some deputies and bishops concerning these resolutions continues to muddy the water and send mixed messages. It was stated by several bishops during the debate on D025, that while the resolution does allow for a person living in a homosexual relationship to be elected and serve as bishop, until such a person is elected and ordained, B033 has not been overturned. Unfortunately, I believe such mixed signals will only add to the growing charge of hypocrisy aimed at The Episcopal Church, as a result of our saying one thing, but doing something different.
So what does the passage of these two resolutions mean for the Diocese of Albany? In the sense of providing clarity, it clarifies what we already knew – the theologically conservative and orthodox views of the two-thirds majority of the Diocese of Albany are clearly in the minority when compared to the current leadership of the rest of The Episcopal Church. I believe it will make it more difficult for some who have contemplated leaving The Episcopal Church over these issues to stay, thus jeopardizing the stability and health of our parishes and the Diocese as a whole. I believe it will further frustrate those in the Diocese who favor D025 and C056 wishing that Albany would go in a more liberal direction – something that I cannot and will not support as your bishop because I do not believe it is in accordance with God’s will or in the best interest of His Church. I believe it will tempt some on both sides of these issues to withhold financial support, out of protest, thus negatively impacting the life and ministry of the local parishes and the Diocese. Ultimately, I believe it is going to make my job as your bishop all the more difficult as I try to discern God’s will in knowing how best to lead the Diocese during these difficult and confusing times, sharing “in the leadership of the Church” with my fellow bishops in The Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion as “one with the apostles…called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.”(BCP 517). I value and ask for your continued prayers. Finally, I believe it could jeopardize the Diocese of Albany’s communion status with the wider Anglican Communion, if our Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ fail to differentiate between those in The Episcopal Church who have honored and upheld that which has been asked of us by the Anglican Communion and those who have gone in a different direction.
Admittedly, I have just painted a less than favorable, but what I believe to be an honest assessment of what could happen as a result of the passage of D025 and C056. The good news is that what could happen, DOES NOT have to happen. Ultimately, the impact D025 and C056 has on each of us individually; our parishes and the Diocese will be dependent upon how we choose to respond. While both resolutions open the door for The Episcopal Church to continue to go in a direction that I believe is problematic for all the reasons listed above, neither resolution changes the Constitution or Canons of The Episcopal Church, nor do they require us, as the Diocese of Albany, to be anything other than who and what we are.
By the grace of God, the Diocese of Albany will: continue to uphold the traditional orthodox teachings of the Church; fulfilling the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, moving from membership to discipleship, equipping, emboldening, and sending disciples to make disciples; proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the world – the Way, the Truth and the Life, the only One through whom salvation is possible; recognizing the authority of Holy Scripture; continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship; upholding the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed; teaching that marriage was designed and intended by God to be a life long covenant relationship between a man and a woman and that it is only within the confines of marriage between a man and woman that the gift of sexual intimacy is appropriately shared; reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserve these relationships; reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion; and reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process, with the hope of working toward its implementation once completed. In addition, I will be talking to the Standing Committee about ways in which the Diocese of Albany can be intentional about working more closely with those dioceses that share similar conservative, orthodox theological views. While we may be in the minority, we are not alone. It is important that we support and uphold one another, sharing God’s truth as best we understand it, in order that we might be an instrument of His love and healing grace in this broken and hurting world in which we live.
I realize that what I have put forward is not going to be easy, given the current state of crisis within The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. I don’t pretend to know how everything will turn out, or whether The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion will even survive as we now know them. What I do know, is that what we are experiencing now is nothing new. As I have often said in the past, if you study Church history, you will discover that the Church has had problems from the very beginning. If you are looking for the perfect Church, you won’t find it this side of heaven, because the Church is made up of imperfect people. There have always been times of conflict resulting from arguments about theological understandings, false teaching and other concerns introduced by Satan through our fallen human nature. Satan is delighted with the division and fighting going on within the Church. The more he can distract us and turn us against one another, the less effective we will be in sharing the Gospel and bringing people to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Despite the brokenness found in the different parts of the Church down through the centuries, there has always been that faithful remnant in which the Holy Spirit has and will continue to work until our Lord returns. My prayer is that the Diocese of Albany will be part of that faithful remnant, in whatever form that might take. If we are to do so, it is essential that we stick together and keep our focus on Christ and Christ alone. In so doing we will get through to the other side. If we focus on the storm, it will destroy us. The decision is ours! It is imperative that what ever decisions we make in response to the current crisis within The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion, be done in prayer, truly seeking God’s will and the grace to respond in obedience to His will. Ultimately, our wants and desires are of little consequence. What matters most is what God wants. It is only when we are acting in accordance with His will that we will find true peace and fulfillment.
There were other resolutions and actions taken at the 76th General Convention that I need to briefly comment on, however, I will save those for Part II of my reflections on General Convention, to be issued later this week.
Faithfully Yours in Christ,
+Bill
The following statement was prepared as a minority report by those bishops who could not support D025 and C056. An open invitation was offered to any other bishops who felt called to sign the statement.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Anaheim Statement, General Convention, 2009
At this convention, the House of Bishops has heard repeated calls for honesty and clarity. As the conversation has proceeded within the House of Bishops, repeated attempts to modify wording which would have been preferable to the minority in the vote were respectfully heard and discussed, but in the end most of these amendments were found unacceptable to the majority in the House. Many in the majority believed the amendments would make the stated position of this House less honest about where they believe we are as The Episcopal Church.
It is apparent that a substantial majority of this Convention believes that The Episcopal Church should move forward on matters of human sexuality. We recognize this reality and understand the clarity with which the majority has expressed itself. We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the Church.
We seek to provide the same honesty and clarity. We invite all bishops who share the following commitments to join us in this statement as we seek to find a place in the Church we continue to serve.
· We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
· We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them (BCP 526, 538).
· We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the Instruments of Communion.
· We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
· We reaffirm our commitment to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in “interpreting the Gospel” which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.
The Rt. Rev’d James Adams, Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev’d Lloyd Allen, Honduras
The Rt. Rev’d David Alvarez, Puerto Rico
The Rt. Rev’d John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Peter Beckwith, Springfield
The Rt. Rev’d Frank Brookhart, Montana
The Rt. Rev’d Andrew Doyle, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Philip Duncan, Central Gulf Coast
The Rt. Rev’d Dan Edwards, Nevada
The Rt. Rev’d William Frey, Rio Grande
The Rt. Rev’d Dena Harrison, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Julio Holguin, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Howe, Central Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev’d Don Johnson, West Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Paul Lambert, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Mark Lawrence, South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Gary Lillibridge, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Edward Little, Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev’d William Love, Albany
The Rt. Rev’d Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev’d Alfredo Morante, Litoral Ecuador
The Rt. Rev’d Henry Parsley, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d David Reed, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Sylvestre Romero, El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev’d Jeffrey Rowthorn, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d William Skilton, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Sloan, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d Dabney Smith, Southwest Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Smith, North Dakota
The Rt. Rev’d James Stanton, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Pierre Whalon, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d, Don Wimberly, Texas
Final Version - B033 – 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2006)
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.
Final Version – D025 – 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2009)
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.
Current Version* – C056 – 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2009)
* A final version is not listed on the General Convention Website as of Monday, July 27, 2009
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call forth a renewed pastoral response from this Church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th General Convention; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality; and be it further
Resolved, That the members of this Church be encouraged to engage in this effort.
By Bishop William Love
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
It is wonderful to be home. The Albany Deputation and I returned home late Saturday night, July 18th, after having spent 13 days (including travel time) in Anaheim, CA, attending the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church. I am very thankful for and appreciative of each member of our Deputation, all of whom did an outstanding job representing not only the Diocese of Albany, but also the conservative orthodox voice still in The Episcopal Church. Although clearly in the minority, we spoke with conviction, but also with love and charity. The Albany Deputation was represented by Fr. Scott Garno, The Rev. Canon Robert Haskell, Mother Ellen Neufeld, Fr. John Scott, Dave Beaulac, Debbie Fish, Sue Ellen Ruetsch and Beth Strickland. While not part of the official deputation, Fr. Chip Strickland (our Diocesan Chancellor) and Sarah Garno also attended and were a real blessing, supporting the team in a variety of ways. Fr. Chip did an excellent job in his daily updates, helping to keep each of you informed about what was occurring at General Convention.
In writing this, I have struggled with knowing how much detail to add versus just giving my reflections. Recognizing that not everyone will have access to as much information as others, I have decided to err on the side of those who may need more background information. For those who don’t need as much information, please forgive me if I am covering things you already know. While I encourage you to read this in its entirety, the last couple of pages contain my thoughts about the potential impact some of the actions of the 76th General Convention may have on the Diocese of Albany and the larger Church.
For those who may not be familiar with the legislative process of the General Convention, it is made up of two Houses, The House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. Currently any bishop active or retired has a seat, voice and vote in the House of Bishops. The House of Deputies is comprised of eight representatives (4 clergy and 4 laity) from each of the 110 dioceses (foreign and domestic) making up The Episcopal Church. For any piece of legislation to be enacted, it must receive a majority affirmative vote in both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.
By the end of the tenth and final day of General Convention, if the report I heard is accurate, (personally I lost count), we had dealt with over 400 separate resolutions. Many were passed, some defeated, and all the rest referred back to committee either to die in committee or be brought back at some future time. Many of the resolutions, although important to those who moved them, in the grand scheme of things will have little if any impact especially in areas of national and international affairs. Consequently we spent a great deal of time debating and voting on resolutions that will do little more than provide a written record in the Convention Journal of the mood and opinion of the majority of those attending the 76th General Convention.
With that said, there were resolutions and pieces of legislation that do impact us as a Diocese, as well as impacting The Episcopal Church at large and the wider Anglican Communion. While I can’t reference each of them, I will try to touch on some of the more significant resolutions. The two resolutions that ultimately captured the most headlines and will most likely have the greatest impact on The Episcopal Church’s relationship with the wider Anglican Communion are D025 and C056. Both resolutions deal with different aspects of the ongoing debate concerning those individuals living in homosexual relationships. The text of these two resolutions, B033 from the 75th General Convention in 2009, and the Anaheim Statement (House of Bishops minority report on D025 and C056) is included at the very end of this statement.
The first three resolves of D025 speak of The Episcopal Church’s desire to remain part of and “live into the highest degree of communion possible” with the wider Anglican Communion. The fourth resolve reaffirms the value of “listening to the experience of homosexual persons,” and The Episcopal Church’s commitment to that process. Unfortunately, based on the actions of this church, I believe we don’t seem quite as committed to listening to our brothers and sisters in Christ within The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, and the wider Body of Christ who in good conscience cannot support or embrace homosexual relationships (making a clear distinction between individuals of homosexual orientation and homosexual relationships or lifestyles). The fifth and sixth resolves speak of the part homosexuals living in life long committed relationships have played in the life and ministry of the Church, stating that “God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.” The final resolve acknowledges the ongoing division over these issues within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, stating that we “are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.”
Unlike B033 (passed at the 2006 General Convention) which urged The Episcopal Church to “exercise restraint” in giving further consents to any bishops “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church,” D025 makes no mention of “exercising restraint” and essentially opens the door for the election and consent of future bishops “whose manner of life” would present a challenge to the wider church, as has already been witnessed by the repeated requests of the vast majority of the Primates of the wider Anglican Communion not to ordain individuals living in homosexual relationships or to bless such relationships.
Resolution C056 calls for the “Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops [to] collect and develop theological and liturgical resources” for the blessing of same gender relationships, and report to the 77th General Convention. In addition it states, “That bishops, particularly in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral responses to meet the needs of members of this Church.”
There is great concern by many to include myself, that D025 and C056, while not officially calling for the repeal of B033 (as some had wanted), does in effect repudiate B033 by allowing for the ordination of individuals living in homosexual relationships; calling for the development of liturgies for the blessing of homosexual relationships; and for officially authorizing bishops to “provide generous pastoral responses” i.e. allow for the blessing of homosexual relationships in whatever form that might take. All of these are in direct opposition to that which was asked of us in the Windsor Report, not to mention by the four Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Consultative Council, and Lambeth Conference). While proclaiming our desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion, D025 and C056 make it clear that it will be on our terms. Actions speak louder than words.
B033, as imperfect as it was, offered enough to keep the Archbishop of Canterbury from breaking ties with The Episcopal Church. It is still yet to be seen, what impact the passage of D025 and C056 will have regarding The Episcopal Church’s future relationship with Archbishop Rowan Williams and the wider Anglican Communion. Addressing the 76th General Convention, the Archbishop cautioned against making “decisions…that could push us further apart.” Unfortunately, with the passage of these two resolutions, The Episcopal Church has done exactly what the Archbishop cautioned us not to do. Twenty two of the 37 other Provinces of the Anglican Communion have already declared themselves to be in a state of impaired or broken communion with the majority of The Episcopal Church. Others, to include the Archbishop of Canterbury, may very well follow as a result of the above actions. Time will tell.
There has been an ongoing call throughout the Anglican Communion, for The Episcopal Church to provide “clarity” as to what it truly believes and its response to that which has been asked of it by the wider Anglican Communion regarding the issues which divide us. The passage of D025 and C056 would seem to provide the clarity that many have been asking for. However, the spin from some deputies and bishops concerning these resolutions continues to muddy the water and send mixed messages. It was stated by several bishops during the debate on D025, that while the resolution does allow for a person living in a homosexual relationship to be elected and serve as bishop, until such a person is elected and ordained, B033 has not been overturned. Unfortunately, I believe such mixed signals will only add to the growing charge of hypocrisy aimed at The Episcopal Church, as a result of our saying one thing, but doing something different.
So what does the passage of these two resolutions mean for the Diocese of Albany? In the sense of providing clarity, it clarifies what we already knew – the theologically conservative and orthodox views of the two-thirds majority of the Diocese of Albany are clearly in the minority when compared to the current leadership of the rest of The Episcopal Church. I believe it will make it more difficult for some who have contemplated leaving The Episcopal Church over these issues to stay, thus jeopardizing the stability and health of our parishes and the Diocese as a whole. I believe it will further frustrate those in the Diocese who favor D025 and C056 wishing that Albany would go in a more liberal direction – something that I cannot and will not support as your bishop because I do not believe it is in accordance with God’s will or in the best interest of His Church. I believe it will tempt some on both sides of these issues to withhold financial support, out of protest, thus negatively impacting the life and ministry of the local parishes and the Diocese. Ultimately, I believe it is going to make my job as your bishop all the more difficult as I try to discern God’s will in knowing how best to lead the Diocese during these difficult and confusing times, sharing “in the leadership of the Church” with my fellow bishops in The Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion as “one with the apostles…called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.”(BCP 517). I value and ask for your continued prayers. Finally, I believe it could jeopardize the Diocese of Albany’s communion status with the wider Anglican Communion, if our Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ fail to differentiate between those in The Episcopal Church who have honored and upheld that which has been asked of us by the Anglican Communion and those who have gone in a different direction.
Admittedly, I have just painted a less than favorable, but what I believe to be an honest assessment of what could happen as a result of the passage of D025 and C056. The good news is that what could happen, DOES NOT have to happen. Ultimately, the impact D025 and C056 has on each of us individually; our parishes and the Diocese will be dependent upon how we choose to respond. While both resolutions open the door for The Episcopal Church to continue to go in a direction that I believe is problematic for all the reasons listed above, neither resolution changes the Constitution or Canons of The Episcopal Church, nor do they require us, as the Diocese of Albany, to be anything other than who and what we are.
By the grace of God, the Diocese of Albany will: continue to uphold the traditional orthodox teachings of the Church; fulfilling the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, moving from membership to discipleship, equipping, emboldening, and sending disciples to make disciples; proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the world – the Way, the Truth and the Life, the only One through whom salvation is possible; recognizing the authority of Holy Scripture; continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship; upholding the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed; teaching that marriage was designed and intended by God to be a life long covenant relationship between a man and a woman and that it is only within the confines of marriage between a man and woman that the gift of sexual intimacy is appropriately shared; reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserve these relationships; reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion; and reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process, with the hope of working toward its implementation once completed. In addition, I will be talking to the Standing Committee about ways in which the Diocese of Albany can be intentional about working more closely with those dioceses that share similar conservative, orthodox theological views. While we may be in the minority, we are not alone. It is important that we support and uphold one another, sharing God’s truth as best we understand it, in order that we might be an instrument of His love and healing grace in this broken and hurting world in which we live.
I realize that what I have put forward is not going to be easy, given the current state of crisis within The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. I don’t pretend to know how everything will turn out, or whether The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion will even survive as we now know them. What I do know, is that what we are experiencing now is nothing new. As I have often said in the past, if you study Church history, you will discover that the Church has had problems from the very beginning. If you are looking for the perfect Church, you won’t find it this side of heaven, because the Church is made up of imperfect people. There have always been times of conflict resulting from arguments about theological understandings, false teaching and other concerns introduced by Satan through our fallen human nature. Satan is delighted with the division and fighting going on within the Church. The more he can distract us and turn us against one another, the less effective we will be in sharing the Gospel and bringing people to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Despite the brokenness found in the different parts of the Church down through the centuries, there has always been that faithful remnant in which the Holy Spirit has and will continue to work until our Lord returns. My prayer is that the Diocese of Albany will be part of that faithful remnant, in whatever form that might take. If we are to do so, it is essential that we stick together and keep our focus on Christ and Christ alone. In so doing we will get through to the other side. If we focus on the storm, it will destroy us. The decision is ours! It is imperative that what ever decisions we make in response to the current crisis within The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion, be done in prayer, truly seeking God’s will and the grace to respond in obedience to His will. Ultimately, our wants and desires are of little consequence. What matters most is what God wants. It is only when we are acting in accordance with His will that we will find true peace and fulfillment.
There were other resolutions and actions taken at the 76th General Convention that I need to briefly comment on, however, I will save those for Part II of my reflections on General Convention, to be issued later this week.
Faithfully Yours in Christ,
+Bill
The following statement was prepared as a minority report by those bishops who could not support D025 and C056. An open invitation was offered to any other bishops who felt called to sign the statement.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Anaheim Statement, General Convention, 2009
At this convention, the House of Bishops has heard repeated calls for honesty and clarity. As the conversation has proceeded within the House of Bishops, repeated attempts to modify wording which would have been preferable to the minority in the vote were respectfully heard and discussed, but in the end most of these amendments were found unacceptable to the majority in the House. Many in the majority believed the amendments would make the stated position of this House less honest about where they believe we are as The Episcopal Church.
It is apparent that a substantial majority of this Convention believes that The Episcopal Church should move forward on matters of human sexuality. We recognize this reality and understand the clarity with which the majority has expressed itself. We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the Church.
We seek to provide the same honesty and clarity. We invite all bishops who share the following commitments to join us in this statement as we seek to find a place in the Church we continue to serve.
· We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
· We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them (BCP 526, 538).
· We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the Instruments of Communion.
· We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
· We reaffirm our commitment to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in “interpreting the Gospel” which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.
The Rt. Rev’d James Adams, Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev’d Lloyd Allen, Honduras
The Rt. Rev’d David Alvarez, Puerto Rico
The Rt. Rev’d John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Peter Beckwith, Springfield
The Rt. Rev’d Frank Brookhart, Montana
The Rt. Rev’d Andrew Doyle, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Philip Duncan, Central Gulf Coast
The Rt. Rev’d Dan Edwards, Nevada
The Rt. Rev’d William Frey, Rio Grande
The Rt. Rev’d Dena Harrison, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Julio Holguin, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Howe, Central Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev’d Don Johnson, West Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Paul Lambert, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Mark Lawrence, South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Gary Lillibridge, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Edward Little, Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev’d William Love, Albany
The Rt. Rev’d Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev’d Alfredo Morante, Litoral Ecuador
The Rt. Rev’d Henry Parsley, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d David Reed, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Sylvestre Romero, El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev’d Jeffrey Rowthorn, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d William Skilton, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Sloan, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d Dabney Smith, Southwest Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Smith, North Dakota
The Rt. Rev’d James Stanton, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Pierre Whalon, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d, Don Wimberly, Texas
Final Version - B033 – 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2006)
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.
Final Version – D025 – 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2009)
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.
Current Version* – C056 – 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (2009)
* A final version is not listed on the General Convention Website as of Monday, July 27, 2009
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call forth a renewed pastoral response from this Church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th General Convention; and be it further
Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality; and be it further
Resolved, That the members of this Church be encouraged to engage in this effort.
Restructuring, not schism, ahead for Anglicans
From USA Today via TitusOneNine:
Updated 11h 48m ago
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams called homophobic violence and prejudice "sinful and disgraceful," but said the church's Bible-based teachings on homosexuality could not be overturned easily.
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
The head of the Anglican Communion said Monday that restructuring the world's third-largest Christian denomination appears inevitable in the face of irreconcilable differences on sexuality and the Bible.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams forecast a "two-track" model that could leave the U.S. branch of the Communion, the Episcopal Church, out of decisive roles and without standing as a representative voice in the 77-million-member global Anglican church.
His statement comes two weeks after clergy and lay leaders at the Episcopal governing meeting voted by 2-1 margins to welcome the election of gay and lesbian bishops and to give "generous discretion" to blessing same-sex weddings.
Leaders of the USA's Anglican traditionalists and Episcopal gay activists had similar reactions to Williams' statement.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Local churches | Katharine Jefferts Schori | Gene Robinson | Rowan Williams | Robert Duncan
Both Archbishop Robert Duncan, of the new Anglican Church in North America, and the Rev. Susan Russell, head of the gay Episcopal group Integrity, say they will keep "being church" (working on evangelism, service and missions) exactly as before, and see when the institution catches up to reality.
The U.S. Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, declined to comment.
Williams has pushed for several years for a "covenant" clarifying that membership in the Communion is for those churches that are "theologically coherent" and agree on how they'll work together, rather than "a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common."
But the Episcopal Church cannot wander alone off the theological reservation, becoming isolated and "unrecognizable," he said.
Referencing a biblical curse on heretics, Williams said, "There is no threat of being cast into outer darkness — existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily."
Still, he foresees a future "not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication, but plainly as what they are: "two styles of being Anglican" pursuing their mission "with greater integrity and consistency," even as they work out issues.
Russell was untroubled by this idea. Ever since the Revolutionary War, when the U.S church broke with the Church of England, "American Anglicans are used to re-inventing structures in order to proclaim the Gospel and move forward," she said.
And Duncan said Communion divisions already "outpace Williams. The speed at which the Archbishop of Canterbury has dealt with the crisis in the Anglican Communion is something faster than glacial — but it's not too much faster. We'll see where the whole Communion goes, but we are far more interested in doing the mission of the church in society than occupying ourselves with what the old structures will do."
Updated 11h 48m ago
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams called homophobic violence and prejudice "sinful and disgraceful," but said the church's Bible-based teachings on homosexuality could not be overturned easily.
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
The head of the Anglican Communion said Monday that restructuring the world's third-largest Christian denomination appears inevitable in the face of irreconcilable differences on sexuality and the Bible.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams forecast a "two-track" model that could leave the U.S. branch of the Communion, the Episcopal Church, out of decisive roles and without standing as a representative voice in the 77-million-member global Anglican church.
His statement comes two weeks after clergy and lay leaders at the Episcopal governing meeting voted by 2-1 margins to welcome the election of gay and lesbian bishops and to give "generous discretion" to blessing same-sex weddings.
Leaders of the USA's Anglican traditionalists and Episcopal gay activists had similar reactions to Williams' statement.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Local churches | Katharine Jefferts Schori | Gene Robinson | Rowan Williams | Robert Duncan
Both Archbishop Robert Duncan, of the new Anglican Church in North America, and the Rev. Susan Russell, head of the gay Episcopal group Integrity, say they will keep "being church" (working on evangelism, service and missions) exactly as before, and see when the institution catches up to reality.
The U.S. Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, declined to comment.
Williams has pushed for several years for a "covenant" clarifying that membership in the Communion is for those churches that are "theologically coherent" and agree on how they'll work together, rather than "a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common."
But the Episcopal Church cannot wander alone off the theological reservation, becoming isolated and "unrecognizable," he said.
Referencing a biblical curse on heretics, Williams said, "There is no threat of being cast into outer darkness — existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily."
Still, he foresees a future "not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication, but plainly as what they are: "two styles of being Anglican" pursuing their mission "with greater integrity and consistency," even as they work out issues.
Russell was untroubled by this idea. Ever since the Revolutionary War, when the U.S church broke with the Church of England, "American Anglicans are used to re-inventing structures in order to proclaim the Gospel and move forward," she said.
And Duncan said Communion divisions already "outpace Williams. The speed at which the Archbishop of Canterbury has dealt with the crisis in the Anglican Communion is something faster than glacial — but it's not too much faster. We'll see where the whole Communion goes, but we are far more interested in doing the mission of the church in society than occupying ourselves with what the old structures will do."
Episcopal gay moves risk schism
From The Washington Times via Thinking Anglicans:
Stance could open fissures throughout religious spectrum
By the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali
Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 26, 2009, updated 10:14 a.m., July 27, 2009
The Episcopal Church in the United States has done it again. Having marched out of step with the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion, American Episcopalians have declared their intention to walk even further apart.
The world knows about the ordination of a bishop in a same-sex relationship and the ways in which that has torn the fabric of the communion, as the primates have said, at its deepest level. (This, by the way, is also a classic description of schism.) It also is widely known that people have their same-sex unions "blessed" in many parts of the Episcopal Church and such people also can be candidates for ordination.
All this continues despite the clear teaching of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that it should not.
So what is new? In passing Resolution DO25, the General Convention has openly stated that ordination should be open to those living in same-sex unions, which it also regards as exemplifying "holy love." In a further resolution, CO56, the Episcopal Church has agreed to bring liturgies for blessing same-sex relationships to the next General Convention, in 2012, for final approval.
Why are all of these developments important? Are they not simply a formalizing of what happens anyway, and is the church not just reflecting the culture in which it is set?
Let it be said, straightaway, that this issue is not a second- or lower-order one on which Christians can agree to disagree. It profoundly has to do with how men and women are created together in God's image and together given a common mission in the world. This mission they fulfill in ways that are both distinctive and complementary.
No Bible-believing Christian can say that "men are from Mars and women from Venus." They are not distinct species but have been made for each other in their distinctiveness and complement each other. This is the burden of the earliest chapters of Genesis that are strongly and unambiguously affirmed in the teaching of Jesus himself. As a whole, the Bible's teaching on human sexuality clearly affirms that the proper expression of our sexual nature is within the context of married love. The alternative, for those who have this gift, is dedicated singleness in the fulfillment of God's purposes.
In the pagan world, in which the Bible was written, such a view was vigorously countercultural. Many of Israel's neighbors tolerated both heterosexual and homosexual practices that are rejected by the Bible because they violate the holiness of God, the order of creation and respect for persons.
It is often the case that where the fundamental teaching of the Bible regarding marriage is not upheld, the status of women, in particular, suffers and they are reduced to being either a source for male self-gratification or chattel who maintain the home while men seek gratification elsewhere.
Today also, in the context of permissive cultures, the church has sometimes to take a countercultural stand so that the dignity of persons, made in God's image, is not debased.
As to same-sex attraction, there may be a predisposition toward it, even if we do not know all the reasons for it. That does not mean it must be gratified. Not every desire can or should be given active expression.
There may be relationship issues with a parent or a seeking of the man or the woman "I want to be" in others of the same sex. Those in such situations need to be cared for and to know that God loves them. They need to be helped so they can conform their lives to the stature of the fullness of Christ.
As they are welcomed to church and hear God's word, they will meet with Christ and be transformed by the renewal of their minds, spirits and bodies. They will be nurtured by word and sacrament but also by friendship.
Again and again, people say it is the affirmation of Christian friends, the role model of a wise, perhaps older Christian and the fellowship of the church family that have brought them to a new place in their discipleship.
None of this seems to bother the decision-makers in the Episcopal Church (though it may bother the faithful more than we think). They will have caused a schism despite repeated entreaties by the rest of the communion not to take unilateral action that contravenes the teaching of the Bible, the unanimous teaching of the church down the ages and the understanding of the vast majority of Christians today.
There can be little doubt that the latest moves in the Episcopal Church will further damage the fellowship among Anglicans. There will be more talk of the rupture, impairment of communion and the like. The moves also will further damage ecumenical relations with other churches, such as the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and various evangelical and Pentecostal bodies. Interfaith dialogue, especially with Muslims, also has been adversely affected, with dialogue partners asking how what they have hitherto regarded as a "heavenly religion" can sanction a practice that most religions do not permit.
In all this, those who remain orthodox in faith and morals will need to remember that any disruption of fellowship is for the sake of discipline and the eventual restoration of those who have chosen to go their own way to the common faith and life of the church. It is for this that we must work and pray.
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali is Anglican bishop of Rochester in England. The bishop was born in Pakistan and ministered there as well as in Britain and elsewhere. He has both a Muslim and a Christian family background.
Stance could open fissures throughout religious spectrum
By the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali
Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 26, 2009, updated 10:14 a.m., July 27, 2009
The Episcopal Church in the United States has done it again. Having marched out of step with the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion, American Episcopalians have declared their intention to walk even further apart.
The world knows about the ordination of a bishop in a same-sex relationship and the ways in which that has torn the fabric of the communion, as the primates have said, at its deepest level. (This, by the way, is also a classic description of schism.) It also is widely known that people have their same-sex unions "blessed" in many parts of the Episcopal Church and such people also can be candidates for ordination.
All this continues despite the clear teaching of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that it should not.
So what is new? In passing Resolution DO25, the General Convention has openly stated that ordination should be open to those living in same-sex unions, which it also regards as exemplifying "holy love." In a further resolution, CO56, the Episcopal Church has agreed to bring liturgies for blessing same-sex relationships to the next General Convention, in 2012, for final approval.
Why are all of these developments important? Are they not simply a formalizing of what happens anyway, and is the church not just reflecting the culture in which it is set?
Let it be said, straightaway, that this issue is not a second- or lower-order one on which Christians can agree to disagree. It profoundly has to do with how men and women are created together in God's image and together given a common mission in the world. This mission they fulfill in ways that are both distinctive and complementary.
No Bible-believing Christian can say that "men are from Mars and women from Venus." They are not distinct species but have been made for each other in their distinctiveness and complement each other. This is the burden of the earliest chapters of Genesis that are strongly and unambiguously affirmed in the teaching of Jesus himself. As a whole, the Bible's teaching on human sexuality clearly affirms that the proper expression of our sexual nature is within the context of married love. The alternative, for those who have this gift, is dedicated singleness in the fulfillment of God's purposes.
In the pagan world, in which the Bible was written, such a view was vigorously countercultural. Many of Israel's neighbors tolerated both heterosexual and homosexual practices that are rejected by the Bible because they violate the holiness of God, the order of creation and respect for persons.
It is often the case that where the fundamental teaching of the Bible regarding marriage is not upheld, the status of women, in particular, suffers and they are reduced to being either a source for male self-gratification or chattel who maintain the home while men seek gratification elsewhere.
Today also, in the context of permissive cultures, the church has sometimes to take a countercultural stand so that the dignity of persons, made in God's image, is not debased.
As to same-sex attraction, there may be a predisposition toward it, even if we do not know all the reasons for it. That does not mean it must be gratified. Not every desire can or should be given active expression.
There may be relationship issues with a parent or a seeking of the man or the woman "I want to be" in others of the same sex. Those in such situations need to be cared for and to know that God loves them. They need to be helped so they can conform their lives to the stature of the fullness of Christ.
As they are welcomed to church and hear God's word, they will meet with Christ and be transformed by the renewal of their minds, spirits and bodies. They will be nurtured by word and sacrament but also by friendship.
Again and again, people say it is the affirmation of Christian friends, the role model of a wise, perhaps older Christian and the fellowship of the church family that have brought them to a new place in their discipleship.
None of this seems to bother the decision-makers in the Episcopal Church (though it may bother the faithful more than we think). They will have caused a schism despite repeated entreaties by the rest of the communion not to take unilateral action that contravenes the teaching of the Bible, the unanimous teaching of the church down the ages and the understanding of the vast majority of Christians today.
There can be little doubt that the latest moves in the Episcopal Church will further damage the fellowship among Anglicans. There will be more talk of the rupture, impairment of communion and the like. The moves also will further damage ecumenical relations with other churches, such as the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and various evangelical and Pentecostal bodies. Interfaith dialogue, especially with Muslims, also has been adversely affected, with dialogue partners asking how what they have hitherto regarded as a "heavenly religion" can sanction a practice that most religions do not permit.
In all this, those who remain orthodox in faith and morals will need to remember that any disruption of fellowship is for the sake of discipline and the eventual restoration of those who have chosen to go their own way to the common faith and life of the church. It is for this that we must work and pray.
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali is Anglican bishop of Rochester in England. The bishop was born in Pakistan and ministered there as well as in Britain and elsewhere. He has both a Muslim and a Christian family background.
Archbishop of Canterbury attempts to paper over Church schism
From The Times of London via Thinking Anglicans:
July 28, 2009
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
Dr Williams sees the division over homosexuality as "two styles of being Anglican"
The Archbishop of Canterbury has acknowledged that the Anglican Church is in schism in all but name.
In a response to the decision this month of the Episcopal Church of the US to go ahead with gay consecrations and same-sex blessings, Dr Rowan Williams argued for a “two-track” Communion in which the Church was divided between those with differing theological views of homosexuality — described by some in the blogosphere as “Anglicans” and “Anglican’ts”.
Dr Williams appealed for this to be seen not in “apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication” but rather as “two styles of being Anglican”. His statement, posted on his website and addressed to “the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Anglican Communion”, will be seen by critics as an attempt to paper over the cracks.
At its convention in California the Episcopal Church in effect overturned moratoriums on same-sex blessings and gay consecrations that had been requested to preserve unity after the openly gay Gene Robinson was elected Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
Dr Williams attended the General Convention and begged the Episcopalians not to do anything that would separate the Communion further. In his statement yesterday he said he had been assured that the two resolutions did not overturn the moratoriums.
In one of his most conservative arguments for upholding the traditional view on homosexuality, Dr Williams said that discrimination against gay people was “sinful” — but that society’s change in attitude did not mean the Church should follow suit. The importance lay in maintaining a recognisably Anglican tradition, he said.
The Church’s Bible-based teaching against practising homosexuality could not be overturned without in-depth theological study. This “chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions”, he said. Practising homosexuals “should not be ordained priests, and especially not bishops”.
The question was not a simple one of human rights, he argued. “It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole, does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle.”
Dr Williams acknowledged that the Communion was divided into what some “disparagingly” called first-class and second-class Anglicans.
Continuing his argument against allowing the Communion to disintegrate into a “federation”, Dr Williams said that a possible solution lay in the current process of drawing up a “covenant” of biblical orthodoxy that all provinces will be asked to sign. He said that the covenant would not mean that provinces would be “cast into outer darkness” but would allow a “twofold ecclesial reality”, adding: “Perhaps we are faced with two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage.”
How the rift widened
1998 Lambeth Conference advocates abstinence for those not called to marriage but says voices of homosexuals must be heard
2003 Gene Robinson, first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire
2004 The Lambeth Commission on Communion, established by primates after Robinson’s election, publishes the Windsor Report urging a moratorium on same-sex blessings and gay bishops
2006 Episcopal Church passes resolution B033, interpreted as pledging to abide by moratoriums
2008 Most conservative primates boycott Lambeth Confererence
2009 General Convention of Episcopal Church agrees to consecrate gay bishops and to allow gay blessings
July 28, 2009
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
Dr Williams sees the division over homosexuality as "two styles of being Anglican"
The Archbishop of Canterbury has acknowledged that the Anglican Church is in schism in all but name.
In a response to the decision this month of the Episcopal Church of the US to go ahead with gay consecrations and same-sex blessings, Dr Rowan Williams argued for a “two-track” Communion in which the Church was divided between those with differing theological views of homosexuality — described by some in the blogosphere as “Anglicans” and “Anglican’ts”.
Dr Williams appealed for this to be seen not in “apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication” but rather as “two styles of being Anglican”. His statement, posted on his website and addressed to “the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Anglican Communion”, will be seen by critics as an attempt to paper over the cracks.
At its convention in California the Episcopal Church in effect overturned moratoriums on same-sex blessings and gay consecrations that had been requested to preserve unity after the openly gay Gene Robinson was elected Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.
Dr Williams attended the General Convention and begged the Episcopalians not to do anything that would separate the Communion further. In his statement yesterday he said he had been assured that the two resolutions did not overturn the moratoriums.
In one of his most conservative arguments for upholding the traditional view on homosexuality, Dr Williams said that discrimination against gay people was “sinful” — but that society’s change in attitude did not mean the Church should follow suit. The importance lay in maintaining a recognisably Anglican tradition, he said.
The Church’s Bible-based teaching against practising homosexuality could not be overturned without in-depth theological study. This “chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions”, he said. Practising homosexuals “should not be ordained priests, and especially not bishops”.
The question was not a simple one of human rights, he argued. “It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole, does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle.”
Dr Williams acknowledged that the Communion was divided into what some “disparagingly” called first-class and second-class Anglicans.
Continuing his argument against allowing the Communion to disintegrate into a “federation”, Dr Williams said that a possible solution lay in the current process of drawing up a “covenant” of biblical orthodoxy that all provinces will be asked to sign. He said that the covenant would not mean that provinces would be “cast into outer darkness” but would allow a “twofold ecclesial reality”, adding: “Perhaps we are faced with two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage.”
How the rift widened
1998 Lambeth Conference advocates abstinence for those not called to marriage but says voices of homosexuals must be heard
2003 Gene Robinson, first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire
2004 The Lambeth Commission on Communion, established by primates after Robinson’s election, publishes the Windsor Report urging a moratorium on same-sex blessings and gay bishops
2006 Episcopal Church passes resolution B033, interpreted as pledging to abide by moratoriums
2008 Most conservative primates boycott Lambeth Confererence
2009 General Convention of Episcopal Church agrees to consecrate gay bishops and to allow gay blessings
Monday, July 27, 2009
The ABC on GC09
Via Thinking Anglicans:
Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future
Monday 27 July 2009
Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion.
1
1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion. Their generous welcome to guests from elsewhere, including myself, the manifest engagement with the crushing problems of the developing world and even the wording of one of the more controversial resolutions all make plain the fact that the Episcopal Church does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. There is a clear commitment to seek counsel from elsewhere in the Communion about certain issues and an eloquent resolution in support of the 'Covenant for a Communion in Mission' as commended by ACC13. All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.
2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed. The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially 'descriptive' is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.
3. There are two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further, and it seems to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury to try and articulate them. To some extent they echo part of what I wrote after the last General Convention, as well as things said at the Lambeth Conference and the ACC, but they still have some pertinence.
2
4. The first is to do with the arguments most often used against the moratoria relating to same-sex unions. Appeal is made to the fundamental human rights dimension of attitudes to LGBT people, and to the impossibility of betraying their proper expectations of a Christian body which has courageously supported them.
5. In response, it needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the Communion's life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.
6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion's voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)
10. This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.
3
11. The second issue is the broader one of how a local church makes up its mind on a sensitive and controversial matter. It is of the greatest importance to remember this aspect of the matter, so as not to be completely trapped in the particularly bitter and unpleasant atmosphere of the debate over sexuality, in which unexamined prejudice is still so much in evidence and accusations of bad faith and bigotry are so readily thrown around.
12. When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.
13. This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days. The doctrine that 'what affects the communion of all should be decided by all' is a venerable principle. On some issues, there emerges a recognition that a particular new development is not of such significance that a high level of global agreement is desirable; in the language used by the Doctrinal Commission of the Communion, there is a recognition that in 'intensity, substance and extent' it is not of fundamental importance. But such a recognition cannot be wished into being by one local church alone. It takes time and a willingness to believe that what we determine together is more likely, in a New Testament framework, to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than what any one community decides locally.
14. Sometimes in Christian history, of course, that wider discernment has been very fallible, as with the history of the Chinese missions in the seventeenth century. But this should not lead us to ignore or minimise the opposite danger of so responding to local pressure or change that a local church simply becomes isolated and imprisoned in its own cultural environment.
15. There have never been universal and straightforward rules about this, and no-one is seeking a risk-free, simple organ of doctrinal decision for our Communion. In an age of vastly improved communication, we must make the best use we can of the means available for consultation and try to build into our decision-making processes ways of checking whether a new local development would have the effect of isolating a local church or making it less recognisable to others. This again has an ecumenical dimension when a global Christian body is involved in partnerships and discussions with other churches who will quite reasonably want to know who now speaks for the body they are relating to when a controversial local change occurs. The results of our ecumenical discussions are themselves important elements in shaping the theological vision within which we seek to resolve our own difficulties.
16. In recent years, local pastoral needs have been cited as the grounds for changes in the sacramental practice of particular local churches within the Communion, and theological rationales have been locally developed to defend and promote such changes. Lay presidency at the Holy Communion is one well-known instance. Another is the regular admission of the unbaptised to Holy Communion as a matter of public policy. Neither of these practices has been given straightforward official sanction as yet by any Anglican authorities at diocesan or provincial level, but the innovative practices concerned have a high degree of public support in some localities.
17. Clearly there are significant arguments to be had about such matters on the shared and agreed basis of Scripture, Tradition and reason. But it should be clear that an acceptance of these sorts of innovation in sacramental practice would represent a manifest change in both the teaching and the discipline of the Anglican tradition, such that it would be a fair question as to whether the new practice was in any way continuous with the old. Hence the question of 'recognisability' once again arises.
18. To accept without challenge the priority of local and pastoral factors in the case either of sexuality or of sacramental practice would be to abandon the possibility of a global consensus among the Anglican churches such as would continue to make sense of the shape and content of most of our ecumenical activity. It would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent 'community of Christian communities'.
4
19. As Anglicans, our membership of the Communion is an important part of our identity. However, some see this as best expressed in a more federalist and pluralist way. They would see this as the only appropriate language for a modern or indeed postmodern global fellowship of believers in which levels of diversity are bound to be high and the risks of centralisation and authoritarianism are the most worrying. There is nothing foolish or incoherent about this approach. But it is not the approach that has generally shaped the self-understanding of our Communion – less than ever in the last half-century, with new organs and instruments for the Communion's communication and governance and new enterprises in ecumenical co-operation.
20. The Covenant proposals of recent years have been a serious attempt to do justice to that aspect of Anglican history that has resisted mere federation. They seek structures that will express the need for mutual recognisability, mutual consultation and some shared processes of decision-making. They are emphatically not about centralisation but about mutual responsibility. They look to the possibility of a freely chosen commitment to sharing discernment (and also to a mutual respect for the integrity of each province, which is the point of the current appeal for a moratorium on cross-provincial pastoral interventions). They remain the only proposals we are likely to see that address some of the risks and confusions already detailed, encouraging us to act and decide in ways that are not simply local.
21. They have been criticised as 'exclusive' in intent. But their aim is not to shut anyone out – rather, in words used last year at the Lambeth Conference, to intensify existing relationships.
22. It is possible that some will not choose this way of intensifying relationships, though I pray that it will be persuasive. It would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions had already been made – and of course approval of the final Covenant text is still awaited. For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness – existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces.
23. This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency. It is right to hope for and work for the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage. And if the prospect of greater structural distance is unwelcome, we must look seriously at what might yet make it less likely.
25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.
5
26. All of this is to do with becoming the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. It would be a great mistake to see the present situation as no more than an unhappy set of tensions within a global family struggling to find a coherence that not all its members actually want. Rather, it is an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another – and so also with Our Lord and his Father, in the power of the Spirit. To recognise different futures for different groups must involve mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions. Thus far in Anglican history we have (remarkably) contained diverse convictions more or less within a unified structure. If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right. But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.
+ Rowan Cantuar:
From Lambeth Palace, Monday 27 July 2009
Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future
Monday 27 July 2009
Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion.
1
1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion. Their generous welcome to guests from elsewhere, including myself, the manifest engagement with the crushing problems of the developing world and even the wording of one of the more controversial resolutions all make plain the fact that the Episcopal Church does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. There is a clear commitment to seek counsel from elsewhere in the Communion about certain issues and an eloquent resolution in support of the 'Covenant for a Communion in Mission' as commended by ACC13. All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.
2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed. The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially 'descriptive' is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.
3. There are two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further, and it seems to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury to try and articulate them. To some extent they echo part of what I wrote after the last General Convention, as well as things said at the Lambeth Conference and the ACC, but they still have some pertinence.
2
4. The first is to do with the arguments most often used against the moratoria relating to same-sex unions. Appeal is made to the fundamental human rights dimension of attitudes to LGBT people, and to the impossibility of betraying their proper expectations of a Christian body which has courageously supported them.
5. In response, it needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the Communion's life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.
6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion's voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)
10. This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.
3
11. The second issue is the broader one of how a local church makes up its mind on a sensitive and controversial matter. It is of the greatest importance to remember this aspect of the matter, so as not to be completely trapped in the particularly bitter and unpleasant atmosphere of the debate over sexuality, in which unexamined prejudice is still so much in evidence and accusations of bad faith and bigotry are so readily thrown around.
12. When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.
13. This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days. The doctrine that 'what affects the communion of all should be decided by all' is a venerable principle. On some issues, there emerges a recognition that a particular new development is not of such significance that a high level of global agreement is desirable; in the language used by the Doctrinal Commission of the Communion, there is a recognition that in 'intensity, substance and extent' it is not of fundamental importance. But such a recognition cannot be wished into being by one local church alone. It takes time and a willingness to believe that what we determine together is more likely, in a New Testament framework, to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than what any one community decides locally.
14. Sometimes in Christian history, of course, that wider discernment has been very fallible, as with the history of the Chinese missions in the seventeenth century. But this should not lead us to ignore or minimise the opposite danger of so responding to local pressure or change that a local church simply becomes isolated and imprisoned in its own cultural environment.
15. There have never been universal and straightforward rules about this, and no-one is seeking a risk-free, simple organ of doctrinal decision for our Communion. In an age of vastly improved communication, we must make the best use we can of the means available for consultation and try to build into our decision-making processes ways of checking whether a new local development would have the effect of isolating a local church or making it less recognisable to others. This again has an ecumenical dimension when a global Christian body is involved in partnerships and discussions with other churches who will quite reasonably want to know who now speaks for the body they are relating to when a controversial local change occurs. The results of our ecumenical discussions are themselves important elements in shaping the theological vision within which we seek to resolve our own difficulties.
16. In recent years, local pastoral needs have been cited as the grounds for changes in the sacramental practice of particular local churches within the Communion, and theological rationales have been locally developed to defend and promote such changes. Lay presidency at the Holy Communion is one well-known instance. Another is the regular admission of the unbaptised to Holy Communion as a matter of public policy. Neither of these practices has been given straightforward official sanction as yet by any Anglican authorities at diocesan or provincial level, but the innovative practices concerned have a high degree of public support in some localities.
17. Clearly there are significant arguments to be had about such matters on the shared and agreed basis of Scripture, Tradition and reason. But it should be clear that an acceptance of these sorts of innovation in sacramental practice would represent a manifest change in both the teaching and the discipline of the Anglican tradition, such that it would be a fair question as to whether the new practice was in any way continuous with the old. Hence the question of 'recognisability' once again arises.
18. To accept without challenge the priority of local and pastoral factors in the case either of sexuality or of sacramental practice would be to abandon the possibility of a global consensus among the Anglican churches such as would continue to make sense of the shape and content of most of our ecumenical activity. It would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent 'community of Christian communities'.
4
19. As Anglicans, our membership of the Communion is an important part of our identity. However, some see this as best expressed in a more federalist and pluralist way. They would see this as the only appropriate language for a modern or indeed postmodern global fellowship of believers in which levels of diversity are bound to be high and the risks of centralisation and authoritarianism are the most worrying. There is nothing foolish or incoherent about this approach. But it is not the approach that has generally shaped the self-understanding of our Communion – less than ever in the last half-century, with new organs and instruments for the Communion's communication and governance and new enterprises in ecumenical co-operation.
20. The Covenant proposals of recent years have been a serious attempt to do justice to that aspect of Anglican history that has resisted mere federation. They seek structures that will express the need for mutual recognisability, mutual consultation and some shared processes of decision-making. They are emphatically not about centralisation but about mutual responsibility. They look to the possibility of a freely chosen commitment to sharing discernment (and also to a mutual respect for the integrity of each province, which is the point of the current appeal for a moratorium on cross-provincial pastoral interventions). They remain the only proposals we are likely to see that address some of the risks and confusions already detailed, encouraging us to act and decide in ways that are not simply local.
21. They have been criticised as 'exclusive' in intent. But their aim is not to shut anyone out – rather, in words used last year at the Lambeth Conference, to intensify existing relationships.
22. It is possible that some will not choose this way of intensifying relationships, though I pray that it will be persuasive. It would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions had already been made – and of course approval of the final Covenant text is still awaited. For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness – existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces.
23. This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency. It is right to hope for and work for the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage. And if the prospect of greater structural distance is unwelcome, we must look seriously at what might yet make it less likely.
25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.
5
26. All of this is to do with becoming the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. It would be a great mistake to see the present situation as no more than an unhappy set of tensions within a global family struggling to find a coherence that not all its members actually want. Rather, it is an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another – and so also with Our Lord and his Father, in the power of the Spirit. To recognise different futures for different groups must involve mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions. Thus far in Anglican history we have (remarkably) contained diverse convictions more or less within a unified structure. If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right. But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.
+ Rowan Cantuar:
From Lambeth Palace, Monday 27 July 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
To understand Metropolitan Jonah
From http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com:
Calvinism As Heresy
By fatherstephen
Met. Jonah of the OCA today addressed a group of conservative Anglicans. In the course of outlining what would be necessary for true ecumenical dialog and union, he stated, “the renunciation of Calvinism as a heresy.” This probably came as a surprise to many of the evangelical Anglicans in the audience. Appended here is the proclamation of the Council of which proclaimed, from an Orthodox perspective, certain aspects of Calvinism to be heretical.
The Confession of Dositheus
Chapter VI. of Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672)
After studying in western Europe, Cyril Lucar (or Lucaris, the Latinate form) eventually became the Patriarch of Constantinople, 1620. A Confession of Faith, written in Latin and ascribed to Cyril, was published in Geneva, 1629. The Encyclopedia Britannica gives a very brief synopsis:
In its 18 articles Lucaris professed virtually all the major doctrines of Calvinism; predestination, justification by faith alone, acceptance of only two sacraments (instead of seven, as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church), rejection of icons, rejection of the infallibility of the church, and so on. In the Orthodox church the Confession started a controversy that culminated in 1672 in a convocation by Dosítheos, patriarch of Jerusalem, of a church council that repudiated all Calvinist doctrines and reformulated Orthodox teachings in a manner intended to distinguish them from both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem was translated from the Greek and edited by J.N.W.B. Robertson, 1899. The Orthodox authorities gathered for the Synod of Jerusalem alleged the 1629 Confession to have been a forgery by Calvinists. Chapter I. quotes widely from Cyril’s homilies, to contradict each chapter of the 1629 Confession. Chapters II. and III. give other evidences and reasons to dispute Cyril’s authorship of the 1629 Confession, and, more importantly, to demonstrate that it was not an official act of an Orthodox patriarch. Chapter IV. explains why the faith of the Eastern Church has never been Calvinistic, particularly concerning the Holy Eucharist as Real Presence and true sacrifice. Chapter V. incorporates acts, decrees, and letters of previous synods against the 1629 Confession. Chapter VI. sets forth the Orthodox faith in eighteen decrees and four questions, commonly known as The Confession of Dositheus, corresponding precisely to the chapters and questions in the 1629 Confession, which is included in an appendix. (Dositheus is the Latinate form of Dosítheos.)
Here follows Chapter VI. of Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, including The Confession of Dositheus. All words and phrases enclosed here in square brackets [ ] or in parenthesis ( ) are so enclosed in the original; text italicized here is italicized in the original. Page breaks in the original are indicated here by the page number enclosed in angle brackets < >. Footnoted citations of biblical quotations or allusions in the original are included here in the body of the text in braces { }; all other footnotes (including original Greek words and phrases, and commentary and textual criticism by Robertson) are omitted here, except for a few enclosed in braces { } and marked JNWBR. My own notes are enclosed in braces { } and marked ELC. CHAPTER VI.
To the candid and lovers of truth, what hath been said will be sufficient, or rather, so to speak, more than enough to enable them to understand what is the doctrine of the Eastern Church, and that she hath never at any time been in agreement with the Calvinists in their novelties (nor in fact with any others besides herself), nor hath she recognised him {Cyril Lucar ELC} whom they contend was of their party, as being so. For the complete refutation, however, and uprooting of the designs which have been formed, contrarily to the glory of God, against the sacred bulwarks of our Orthodox religion, and, so to speak, for the complete demolition of the blasphemies contained in the vaunted <110> Chapters {of the 1629 Confession ELC}, we have thought it right to put forth certain Questions and Chapters {the 18 decrees below ELC} corresponding in number to those written by Cyril, and diametrically opposing the same, wherein he hath, as it were (as hath been supposed many times), whetted his tongue against God, {cf. Psalm 43:4} so that they may be called a refutation and correction of the said Chapters of Cyril. And the order which is there observed will be followed in these which will be put forth by us, so that each of the Faithful may be able to compare, and judge of both, and easily know the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church, and the falsehood of the heretics. Where, however, necessity requireth, we shall omit some things, or add some other things tending to the accurate understanding of the matter. And we shall use words, entire sentences, and periods {sic ELC} set out there, so that we may not seem to fight against words and Orthodox sentences rather than against novelties and impious dogmas.
[THE CONFESSION OF DOSITHEUS.]
Dositheus, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of <111> Jerusalem, to those that ask and inquire concerning the faith and worship of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, how forsooth it thinketh concerning the Orthodox faith, in the common name of all Christians subject to our Apostolic Throne, and of the Orthodox worshippers that are sojourning in this holy and great city of Jerusalem (with whom the whole Catholic Church agreeth in all that concerneth the faith) publisheth this concise Confession, for a testimony both before God and before man, with a sincere conscience, and devoid of all dissimulation.
DECREE I.
We believe in one God, true, almighty, and infinite, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten; the Son begotten of the Father before the ages, and <112> consubstantial with Him; and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. These three Persons in one essence we call the All-holy Trinity, — by all creation to be ever blessed, glorified, and adored.
DECREE II.
We believe the Divine and Sacred Scriptures to be God-taught; and, therefore, we ought to believe the same without doubting; yet not otherwise than as the Catholic Church hath interpreted and delivered the same. For every foul heresy receiveth, indeed, the Divine Scriptures, but perversely interpreteth the same, using metaphors, and homonymies, and sophistries of man’s wisdom, confounding what ought to be distinguished, and trifling with what ought not to be trifled with. For if [we were to receive the same] otherwise, each man holding every day a different sense concerning the same, the Catholic Church would not [as she doth] by the grace of Christ continue to be the Church until this day, holding the same <113> doctrine of faith, and always identically and steadfastly believing, but would be rent into innumerable parties, and subject to heresies; neither would the Church be holy, the pillar and ground of the truth, {1 Timothy 3:15} without spot or wrinkle; {Ephesians 5:27} but would be the Church of the malignant {Psalm 25:5} as it is manifest that of the heretics undoubtedly is, and especially that of Calvin, who are not ashamed to learn from the Church, and then to wickedly repudiate her. Wherefore, the witness also of the Catholic Church is, we believe, not of inferior authority to that of the Divine Scriptures. For one and the same Holy Spirit being the author of both, it is quite the same to be taught by the Scriptures and by the Catholic Church. Moreover, when any man speaketh from himself he is liable to err, and to deceive, and be deceived; but the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God — who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich — it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority. <114>
DECREE III.
We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He hath chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He hath rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that were contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; {1 Timothy 2:4} but since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requireth as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace; which, co-operating <115> with us, and enabling us, and making us perseverant in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonisheth us that we should do, justifieth us, and maketh us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.
But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter answering hereto — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, had in no wise regard to the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promiseth the believer salvation through works, yet supposeth God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestoweth without preceding works, to shew to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate therewith, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain <116> salvation. He taketh not away the power to will — to will to obey, or not obey him.
But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater calumny can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? For that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally willeth the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him, we do know; and that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonour, there is, as is just, decreed condemnation, we do confess. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who telleth us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, thus to believe, or to think; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels. <117>
DECREE IV.
We believe the tri-personal God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be the maker of all things visible and invisible; and the invisible are the angelic Powers, rational souls, and demons, — though God made not the demons what they afterwards became by their own choice, — but the visible are heaven and what is under heaven. And because the Maker is good by nature, He made all things very good {cf. Genesis 1:31} whatsoever He hath made, nor can He ever be the maker of evil. But if there be aught evil, that is to say, sin, come about contrarily to the Divine Will, in man or in demon, — for that evil is simply in nature, we do not acknowledge, — it is either of man, or of the devil. For it is a true and infallible rule, that God is in no wise the author of evil, nor can it at all by just reasoning be attributed to God.
DECREE V.
We believe all things that are, whether visible or invisible, to be governed by the providence of God; but although God foreknoweth <118> evils, and permitteth them, yet in that they are evils, He is neither their contriver nor their author. But when such are come about, they may be over-ruled by the Supreme Goodness for something beneficial, not indeed as being their author, but as engrafting thereon something for the better. And we ought to adore, but not curiously pry into, Divine Providence in its ineffable and only partially revealed judgments. {cf. Romans 11:33} Albeit what is revealed to us in Divine Scripture concerning it as being conducive to eternal life, we ought honestly to search out, and then unhesitatingly to interpret the same agreeably to primary notions of God.
DECREE VI.
We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these <119> fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature; for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, {St. John the Baptist ELC} and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labour, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, in fine {in summation ELC}, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.
DECREE VII.
We believe the Son of God, Jesus Christ, to have emptied Himself, {cf. Philippians 2:7} that is, to have taken into His own Person human flesh, being <120> conceived of the Holy Spirit, in the womb of the ever-virgin Mary; and, becoming man, to have been born, without causing any pain or labour to His own Mother after the flesh, or injury to her virginity, to have suffered, to have been buried, to have risen again in glory on the third day, according to the Scriptures, {cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3,4} to have ascended into the heavens, and to be seated at the right hand of God the Father. Whom also we look for to judge the living and the dead.
DECREE VIII.
We believe our Lord Jesus Christ to be the only mediator, and that in giving Himself a ransom for all He hath through His own Blood made a reconciliation between God and man, and that Himself having a care for His own is advocate and propitiation for our sins. Albeit, in prayers and supplications unto Him, we say the Saints are intercessors, and, above all, the undefiled Mother of the very God the Word; the holy Angels too — whom we know to <121> be set over us — the Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, Pure Ones, and all whom He hath glorified as having served Him faithfully. With whom we reckon also the Bishops and Priests, as standing about the Altar of God, and righteous men eminent for virtue. For that we should pray one for another, and that the prayer of the righteous availeth much, {James 5:16} and that God heareth the Saints rather than those who are steeped in sins, we learn from the Sacred Oracles. And not only are the Saints while on their pilgrimage regarded as mediators and intercessors for us with God, but especially after their death, when all reflective vision being done away, they behold clearly the Holy Trinity; in whose infinite light they know what concerneth us. For as we doubt not but that the Prophets while they were in a body with the perceptions of the senses knew what was done in heaven, and thereby foretold what was future; so also that the Angels, and the Saints become as Angels, know in the infinite light of God what concerneth us, we doubt not, but rather unhesitatingly believe and confess. <122>
DECREE IX.
We believe no one to be saved without faith. And by faith we mean the right notion that is in us concerning God and divine things, which, working by love, that is to say, by [observing] the Divine commandments, justifieth us with Christ; and without this [faith] it is impossible to please God.
DECREE X.
We believe that what is called, or rather is, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and in which we have been taught to believe, containeth generally all the Faithful in Christ, who, that is to say, being still on their pilgrimage, have not yet reached their home in the Fatherland. But we do not in any wise confound this Church which is on its pilgrimage with that which is in the Fatherland, because it may be, as some of the heretics say, that the members of the two are sheep of God, the Chief Shepherd, {cf. Psalm 94:7} and hallowed by the same Holy Spirit; for that is absurd and impossible, since the one is yet militant, and <123> on its journey; and the other is triumphant, and settled in the Fatherland, and hath received the prize. Of which Catholic Church, since a mortal man cannot universally and perpetually be head, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is head, and Himself holding the rudder is at the helm in the governing of the Church, through the Holy Fathers. And, therefore, over particular Churches, that are real Churches, and consist of real members [of the Catholic Church], the Holy Spirit hath appointed Bishops as leaders and shepherds, who being not at all by abuse, but properly, authorities and heads, look unto the Author and Finisher of our Salvation, {cf. Hebrews 2:10; 12:2} and refer to Him what they do in their capacity of heads forsooth.
But forasmuch as among their other impieties, the Calvinists have fancied this also, that the simple Priest and the High Priest {Bishop ELC} are perhaps the same; and that there is no necessity for High Priests, and that the Church may be governed by some Priests; and that not a High Priest [only], but a Priest also is able to ordain a Priest, and a <124> number of Priests to ordain a High Priest; and affirm in lofty language that the Eastern Church assenteth to this wicked notion — for which purpose the Tenth Chapter was written by Cyril — we explicitly declare according to the mind which hath obtained from the beginning in the Eastern Church: —
That the dignity of the Bishop is so necessary in the Church, that without him, neither Church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of. For he, as a successor of the Apostles, having received in continued succession by the imposition of hands and the invocation of the All-holy Spirit the grace that is given him of the Lord of binding and loosing, is a living image of God upon the earth, and by a most ample participation of the operation of the Holy Spirit, who is the chief functionary, is a fountain of all the Mysteries [Sacraments] of the Catholic Church, through which we obtain salvation.
And he is, we suppose, as necessary to the Church as breath is to man, or the sun to the world. Whence it hath also been elegantly <125> said by some in commendation of the dignity of the High Priesthood, “What God is in the heavenly Church of the first-born, {cf. Hebrews 12:23} and the sun in the world, that every High Priest is in his own particular Church, as through him the flock is enlightened, and nourished, and becometh the temple of God.” {cf. Ephesians 2:21}
And that this great mystery and dignity of the Episcopate hath descended unto us by a continued succession is manifest. For since the Lord hath promised to be with us always, although He be with us by other means of grace and Divine operations, yet in a more eminent manner doth He, through the Bishop as chief functionary make us His own and dwell with us, and through the divine Mysteries is united with us; of which the Bishop is the first minister, and chief functionary, through the Holy Spirit, and suffereth us not to fall into heresy. And, therefore [John] the Damascen, {sic ELC} in his Fourth Epistle to the Africans, hath said, the Catholic Church is everywhere committed to the <126> care of the Bishops; and that Clement, the first Bishop of the Romans, and Evodius at Antioch, and Mark at Alexandria, were successors of Peter is acknowledged. Also that the divine Andrew seated Stachys on the Throne of Constantinople, in his own stead; and that in this great holy city of Jerusalem our Lord Himself appointed James, and that after James another succeeded, and then another, until our own times. And, therefore, Tertullian in his Epistle to Papianus called all Bishops the Apostles’ successors. To their succession to the Apostles’ dignity and authority Eusebius, the [friend] of Pamphilus, testifieth, and all the Fathers testify, of whom it is needless to give a list; and this the common and most ancient custom of the Catholic Church confirmeth.
And that the dignity of the Episcopate <127> differeth from that of the simple Priest, is manifest. For the Priest is ordained by the Bishop, but a Bishop is not ordained by a Priest, but by two or three High Priests, as the Apostolic Canon directeth. And the Priest is chosen by the Bishop, but the High Priest is not chosen by the Priests or Presbyters, nor is he chosen by secular Princes, but by the Synod of the Primatial Church of that country, in which is situated the city that is to receive the ordinand, or at least by the Synod of the Province in which he is to become a Bishop. Or, if ever the city choose him, it doth not this absolutely; but the election is referred to the Synod; and if it appear that he hath obtained this agreeably to the Canons, the Elect {the Priest chosen to become a Bishop ELC} is advanced by ordination by the Bishops, with the invocation of the All-holy Spirit; but if not, he is advanced whom the Synod chooseth. And the Priest, indeed, retaineth to himself the authority and grace of the Priesthood, which he hath received; but the Bishop imparteth it to others also. And the one having received the dignity of the Priesthood <128> from the Bishop, can only perform Holy Baptism, and Prayer-oil, minister sacrificially the unbloody Sacrifice, and impart to the people the All-holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, anoint the baptised with the Holy Myron [Chrism], crown the Faithful legally marrying, pray for the sick, and that all men may be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, {cf. 1 Timothy 2:4} and especially for the remission and forgiveness of the sins of the Faithful, living and dead. And if he be eminent for experience and virtue, receiving his authority from the Bishop, he directeth those Faithful that come unto him, and guideth them into the way of possessing the heavenly kingdom, and is appointed a preacher of the sacred Gospel. But the High Priest is also the minister of all these, since he is in fact, as hath been said before, the fountain of the Divine Mysteries and graces, through the Holy Spirit, and he alone consecrateth the Holy Myron. And the ordinations of all orders and degrees in the Church are proper to him; and in a primary and highest sense he <129> bindeth and looseth, and his sentence is approved by God, as the Lord hath promised. {Matthew 16:19} And he preacheth the Sacred Gospel, and contendeth for the Orthodox faith, and those that refuse to hear he casteth out of the Church as heathens and publicans, {cf. Matthew 18:17} and he putteth heretics under excommunication and anathema, and layeth down his own life for the sheep. {cf. John 10:11} From which it is manifest, that without contradiction the Bishop differeth from the simple Priest, and that without him all the Priests in the world could not exercise the pastorate in the Church of God, or govern it at all.
But it is well said by one of the Fathers, that it is not easy to find a heretic that hath understanding. For when these forsake the Church, they are forsaken by the Holy Spirit, and there remaineth in them neither understanding nor light, but only darkness and blindness. For if such had not happened to them, they would not have opposed things that are most plain; among which is the truly great mystery of Episcopacy, which is taught <130> by Scripture, written of, and witnessed to, both by all Ecclesiastical history and the writings of holy men, and always held and acknowledged by the Catholic Church.
DECREE XI.
We believe to be members of the Catholic Church all the Faithful, and only the Faithful; who, forsooth, having received the blameless Faith of the Saviour Christ, from Christ Himself, and the Apostles, and the Holy Œcumenical Synods, adhere to the same without wavering; although some of them may be guilty of all manner of sins. For unless the Faithful, even when living in sin, were members of the Church, they could not be judged by the Church. But now being judged by her, and called to repentance, and guided into the way of her salutary precepts, though they may be still defiled with sins, for this only, that they have not fallen into despair, and that they cleave to the Catholic and Orthodox faith, they are, and are regarded as, members of the Catholic Church.
DECREE XII.
We believe the Catholic Church to be <131> taught by the Holy Spirit. For he is the true Paraclete; whom Christ sendeth from the Father, {cf. John 25:26} to teach the truth, {cf. John 26:13} and to drive away darkness from the minds of the Faithful. The teaching of the Holy Spirit, however, doth not immediately, but through the holy Fathers and Leaders of the Catholic Church, illuminate the Church. For as all Scripture is, and is called, the word of the Holy Spirit; not that it was spoken immediately by Him, but that it was spoken by Him through the Apostles and Prophets; so also the Church is taught indeed by the Life-giving Spirit, but through the medium of the holy Fathers and Doctors (whose rule is acknowledged to be the Holy and Œcumenical Synods; for we shall not cease to say this ten thousand times); and, therefore, not only are we persuaded, but do profess as true and undoubtedly certain, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to err, or at all be deceived, or ever to choose falsehood instead of truth. For the All-holy Spirit continually operating through the holy Fathers and Leaders faithfully ministering, delivereth the Church from error of every kind. <132>
DECREE XIII.
We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which worketh through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the notion] that faith fulfilling the function of a hand layeth hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and applieth it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifieth through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becometh efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad, forsooth.
DECREE XIV.
We believe man in falling by the [original] <133> transgression to have become comparable and like unto the beasts, that is, to have been utterly undone, and to have fallen from his perfection and impassibility, yet not to have lost the nature and power which he had received from the supremely good God. For otherwise he would not be rational, and consequently not man; but to have the same nature, in which he was created, and the same power of his nature, that is free-will, living and operating. So as to be by nature able to choose and do what is good, and to avoid and hate what is evil. For it is absurd to say that the nature which was created good by Him who is supremely good lacketh the power of doing good. For this would be to make that nature evil — than which what could be more impious? For the power of working dependeth upon nature, and nature upon its author, although in a different manner. And that a man is able by nature to do what is good, even our Lord Himself intimateth, saying, even the Gentiles love those that love them. {Matthew 5:46; Luke 6:32} But this is taught most plainly by <134> Paul also, in Romans chap. i. [ver.] 19, {Rather chap. ii., ver. 14. JNWBR} and elsewhere expressly, saying in so many words, “The Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of the law.” From which it is also manifest that the good which a man may do cannot forsooth be sin. For it is impossible that what is good can be evil. Albeit, being done by nature only, and tending to form the natural character of the doer, but not the spiritual, it contributeth not unto salvation thus alone without faith, nor yet indeed unto condemnation, for it is not possible that good, as such, can be the cause of evil. But in the regenerated, what is wrought by grace, and with grace, maketh the doer perfect, and rendereth him worthy of salvation.
A man, therefore, before he is regenerated, is able by nature to incline to what is good, and to choose and work moral good. But for the regenerated to do spiritual good — for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual — it is necessary that he be guided and prevented by grace, as hath been said in treating of predestination; <135> so that he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life, although he hath it in his own power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace.
DECREE XV.
We believe that there are in the Church Evangelical Mysteries [i.e., Sacraments of the Gospel Dispensation], and that they are seven. For a less or a greater number of the Mysteries we have not in the Church; since any number of the Mysteries other than seven is the product of heretical madness. And the seven of them were instituted in the Sacred Gospel, and are gathered from the same, like the other dogmas of the Catholic Faith. For in the first place our Lord instituted Holy Baptism by the words, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;” {Matthew 28:19} and by the words, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” {Mark 16:16}
And that of Confirmation, that is to say, <136> of the Holy Myron or Holy Chrism, by the words, “But ye — tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” {Luke 24:49} With which they were endued by the coming of the Holy Spirit, and this the Mystery of Confirmation signifieth; concerning which Paul also discourseth in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. i., and Dionysius the Areopagite more explicitly.
And the Priesthood by the words, “This do ye for My Memorial;” {Luke 22:19} and by the words, “Whatsoever ye shall bind and loose upon the earth shall be bound and loosed in the heavens.” {Matthew 18:18}
And the unbloody Sacrifice by the words, “Take, eat ye; This is My Body;” {Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; and cf. Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 2:24} and, “Drink ye all of It; This is My Blood of the New Testament;” {Matthew 26:27; and cf. Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 2:25} and by the words, “Except <137> ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, ye have not life in yourselves.” {John 6:53}
And Marriage, when, having recited the things which had been spoken thereof in the Old [Testament], He, as it were, set His seal thereto by the words, “Those whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” {Matthew 19:6} and this the divine Apostle also calleth a great Mystery. {Ephesians 5:32}
And Penance, with which is joined sacramental confession, by the words, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”; {John 22:23} and by the words, “Except ye repent, ye shall [all] likewise perish.” {Luke 13:3,5} And lastly, the Holy Oil or Prayer-Oil is spoken of in Mark, {Mark 6:13} and is expressly witnessed to by the Lord’s brother. {James 5:14}
And the Mysteries consist of something natural, and of something supernatural; and are not bare signs of the promises of God. For then they would not differ from circumcision — than which [notion] what could be <138> worse? And we acknowledge them to be, of necessity, efficient means of grace to the receivers. But we reject, as alien to Christian doctrine, the notion that the integrity of the Mystery requireth the use of the earthly thing [i.e., dependeth upon its reception]; for this is contrary to the Mystery of the Offering [i.e., the Sacrament of the Eucharist], which being instituted by the Substantial Word, and hallowed by the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is perfected by the presence of the thing signified, to wit, of the Body and Blood of Christ. And the perfecting thereof necessarily precedeth its use. For if it were not perfect before its use, he that useth it not aright could not eat and drink judgment unto himself; {1 Corinthians 11:26,28,29} since he would be partaking of mere bread and wine. But now, he that partaketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself; so that not in its use, but even before its use, the Mystery of the Eucharist hath its perfection. Moreover, we reject as something abominable and pernicious the notion that when faith is weak the integrity of the Mystery is impaired. For heretics who abjure their <139> heresy and join the Catholic Church are received by the Church; although they received their valid Baptism with weakness of faith. Wherefore, when they afterwards become possessed of the perfect faith, they are not again baptised.
DECREE XVI.
We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord saith, “Whosoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, it is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord shewed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whosoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Saviour would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be <140> regenerated.” And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptised is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptised. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptised, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who saith expressly, “And they are vouchsafed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine saith that it is an Apostolical tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church giveth to babes <141> the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnisheth them with a particular heart.”
Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he be Orthodox, and have the intention proper to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins whatsoever which the baptised may have committed. Secondly, it delivereth him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin, as for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it giveth to such immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it maketh them temples of God. And it may not be said, that any sin is not washed away through Baptism, which may have been previously committed; but to remain, though not imputed. For <142> that were indeed the height of impiety, and a denial, rather than a confession of piety. Yea, forsooth, all sin existing, or committed before Baptism, is blotted out, and is to be regarded as never existing or committed. For the forms of Baptism, and on either hand all the words that precede and that perfect Baptism, do indicate a perfect cleansing. And the same thing even the very names of Baptism do signify. For if Baptism be by the Spirit and by fire, {Matthew 3:11} it is manifest that it is in all a perfect cleansing; for the Spirit cleanseth perfectly. If it be light, {Hebrews 6:4} it dispelleth the darkness. If it be regeneration, {Titus 3:5} old things are passed away. And what are these except sins? If the baptised putteth off the old man, {Colossians 3:9} then sin also. If he putteth on Christ, {Galatians 3:27} then in effect he becometh free from sin through Baptism. For God is far from sinners. This Paul also teacheth more plainly, saying: “As through one [man] we, being many, were made sinners, so through one [are we made] righteous.” {Romans 5:19} And if righteous, then free from sin. For it is not <143> possible for life and death to be in the same [person]. If Christ truly died, then remission of sin through the Spirit is true also. Hence it is evident that all who are baptised and fall asleep while babes are undoubtedly saved, being predestinated through the death of Christ. Forasmuch as they are without any sin; — without that common [to all], because delivered therefrom by the Divine laver, and without any of their own, because as babes they are incapable of committing sin; — and consequently are saved. Moreover, Baptism imparteth an indelible character, as doth also the Priesthood. For as it is impossible for any one to receive twice the same order of the Priesthood, so it is impossible for any once rightly baptised, to be again baptised, although he should fall even into myriads of sins, or even into actual apostacy from the Faith. For when he is willing to return unto the Lord, he receiveth again through the Mystery of Penance the adoption of a son, which he had lost.
DECREE XVII.
We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated <144> above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night wherein He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat ye; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink ye all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, <145> transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin {Mary ELC}, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}
Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.
Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and entereth into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, <146> whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.
Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also saith: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.
<147> Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descendeth upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity <148> in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejecteth.
Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honoured in the highest manner, and adored with latria. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.
Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes for the communion of those that are about to depart [i.e. the dying] is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different therefrom; so <149> that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.
Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above. Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, <150> except only by an Orthodox Priest, who hath received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox, and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics; but necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress the Catholic Church of Christ rejecteth and anathematiseth.
DECREE XVIII.
We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment, nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved <151> itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation forsooth.
And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance — by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine {in summation ELC} by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers <152> of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not.
QUESTION I.
Ought the Divine Scriptures to be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians?
No. For that all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16} we know, and is of such necessity, that without the same it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired <153> into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and in fine read. But to such as are not so exercised, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, as knowing by experience the mischief arising therefrom, forbiddeth the reading of the same. So that it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear indeed the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation; {Romans 10:10} but to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for the aforesaid reasons and others of the like sort. For it is the same thing thus to prohibit persons not exercised thereto reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.
QUESTION II.
Are the Scriptures plain to all Christians that read them?
If the Divine Scriptures were plain to all <154> Christians that read them, the Lord would not have commanded such as desired to obtain salvation to search the same; {John 5:39} and Paul would have said without reason that God had placed the gift of teaching in the Church; {1 Corinthians 13:28} and Peter would not have said of the Epistles of Paul that they contained some things hard to be understood. {2 Peter 3:16} It is evident, therefore, that the Scriptures are very profound, and their sense lofty; and that they need learned and divine men to search out their true meaning, and a sense that is right, and agreeable to all Scripture, and to its author the Holy Spirit.
So that as to those that are regenerated [in Baptism], although they must know the faith concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens, what concerneth regeneration and judgment — for which many have not hesitated to die — it is not necessary, but rather impossible, that all should know what the Holy Spirit manifesteth to those alone who are exercised in wisdom and holiness. <155>
QUESTION III.
What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?
Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril {Lucar ELC} collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most <156> ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.
QUESTION IV.
How ought we to think of the Holy Eikons, and of the adoration of the Saints?
The Saints being, and acknowledged by the Catholic Church to be, intercessors, as hath been said in Eighth Chapter {sic; Decree VIII above ELC}, it is time to say that we honour them as friends of God, and as praying for us to the God of all. And the honour we pay them is twofold; — according to one manner which we call hyperdulia, we honour the Mother of God the Word. For though indeed the Theotokos {Mary ELC} be servant of the only God, yet is she also His Mother, as having borne in the flesh one of the Trinity; wherefore also is she hymned, as being beyond compare, above as well all Angels as Saints; wherefore, also, we pay her the adoration of hyperdulia. But according to the other <157>manner, which we call dulia, we adore, or rather honour, the holy Angels, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and, in fine, all the Saints. Moreover, we adore and honour the wood of the precious and life-giving Cross, whereon our Saviour underwent this world-saving passion, and the sign of the life-giving Cross, the Manger at Bethlehem, through which we have been delivered from irrationality, {In allusion to the manger out of which the irrational animals eat their food. JNWBR} the place of the Skull [Calvary], the life-giving Sepulchre, and the other holy objects of adoration; as well the holy Gospels, as the sacred vessels, wherewith the unbloody Sacrifice is performed. And by annual commemorations, and popular festivals, and sacred edifices and offerings; we do respect and honour the Saints. And then we adore, and honour, and kiss the Eikons of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the most holy Theotokos, and of all the Saints, also of the holy Angels, as they appeared to some of the Forefathers and Prophets. We also represent the All-holy Spirit, as He appeared, in the form of a dove.
<158> And if some say we commit idolatry in adoring the Saints, and the Eikons of the Saints, and the other things, we regard it as foolish and frivolous. For we worship with latria the only God in Trinity, and none other; but the Saints we honour upon two accounts: firstly, for their relation to God, since we honour them for His sake; and for themselves, because they are living images of God. But that which is for themselves hath been defined as of dulia. But the holy Eikons [we adore] relatively since the honour paid to them is referred to their prototypes. For he that adoreth the Eikon doth, through the Eikon, adore the prototype; and the honour paid to the Eikon is not at all divided, or at all separated from that of him that is pourtrayed, and is done unto the same, like that done unto a royal embassy.
And what they adduce from Scripture in support of their novelties, doth not help them as they would, but rather appeareth agreeable to us. For we, when reading the Divine Scriptures, examine the occasion and person, <159> the example and cause. Wherefore, when we contemplate God Himself saying at one time, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any idol, or likeness; neither shalt thou adore them, nor serve them;” {Exodus 20:4,5; Deuteronomy 5:8,9} and at another, commanding that Cherubim should be made; {Exodus 25:18} and further, that oxen and lions {1 Kings 7:29} were placed in the Temple, we do not rashly consider the import of these things. For faith is not in assurance; but, as hath been said, considering the occasion and other circumstances, we arrive at the right interpretation of the same; and we conclude that, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any idol, or likeness,” is the same as saying, “Thou shalt not adore strange Gods,” {Exodus 20:4} or rather, “Thou shalt not commit idolatry.” For so both the custom obtaining in the Church from Apostolic times of adoring the holy Eikons relatively is maintained, and the worship of latria reserved for God alone; and God doth not appear to speak contrarily to Himself. For if the Scripture <160> saith [absolutely], “Thou shalt not make,” “Thou shalt not adore,” we fail to see how God afterwards permitted likenesses to be made, even though not for adoration. Wherefore, since the commandment concerneth idolatry only, we find serpents, and lions, and oxen, and Cherubim made, and figures and likenesses; among which Angels appear, as having been adored.
And as to the Saints whom they bring forward as saying, that it is not lawful to adore Eikons; we conclude that they rather help us; since they in their sharp disputations inveighed, as well against those that adore the holy Eikons with latria, as against those that bring the eikons of their deceased relatives into the Church, and subjected to anathema those that so do; but not against the right adoration, either of the Saints, or of the holy Eikons, or of the precious Cross, or of the other things of which mention hath been made; especially since the holy Eikons have been in the Church, and have been adored by the Faithful, even from the times of the Apostles, as is recorded and proclaimed by very many; with whom and after whom the Seventh Holy <161> Œcumenical Synod putteth to shame all heretical impudence.
Since it giveth us most plainly to understand that it behoveth to adore the Holy Eikons, and what have been mentioned above. And it anathematiseth, and subjecteth to excommunication, as well those that adore the Eikons with latria as those that say that the Orthodox commit idolatry in adoring the Eikons. We also, therefore, do anathematise with them such as adore either Saint, or Angel, or Eikon, or Cross, or Relic of Saints, or sacred Vessel, or Gospel, or aught else that is in heaven above, or aught on the earth, or in the sea, with latria; and we ascribe adoration with latria to the only God in Trinity. And we anathematise those that say that the adoration of Eikons is the latria of Eikons, and who adore them not, and honour not the Cross, and the Saints, as the Church hath delivered.
Now we adore the Saints and the Holy Eikons, in the manner declared; and pourtray them in adornment of our temples, and that they may be the books of the unlearned, and for them to imitate the virtues of the Saints; <162> and for them to remember, and have an increase of love, and be vigilant in ever calling upon the Lord, as Sovereign and Father, but upon the Saints, as his servants, and our helpers and mediators.
And so much as to the Chapters and Questions of Cyril. But the heretics do find fault with even the prayers of the pious unto God, for we know not why they should calumniate those of the Monks only. Moreover, that prayer is a conversation with God, and a petitioning for such good things as be meet for us, from Him of whom we hope to receive, an ascent too of the mind unto God, and a pious expression of our purpose towards God, a seeking what is above, the support of a holy soul, a worship most acceptable to God, a token of repentance, and of steadfast hope, we do know; and prayer is made either with the mind alone, or with the mind and voice; thereby engaging in the contemplation of the goodness and mercy of God, of the unworthiness of the petitioner, and in thanksgiving, and in realising the promises attached to obedience to God. And it is accompanied by faith, and hope, <163> and perseverance, and observance of the commandments; and, as already said, is a petitioning for heavenly things; and it hath many fruits, which it is needless to enumerate; and it is made continually, and is accomplished either in an upright posture, or by kneeling. And so great is its efficacy, that it is acknowledged to be both the nourishment and the life of the soul. And all this is gathered from Divine Scripture; so that if any ask for demonstration thereof, he is like a fool, or a blind man, who disputeth about the sun’s light at the hour of noon, and when the sky is clear. But the heretics, wishing to leave nothing unassailed that Christ hath enjoined, carp at this also. But being ashamed thus openly to impiously maintain as much concerning prayer, they do not forbid it to be made at all, but are distributed at the prayers of the Monks; and they act thus, that they may raise in the simple-minded a hatred towards the Monks; so that they may not endure even the sight of them, as though they were profane and innovators, much less allow the dogmas of the pious and Orthodox faith to be taught by them. For the adversary is <164> wise as to evil, and ingenious in inventing calumnies. Wherefore his followers also — such as these heretics especially — are not so much anxious about piety, as desirous of ever involving men in an abyss of evils, and of estranging them into places, which the Lord taketh not under his care. {cf. Deuteronomy 11:12}
They should be asked therefore, what are the prayers of the Monks; and if they can shew that the Monks do anything entirely different from themselves, and not in accordance with the Orthodox worship of Christians, we also will join with them, and say, not only that the Monks are no Monks, but also no Christians. But if the Monks set forth particularly the glory and wonders of God, and continually, and unremittingly, and at all times, as far as is possible for man, proclaim the Diety, with hymns and doxologies; now singing, forsooth, parts of Scripture, and now gathering hymns out of Scripture, or at least giving utterance to what is agreeable to the same; we must acknowledge that they perform a work apostolical and prophetical, or rather that of the Lord.
<165> Wherefore, we also, in singing the Paracletikê, the Triodion, and the Menæon, perform a work in no wise unbecoming Christians. For all such Books discourse of the Diety as one, and yet of more than one personality, and that even in the Hymns; now gathered out of the Divine Scriptures, and now according to the direction of the Spirit; and in order that in the melodies, the words may be paralleled by other words, we sing parts of Scripture; moreover, that it may be quite plain that we always sing parts of Scripture, to every one of our Hymns, called a Troparion, we add a verse of Scripture. And <166> if we sing, or read the Thecara [Threasury], or other prayers composed by the Fathers of old; let them say what there is in these which is blasphemous, or not pious, and we with them will prosecute these [Monks].
But if they say this only, that to pray continually and unremittingly is wrong, what have they to do with us? Let them contend with Christ — as indeed they do contend — who spake the parable of the unjust judge, {Luke 28:2} how that prayer should be made continually; and taught us to watch and pray, {Mark 13:33} in order to escape trials, and to stand before the Son of man. {Luke 21:36} Let them contend with Paul, [who] in the [5th] Chapter {verse 17 JNWBR} of the First [Epistle] <167> to the Thessalonians, and elsewhere in many places [exhorteth to pray unremittingly]. I forbear to mention the divine leaders of the Catholic Church, from Christ until us; for to put these [heretics] to shame sufficeth the accord of the Forefathers, Apostles, and Prophets concerning prayer.
If, therefore, what the Monks do is what the Apostles and Prophets did; and, we may say, what the holy Fathers and Forefathers of Christ Himself did; it is manifest that the prayers of the Monks are fruits of the Holy Spirit, the giver of graces. But the novelties which the Calvinists have blasphemously introduced concerning God and divine things, perverting, mutilating, and abusing the Divine Scriptures, are sophistries and inventions of the devil.
Unavailing too is the assertion, that the Church cannot, without violence and tyranny, appoint fasts and abstinence from certain meats. For the Church for the mortification of the flesh and all the passions, and acting most rightly, carefully appointeth prayer and fasting, of which all the Saints have been <168> lovers and examples; through which our adversary the devil {cf. 1 Peter 5:8} being overthrown by the grace from on high, together with his armies and his hosts — the race {cf. 2 Timothy 4:7} that is set before the pious is the more easily accomplished. In making these provisions the undefiled {cf. Ephesians 5:27} Church everywhere useth neither violence nor tyranny; but exhorteth, admonisheth, and teacheth, in accordance with Scripture, and persuadeth by the power of the Spirit.
And to what hath been mentioned a certain fellow at Charenton — we mean the beforementioned {page 6 ELC} Claud — addeth certain other ridiculous objections against us, and unworthy of any consideration; but what hath been said by him we regard as idle tales; and the man himself we consider as a trifler and altogether illiterate. For from [the time of] Photius what vast numbers have there been, and there are now, in the Eastern Church, eminent for wisdom, and theology, and holiness, by the power of the Spirit. And it is most absurd [to argue] that <169> because certain of the Eastern Priests keep the Holy Bread in wooden vessels, within the Church, but without {outside ELC} the Bema, {sanctuary JNWBR} hung on one of the columns; that, therefore, they do not acknowledge the real and true transmutation of the bread into the Body of the Lord. For that certain of the poor Priests do keep the Lord’s Body in wooden vessels, we do not deny; for truly Christ is not honoured by stones and marbles; but asketh for a sound purpose and a clean heart.
And this is what happened to Paul. “For we have,” {2 Corinthians 4:7} saith he, “the treasure in earthern {sic ELC} vessels.” But where particular Churches able, as with us here in Jerusalem, the Lord’s Body is honourably kept within the Holy Bema of such Churches, and a seven-light lamp always kept burning before it.
And I am tempted to wonder, if it may be that the heretics have seen the Lord’s Body hanging in some Churches without the Bema, because perhaps the walls of the Bema were unsafe on account of age, and so have arrived at these absurd conclusions; but they did not notice Christ pourtrayed on the <170> apse of the Holy Bema as a babe [lying] in the Paten; so that they might have known, how that the Easterns do not represent that there is in the Paten a type, or grace, or aught else, but the Christ Himself; and so believe that the Bread of the Eucharist is naught else, but becometh substantially the Body Itself of the Lord, and so maintain the truth.
But concerning all these things it hath been treated at large and most lucidly in what is called The Confession of the Eastern Church, by George, of Chios, from Coresius in his [Treatises] concerning the Mysteries, and of predestination, and of grace, and of free-will, and of the intercession and adoration of Saints, and of the adoration of Eikons, and in the Refutation composed by him of the illicit Synod of the heretics holden on a certain occasion in Flanders, and in many other [Treatises]; by Gabriel, of Peloponnesus, Metropolitan of Philadelphia; and by Gregory Protosyncellus of Chios in his [Treatises] concerning the Mysteries; by Jeremias, the Most Holy Patriarch <171> of Constantinople, in three dogmatic and Synodical Letters to the Lutherans of Tubingen in Germany; by John, Priest, and Economus of Constantinople, surnamed Nathaniel; by Meletius Syrigus, of Crete, in the Orthodox Refutation composed by him of the Chapters and Questions of the said Cyril {Lucar ELC}; by Theophanes, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his dogmatic Epistle to the Lithuanians, and in innumerable other [Epistles]. And before these hath it been spoken most excellently of these matters by Symeon, of Thessalonica, and before him by all the Fathers, and by the Œcumenical Synods, by ecclesiastical historians too; and even by writers of secular history under the Christian Autocrats of Rome, have these matters been mentioned incidently {sic ELC}; by all of whom, without any controversy, the aforesaid were received from the Apostles; whose traditions, whether by writing, or by word, have through the Fathers descended until us. Further, the argument derived from the heretics also confirmeth the aforesaid. For the Nestorians after the year of Salvation, 428, the Armenians too, and the Copts, and the <172> Syrians, and further even the Ethiopians, who dwell at the Equator, and beyond this towards the tropics of Capricorn, whom those that are there commonly call Campesii, after the year … {The date is wanting in the text. JNWBR} of the Incarnation broke away from the Catholic Church; and each of these hath as peculiar only its heresy, as all know from the Acts of the Œcumenical Synods. Albeit, as concerning the purpose and number of the Sacred Mysteries, and all what hath been said above — except their own particular heresy, as hath been said — they entirely believe with the Catholic Church; as we see with our own eyes every hour, and learn by experience and conversation, here in the Holy City of Jerusalem, in which there either dwell, or are continually sojourning, vast numbers of them all, as well learned, such as they have, as illiterate.
Let, therefore, prating and innovating heretics keep silence, and not endeavour by stealing some sentences, [as] against us, from the Scriptures and the Fathers, to cunningly bolster up falsehood, as all apostates and heretics have ever done; and let them say <173> this one thing only, that in contriving excuses {cf. Psalm 140:4} for sins they have chosen to speak wickedness against God, {cf. Psalm 74:6} and blasphemies against the Saints.
EPILOGUE.
Let us briefly suffice for the reputation of the falsehoods of the adversaries, which they have devised against the Eastern Church, alleging in support of their falsehoods the incoherent and impious Chapters of the said Cyril {Lucar ELC}. And let it not be for a sign to be contradicted {cf. Luke 2:34} of those heretics that unjustly calumniate us, as though they spake truly; but for a sign to be believed, that is for reformation of their innovations, and for their return to the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in which their forefathers also were of old, and assisted at those Synods and contests against heretics, which these now reject and revile. For it was unreasonable on their part, especially as they considered themselves to be wise, to have listened to men that were lovers of self; and profane, and that spake not from the Holy Spirit, but from the prince of lies, <174> and to have forsaken the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which God hath purchased with the Blood of His own Son; {cf. Acts 20:28} and to have abandoned her. For otherwise there will overtake those that have separated from the Church the pains that are reserved for heathens and publicans; but the Lord who hath ever protected her against all enemies, will not neglect the Catholic Church; to Him be glory and dominion unto the ages of the ages. Amen.
In the year of Salvation 1672, on the 16th [day] of the month of March, in the Holy City of Jerusalem: —
I, DOSITHEUS, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, declare and confess this to be the faith of the Eastern Church.
{Chapter VI. concludes with more than five full pages of signatories, omitted here. ELC}
The Confession of Dositheus is a “major pronouncement” and “an important source of Church teaching”, according to Basic Sources of the Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, at the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:
The purpose of this Confession of Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, also was to oppose the Roman and Calvinistic influences. It expresses the orthodox spirit of faith in 18 dogmas, with four questions. This Confession was issued in 13 editions in a short period of time. It is considered one of the major pronouncements of the Orthodox Faith, and an important source of Church teaching.
It is “the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church” on the issues raised by Calvinism, according to Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical? at the Orthodox Christian Information Center:
The Confessio Dosithei presents, in eighteen decrees or articles, a positive statement of the orthodox faith. It follows the order of Cyril’s Confession, which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted [sic] articles. It was formally transmitted by the Eastern Patriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain Bishops of the Church of England, as an ultimatum to be received without further question or conference by all who would be in communion with the Orthodox Church.
Dositheus is a “great teacher” of the Church, according to Tradition in the Orthodox Church, at the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and elsewhere:
There are the writings and Confessions of Faith written by great teachers of the Church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Examples might include the letter of Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441) to all Orthodox Christians; the correspondence of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople with the German Reformers (1573-1581); the council of Jerusalem (1672) and the Confession of Faith by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672), and the writings of St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, who published the Rudder, a book of great canonical and theological importance (1800).
Calvinism As Heresy
By fatherstephen
Met. Jonah of the OCA today addressed a group of conservative Anglicans. In the course of outlining what would be necessary for true ecumenical dialog and union, he stated, “the renunciation of Calvinism as a heresy.” This probably came as a surprise to many of the evangelical Anglicans in the audience. Appended here is the proclamation of the Council of which proclaimed, from an Orthodox perspective, certain aspects of Calvinism to be heretical.
The Confession of Dositheus
Chapter VI. of Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672)
After studying in western Europe, Cyril Lucar (or Lucaris, the Latinate form) eventually became the Patriarch of Constantinople, 1620. A Confession of Faith, written in Latin and ascribed to Cyril, was published in Geneva, 1629. The Encyclopedia Britannica gives a very brief synopsis:
In its 18 articles Lucaris professed virtually all the major doctrines of Calvinism; predestination, justification by faith alone, acceptance of only two sacraments (instead of seven, as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church), rejection of icons, rejection of the infallibility of the church, and so on. In the Orthodox church the Confession started a controversy that culminated in 1672 in a convocation by Dosítheos, patriarch of Jerusalem, of a church council that repudiated all Calvinist doctrines and reformulated Orthodox teachings in a manner intended to distinguish them from both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem was translated from the Greek and edited by J.N.W.B. Robertson, 1899. The Orthodox authorities gathered for the Synod of Jerusalem alleged the 1629 Confession to have been a forgery by Calvinists. Chapter I. quotes widely from Cyril’s homilies, to contradict each chapter of the 1629 Confession. Chapters II. and III. give other evidences and reasons to dispute Cyril’s authorship of the 1629 Confession, and, more importantly, to demonstrate that it was not an official act of an Orthodox patriarch. Chapter IV. explains why the faith of the Eastern Church has never been Calvinistic, particularly concerning the Holy Eucharist as Real Presence and true sacrifice. Chapter V. incorporates acts, decrees, and letters of previous synods against the 1629 Confession. Chapter VI. sets forth the Orthodox faith in eighteen decrees and four questions, commonly known as The Confession of Dositheus, corresponding precisely to the chapters and questions in the 1629 Confession, which is included in an appendix. (Dositheus is the Latinate form of Dosítheos.)
Here follows Chapter VI. of Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, including The Confession of Dositheus. All words and phrases enclosed here in square brackets [ ] or in parenthesis ( ) are so enclosed in the original; text italicized here is italicized in the original. Page breaks in the original are indicated here by the page number enclosed in angle brackets < >. Footnoted citations of biblical quotations or allusions in the original are included here in the body of the text in braces { }; all other footnotes (including original Greek words and phrases, and commentary and textual criticism by Robertson) are omitted here, except for a few enclosed in braces { } and marked JNWBR. My own notes are enclosed in braces { } and marked ELC. CHAPTER VI.
To the candid and lovers of truth, what hath been said will be sufficient, or rather, so to speak, more than enough to enable them to understand what is the doctrine of the Eastern Church, and that she hath never at any time been in agreement with the Calvinists in their novelties (nor in fact with any others besides herself), nor hath she recognised him {Cyril Lucar ELC} whom they contend was of their party, as being so. For the complete refutation, however, and uprooting of the designs which have been formed, contrarily to the glory of God, against the sacred bulwarks of our Orthodox religion, and, so to speak, for the complete demolition of the blasphemies contained in the vaunted <110> Chapters {of the 1629 Confession ELC}, we have thought it right to put forth certain Questions and Chapters {the 18 decrees below ELC} corresponding in number to those written by Cyril, and diametrically opposing the same, wherein he hath, as it were (as hath been supposed many times), whetted his tongue against God, {cf. Psalm 43:4} so that they may be called a refutation and correction of the said Chapters of Cyril. And the order which is there observed will be followed in these which will be put forth by us, so that each of the Faithful may be able to compare, and judge of both, and easily know the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church, and the falsehood of the heretics. Where, however, necessity requireth, we shall omit some things, or add some other things tending to the accurate understanding of the matter. And we shall use words, entire sentences, and periods {sic ELC} set out there, so that we may not seem to fight against words and Orthodox sentences rather than against novelties and impious dogmas.
[THE CONFESSION OF DOSITHEUS.]
Dositheus, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of <111> Jerusalem, to those that ask and inquire concerning the faith and worship of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, how forsooth it thinketh concerning the Orthodox faith, in the common name of all Christians subject to our Apostolic Throne, and of the Orthodox worshippers that are sojourning in this holy and great city of Jerusalem (with whom the whole Catholic Church agreeth in all that concerneth the faith) publisheth this concise Confession, for a testimony both before God and before man, with a sincere conscience, and devoid of all dissimulation.
DECREE I.
We believe in one God, true, almighty, and infinite, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten; the Son begotten of the Father before the ages, and <112> consubstantial with Him; and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. These three Persons in one essence we call the All-holy Trinity, — by all creation to be ever blessed, glorified, and adored.
DECREE II.
We believe the Divine and Sacred Scriptures to be God-taught; and, therefore, we ought to believe the same without doubting; yet not otherwise than as the Catholic Church hath interpreted and delivered the same. For every foul heresy receiveth, indeed, the Divine Scriptures, but perversely interpreteth the same, using metaphors, and homonymies, and sophistries of man’s wisdom, confounding what ought to be distinguished, and trifling with what ought not to be trifled with. For if [we were to receive the same] otherwise, each man holding every day a different sense concerning the same, the Catholic Church would not [as she doth] by the grace of Christ continue to be the Church until this day, holding the same <113> doctrine of faith, and always identically and steadfastly believing, but would be rent into innumerable parties, and subject to heresies; neither would the Church be holy, the pillar and ground of the truth, {1 Timothy 3:15} without spot or wrinkle; {Ephesians 5:27} but would be the Church of the malignant {Psalm 25:5} as it is manifest that of the heretics undoubtedly is, and especially that of Calvin, who are not ashamed to learn from the Church, and then to wickedly repudiate her. Wherefore, the witness also of the Catholic Church is, we believe, not of inferior authority to that of the Divine Scriptures. For one and the same Holy Spirit being the author of both, it is quite the same to be taught by the Scriptures and by the Catholic Church. Moreover, when any man speaketh from himself he is liable to err, and to deceive, and be deceived; but the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God — who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich — it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority. <114>
DECREE III.
We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He hath chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He hath rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that were contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; {1 Timothy 2:4} but since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requireth as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace; which, co-operating <115> with us, and enabling us, and making us perseverant in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonisheth us that we should do, justifieth us, and maketh us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.
But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter answering hereto — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, had in no wise regard to the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promiseth the believer salvation through works, yet supposeth God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestoweth without preceding works, to shew to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate therewith, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain <116> salvation. He taketh not away the power to will — to will to obey, or not obey him.
But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater calumny can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? For that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally willeth the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him, we do know; and that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonour, there is, as is just, decreed condemnation, we do confess. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who telleth us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, thus to believe, or to think; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels. <117>
DECREE IV.
We believe the tri-personal God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be the maker of all things visible and invisible; and the invisible are the angelic Powers, rational souls, and demons, — though God made not the demons what they afterwards became by their own choice, — but the visible are heaven and what is under heaven. And because the Maker is good by nature, He made all things very good {cf. Genesis 1:31} whatsoever He hath made, nor can He ever be the maker of evil. But if there be aught evil, that is to say, sin, come about contrarily to the Divine Will, in man or in demon, — for that evil is simply in nature, we do not acknowledge, — it is either of man, or of the devil. For it is a true and infallible rule, that God is in no wise the author of evil, nor can it at all by just reasoning be attributed to God.
DECREE V.
We believe all things that are, whether visible or invisible, to be governed by the providence of God; but although God foreknoweth <118> evils, and permitteth them, yet in that they are evils, He is neither their contriver nor their author. But when such are come about, they may be over-ruled by the Supreme Goodness for something beneficial, not indeed as being their author, but as engrafting thereon something for the better. And we ought to adore, but not curiously pry into, Divine Providence in its ineffable and only partially revealed judgments. {cf. Romans 11:33} Albeit what is revealed to us in Divine Scripture concerning it as being conducive to eternal life, we ought honestly to search out, and then unhesitatingly to interpret the same agreeably to primary notions of God.
DECREE VI.
We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these <119> fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature; for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, {St. John the Baptist ELC} and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labour, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, in fine {in summation ELC}, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.
DECREE VII.
We believe the Son of God, Jesus Christ, to have emptied Himself, {cf. Philippians 2:7} that is, to have taken into His own Person human flesh, being <120> conceived of the Holy Spirit, in the womb of the ever-virgin Mary; and, becoming man, to have been born, without causing any pain or labour to His own Mother after the flesh, or injury to her virginity, to have suffered, to have been buried, to have risen again in glory on the third day, according to the Scriptures, {cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3,4} to have ascended into the heavens, and to be seated at the right hand of God the Father. Whom also we look for to judge the living and the dead.
DECREE VIII.
We believe our Lord Jesus Christ to be the only mediator, and that in giving Himself a ransom for all He hath through His own Blood made a reconciliation between God and man, and that Himself having a care for His own is advocate and propitiation for our sins. Albeit, in prayers and supplications unto Him, we say the Saints are intercessors, and, above all, the undefiled Mother of the very God the Word; the holy Angels too — whom we know to <121> be set over us — the Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, Pure Ones, and all whom He hath glorified as having served Him faithfully. With whom we reckon also the Bishops and Priests, as standing about the Altar of God, and righteous men eminent for virtue. For that we should pray one for another, and that the prayer of the righteous availeth much, {James 5:16} and that God heareth the Saints rather than those who are steeped in sins, we learn from the Sacred Oracles. And not only are the Saints while on their pilgrimage regarded as mediators and intercessors for us with God, but especially after their death, when all reflective vision being done away, they behold clearly the Holy Trinity; in whose infinite light they know what concerneth us. For as we doubt not but that the Prophets while they were in a body with the perceptions of the senses knew what was done in heaven, and thereby foretold what was future; so also that the Angels, and the Saints become as Angels, know in the infinite light of God what concerneth us, we doubt not, but rather unhesitatingly believe and confess. <122>
DECREE IX.
We believe no one to be saved without faith. And by faith we mean the right notion that is in us concerning God and divine things, which, working by love, that is to say, by [observing] the Divine commandments, justifieth us with Christ; and without this [faith] it is impossible to please God.
DECREE X.
We believe that what is called, or rather is, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and in which we have been taught to believe, containeth generally all the Faithful in Christ, who, that is to say, being still on their pilgrimage, have not yet reached their home in the Fatherland. But we do not in any wise confound this Church which is on its pilgrimage with that which is in the Fatherland, because it may be, as some of the heretics say, that the members of the two are sheep of God, the Chief Shepherd, {cf. Psalm 94:7} and hallowed by the same Holy Spirit; for that is absurd and impossible, since the one is yet militant, and <123> on its journey; and the other is triumphant, and settled in the Fatherland, and hath received the prize. Of which Catholic Church, since a mortal man cannot universally and perpetually be head, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is head, and Himself holding the rudder is at the helm in the governing of the Church, through the Holy Fathers. And, therefore, over particular Churches, that are real Churches, and consist of real members [of the Catholic Church], the Holy Spirit hath appointed Bishops as leaders and shepherds, who being not at all by abuse, but properly, authorities and heads, look unto the Author and Finisher of our Salvation, {cf. Hebrews 2:10; 12:2} and refer to Him what they do in their capacity of heads forsooth.
But forasmuch as among their other impieties, the Calvinists have fancied this also, that the simple Priest and the High Priest {Bishop ELC} are perhaps the same; and that there is no necessity for High Priests, and that the Church may be governed by some Priests; and that not a High Priest [only], but a Priest also is able to ordain a Priest, and a <124> number of Priests to ordain a High Priest; and affirm in lofty language that the Eastern Church assenteth to this wicked notion — for which purpose the Tenth Chapter was written by Cyril — we explicitly declare according to the mind which hath obtained from the beginning in the Eastern Church: —
That the dignity of the Bishop is so necessary in the Church, that without him, neither Church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of. For he, as a successor of the Apostles, having received in continued succession by the imposition of hands and the invocation of the All-holy Spirit the grace that is given him of the Lord of binding and loosing, is a living image of God upon the earth, and by a most ample participation of the operation of the Holy Spirit, who is the chief functionary, is a fountain of all the Mysteries [Sacraments] of the Catholic Church, through which we obtain salvation.
And he is, we suppose, as necessary to the Church as breath is to man, or the sun to the world. Whence it hath also been elegantly <125> said by some in commendation of the dignity of the High Priesthood, “What God is in the heavenly Church of the first-born, {cf. Hebrews 12:23} and the sun in the world, that every High Priest is in his own particular Church, as through him the flock is enlightened, and nourished, and becometh the temple of God.” {cf. Ephesians 2:21}
And that this great mystery and dignity of the Episcopate hath descended unto us by a continued succession is manifest. For since the Lord hath promised to be with us always, although He be with us by other means of grace and Divine operations, yet in a more eminent manner doth He, through the Bishop as chief functionary make us His own and dwell with us, and through the divine Mysteries is united with us; of which the Bishop is the first minister, and chief functionary, through the Holy Spirit, and suffereth us not to fall into heresy. And, therefore [John] the Damascen, {sic ELC} in his Fourth Epistle to the Africans, hath said, the Catholic Church is everywhere committed to the <126> care of the Bishops; and that Clement, the first Bishop of the Romans, and Evodius at Antioch, and Mark at Alexandria, were successors of Peter is acknowledged. Also that the divine Andrew seated Stachys on the Throne of Constantinople, in his own stead; and that in this great holy city of Jerusalem our Lord Himself appointed James, and that after James another succeeded, and then another, until our own times. And, therefore, Tertullian in his Epistle to Papianus called all Bishops the Apostles’ successors. To their succession to the Apostles’ dignity and authority Eusebius, the [friend] of Pamphilus, testifieth, and all the Fathers testify, of whom it is needless to give a list; and this the common and most ancient custom of the Catholic Church confirmeth.
And that the dignity of the Episcopate <127> differeth from that of the simple Priest, is manifest. For the Priest is ordained by the Bishop, but a Bishop is not ordained by a Priest, but by two or three High Priests, as the Apostolic Canon directeth. And the Priest is chosen by the Bishop, but the High Priest is not chosen by the Priests or Presbyters, nor is he chosen by secular Princes, but by the Synod of the Primatial Church of that country, in which is situated the city that is to receive the ordinand, or at least by the Synod of the Province in which he is to become a Bishop. Or, if ever the city choose him, it doth not this absolutely; but the election is referred to the Synod; and if it appear that he hath obtained this agreeably to the Canons, the Elect {the Priest chosen to become a Bishop ELC} is advanced by ordination by the Bishops, with the invocation of the All-holy Spirit; but if not, he is advanced whom the Synod chooseth. And the Priest, indeed, retaineth to himself the authority and grace of the Priesthood, which he hath received; but the Bishop imparteth it to others also. And the one having received the dignity of the Priesthood <128> from the Bishop, can only perform Holy Baptism, and Prayer-oil, minister sacrificially the unbloody Sacrifice, and impart to the people the All-holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, anoint the baptised with the Holy Myron [Chrism], crown the Faithful legally marrying, pray for the sick, and that all men may be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, {cf. 1 Timothy 2:4} and especially for the remission and forgiveness of the sins of the Faithful, living and dead. And if he be eminent for experience and virtue, receiving his authority from the Bishop, he directeth those Faithful that come unto him, and guideth them into the way of possessing the heavenly kingdom, and is appointed a preacher of the sacred Gospel. But the High Priest is also the minister of all these, since he is in fact, as hath been said before, the fountain of the Divine Mysteries and graces, through the Holy Spirit, and he alone consecrateth the Holy Myron. And the ordinations of all orders and degrees in the Church are proper to him; and in a primary and highest sense he <129> bindeth and looseth, and his sentence is approved by God, as the Lord hath promised. {Matthew 16:19} And he preacheth the Sacred Gospel, and contendeth for the Orthodox faith, and those that refuse to hear he casteth out of the Church as heathens and publicans, {cf. Matthew 18:17} and he putteth heretics under excommunication and anathema, and layeth down his own life for the sheep. {cf. John 10:11} From which it is manifest, that without contradiction the Bishop differeth from the simple Priest, and that without him all the Priests in the world could not exercise the pastorate in the Church of God, or govern it at all.
But it is well said by one of the Fathers, that it is not easy to find a heretic that hath understanding. For when these forsake the Church, they are forsaken by the Holy Spirit, and there remaineth in them neither understanding nor light, but only darkness and blindness. For if such had not happened to them, they would not have opposed things that are most plain; among which is the truly great mystery of Episcopacy, which is taught <130> by Scripture, written of, and witnessed to, both by all Ecclesiastical history and the writings of holy men, and always held and acknowledged by the Catholic Church.
DECREE XI.
We believe to be members of the Catholic Church all the Faithful, and only the Faithful; who, forsooth, having received the blameless Faith of the Saviour Christ, from Christ Himself, and the Apostles, and the Holy Œcumenical Synods, adhere to the same without wavering; although some of them may be guilty of all manner of sins. For unless the Faithful, even when living in sin, were members of the Church, they could not be judged by the Church. But now being judged by her, and called to repentance, and guided into the way of her salutary precepts, though they may be still defiled with sins, for this only, that they have not fallen into despair, and that they cleave to the Catholic and Orthodox faith, they are, and are regarded as, members of the Catholic Church.
DECREE XII.
We believe the Catholic Church to be <131> taught by the Holy Spirit. For he is the true Paraclete; whom Christ sendeth from the Father, {cf. John 25:26} to teach the truth, {cf. John 26:13} and to drive away darkness from the minds of the Faithful. The teaching of the Holy Spirit, however, doth not immediately, but through the holy Fathers and Leaders of the Catholic Church, illuminate the Church. For as all Scripture is, and is called, the word of the Holy Spirit; not that it was spoken immediately by Him, but that it was spoken by Him through the Apostles and Prophets; so also the Church is taught indeed by the Life-giving Spirit, but through the medium of the holy Fathers and Doctors (whose rule is acknowledged to be the Holy and Œcumenical Synods; for we shall not cease to say this ten thousand times); and, therefore, not only are we persuaded, but do profess as true and undoubtedly certain, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to err, or at all be deceived, or ever to choose falsehood instead of truth. For the All-holy Spirit continually operating through the holy Fathers and Leaders faithfully ministering, delivereth the Church from error of every kind. <132>
DECREE XIII.
We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which worketh through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the notion] that faith fulfilling the function of a hand layeth hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and applieth it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifieth through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becometh efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad, forsooth.
DECREE XIV.
We believe man in falling by the [original] <133> transgression to have become comparable and like unto the beasts, that is, to have been utterly undone, and to have fallen from his perfection and impassibility, yet not to have lost the nature and power which he had received from the supremely good God. For otherwise he would not be rational, and consequently not man; but to have the same nature, in which he was created, and the same power of his nature, that is free-will, living and operating. So as to be by nature able to choose and do what is good, and to avoid and hate what is evil. For it is absurd to say that the nature which was created good by Him who is supremely good lacketh the power of doing good. For this would be to make that nature evil — than which what could be more impious? For the power of working dependeth upon nature, and nature upon its author, although in a different manner. And that a man is able by nature to do what is good, even our Lord Himself intimateth, saying, even the Gentiles love those that love them. {Matthew 5:46; Luke 6:32} But this is taught most plainly by <134> Paul also, in Romans chap. i. [ver.] 19, {Rather chap. ii., ver. 14. JNWBR} and elsewhere expressly, saying in so many words, “The Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of the law.” From which it is also manifest that the good which a man may do cannot forsooth be sin. For it is impossible that what is good can be evil. Albeit, being done by nature only, and tending to form the natural character of the doer, but not the spiritual, it contributeth not unto salvation thus alone without faith, nor yet indeed unto condemnation, for it is not possible that good, as such, can be the cause of evil. But in the regenerated, what is wrought by grace, and with grace, maketh the doer perfect, and rendereth him worthy of salvation.
A man, therefore, before he is regenerated, is able by nature to incline to what is good, and to choose and work moral good. But for the regenerated to do spiritual good — for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual — it is necessary that he be guided and prevented by grace, as hath been said in treating of predestination; <135> so that he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life, although he hath it in his own power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace.
DECREE XV.
We believe that there are in the Church Evangelical Mysteries [i.e., Sacraments of the Gospel Dispensation], and that they are seven. For a less or a greater number of the Mysteries we have not in the Church; since any number of the Mysteries other than seven is the product of heretical madness. And the seven of them were instituted in the Sacred Gospel, and are gathered from the same, like the other dogmas of the Catholic Faith. For in the first place our Lord instituted Holy Baptism by the words, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;” {Matthew 28:19} and by the words, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” {Mark 16:16}
And that of Confirmation, that is to say, <136> of the Holy Myron or Holy Chrism, by the words, “But ye — tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” {Luke 24:49} With which they were endued by the coming of the Holy Spirit, and this the Mystery of Confirmation signifieth; concerning which Paul also discourseth in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. i., and Dionysius the Areopagite more explicitly.
And the Priesthood by the words, “This do ye for My Memorial;” {Luke 22:19} and by the words, “Whatsoever ye shall bind and loose upon the earth shall be bound and loosed in the heavens.” {Matthew 18:18}
And the unbloody Sacrifice by the words, “Take, eat ye; This is My Body;” {Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; and cf. Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 2:24} and, “Drink ye all of It; This is My Blood of the New Testament;” {Matthew 26:27; and cf. Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 2:25} and by the words, “Except <137> ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, ye have not life in yourselves.” {John 6:53}
And Marriage, when, having recited the things which had been spoken thereof in the Old [Testament], He, as it were, set His seal thereto by the words, “Those whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” {Matthew 19:6} and this the divine Apostle also calleth a great Mystery. {Ephesians 5:32}
And Penance, with which is joined sacramental confession, by the words, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”; {John 22:23} and by the words, “Except ye repent, ye shall [all] likewise perish.” {Luke 13:3,5} And lastly, the Holy Oil or Prayer-Oil is spoken of in Mark, {Mark 6:13} and is expressly witnessed to by the Lord’s brother. {James 5:14}
And the Mysteries consist of something natural, and of something supernatural; and are not bare signs of the promises of God. For then they would not differ from circumcision — than which [notion] what could be <138> worse? And we acknowledge them to be, of necessity, efficient means of grace to the receivers. But we reject, as alien to Christian doctrine, the notion that the integrity of the Mystery requireth the use of the earthly thing [i.e., dependeth upon its reception]; for this is contrary to the Mystery of the Offering [i.e., the Sacrament of the Eucharist], which being instituted by the Substantial Word, and hallowed by the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is perfected by the presence of the thing signified, to wit, of the Body and Blood of Christ. And the perfecting thereof necessarily precedeth its use. For if it were not perfect before its use, he that useth it not aright could not eat and drink judgment unto himself; {1 Corinthians 11:26,28,29} since he would be partaking of mere bread and wine. But now, he that partaketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself; so that not in its use, but even before its use, the Mystery of the Eucharist hath its perfection. Moreover, we reject as something abominable and pernicious the notion that when faith is weak the integrity of the Mystery is impaired. For heretics who abjure their <139> heresy and join the Catholic Church are received by the Church; although they received their valid Baptism with weakness of faith. Wherefore, when they afterwards become possessed of the perfect faith, they are not again baptised.
DECREE XVI.
We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord saith, “Whosoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, it is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord shewed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whosoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Saviour would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be <140> regenerated.” And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptised is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptised. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptised, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who saith expressly, “And they are vouchsafed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine saith that it is an Apostolical tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church giveth to babes <141> the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnisheth them with a particular heart.”
Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he be Orthodox, and have the intention proper to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins whatsoever which the baptised may have committed. Secondly, it delivereth him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin, as for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it giveth to such immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it maketh them temples of God. And it may not be said, that any sin is not washed away through Baptism, which may have been previously committed; but to remain, though not imputed. For <142> that were indeed the height of impiety, and a denial, rather than a confession of piety. Yea, forsooth, all sin existing, or committed before Baptism, is blotted out, and is to be regarded as never existing or committed. For the forms of Baptism, and on either hand all the words that precede and that perfect Baptism, do indicate a perfect cleansing. And the same thing even the very names of Baptism do signify. For if Baptism be by the Spirit and by fire, {Matthew 3:11} it is manifest that it is in all a perfect cleansing; for the Spirit cleanseth perfectly. If it be light, {Hebrews 6:4} it dispelleth the darkness. If it be regeneration, {Titus 3:5} old things are passed away. And what are these except sins? If the baptised putteth off the old man, {Colossians 3:9} then sin also. If he putteth on Christ, {Galatians 3:27} then in effect he becometh free from sin through Baptism. For God is far from sinners. This Paul also teacheth more plainly, saying: “As through one [man] we, being many, were made sinners, so through one [are we made] righteous.” {Romans 5:19} And if righteous, then free from sin. For it is not <143> possible for life and death to be in the same [person]. If Christ truly died, then remission of sin through the Spirit is true also. Hence it is evident that all who are baptised and fall asleep while babes are undoubtedly saved, being predestinated through the death of Christ. Forasmuch as they are without any sin; — without that common [to all], because delivered therefrom by the Divine laver, and without any of their own, because as babes they are incapable of committing sin; — and consequently are saved. Moreover, Baptism imparteth an indelible character, as doth also the Priesthood. For as it is impossible for any one to receive twice the same order of the Priesthood, so it is impossible for any once rightly baptised, to be again baptised, although he should fall even into myriads of sins, or even into actual apostacy from the Faith. For when he is willing to return unto the Lord, he receiveth again through the Mystery of Penance the adoption of a son, which he had lost.
DECREE XVII.
We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated <144> above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night wherein He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat ye; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink ye all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, <145> transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin {Mary ELC}, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}
Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.
Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and entereth into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, <146> whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.
Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also saith: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.
<147> Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descendeth upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity <148> in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejecteth.
Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honoured in the highest manner, and adored with latria. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.
Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes for the communion of those that are about to depart [i.e. the dying] is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different therefrom; so <149> that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.
Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above. Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, <150> except only by an Orthodox Priest, who hath received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox, and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics; but necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress the Catholic Church of Christ rejecteth and anathematiseth.
DECREE XVIII.
We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment, nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved <151> itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation forsooth.
And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance — by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine {in summation ELC} by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers <152> of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not.
QUESTION I.
Ought the Divine Scriptures to be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians?
No. For that all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16} we know, and is of such necessity, that without the same it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired <153> into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and in fine read. But to such as are not so exercised, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, as knowing by experience the mischief arising therefrom, forbiddeth the reading of the same. So that it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear indeed the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation; {Romans 10:10} but to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for the aforesaid reasons and others of the like sort. For it is the same thing thus to prohibit persons not exercised thereto reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.
QUESTION II.
Are the Scriptures plain to all Christians that read them?
If the Divine Scriptures were plain to all <154> Christians that read them, the Lord would not have commanded such as desired to obtain salvation to search the same; {John 5:39} and Paul would have said without reason that God had placed the gift of teaching in the Church; {1 Corinthians 13:28} and Peter would not have said of the Epistles of Paul that they contained some things hard to be understood. {2 Peter 3:16} It is evident, therefore, that the Scriptures are very profound, and their sense lofty; and that they need learned and divine men to search out their true meaning, and a sense that is right, and agreeable to all Scripture, and to its author the Holy Spirit.
So that as to those that are regenerated [in Baptism], although they must know the faith concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens, what concerneth regeneration and judgment — for which many have not hesitated to die — it is not necessary, but rather impossible, that all should know what the Holy Spirit manifesteth to those alone who are exercised in wisdom and holiness. <155>
QUESTION III.
What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?
Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril {Lucar ELC} collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most <156> ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.
QUESTION IV.
How ought we to think of the Holy Eikons, and of the adoration of the Saints?
The Saints being, and acknowledged by the Catholic Church to be, intercessors, as hath been said in Eighth Chapter {sic; Decree VIII above ELC}, it is time to say that we honour them as friends of God, and as praying for us to the God of all. And the honour we pay them is twofold; — according to one manner which we call hyperdulia, we honour the Mother of God the Word. For though indeed the Theotokos {Mary ELC} be servant of the only God, yet is she also His Mother, as having borne in the flesh one of the Trinity; wherefore also is she hymned, as being beyond compare, above as well all Angels as Saints; wherefore, also, we pay her the adoration of hyperdulia. But according to the other <157>manner, which we call dulia, we adore, or rather honour, the holy Angels, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and, in fine, all the Saints. Moreover, we adore and honour the wood of the precious and life-giving Cross, whereon our Saviour underwent this world-saving passion, and the sign of the life-giving Cross, the Manger at Bethlehem, through which we have been delivered from irrationality, {In allusion to the manger out of which the irrational animals eat their food. JNWBR} the place of the Skull [Calvary], the life-giving Sepulchre, and the other holy objects of adoration; as well the holy Gospels, as the sacred vessels, wherewith the unbloody Sacrifice is performed. And by annual commemorations, and popular festivals, and sacred edifices and offerings; we do respect and honour the Saints. And then we adore, and honour, and kiss the Eikons of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the most holy Theotokos, and of all the Saints, also of the holy Angels, as they appeared to some of the Forefathers and Prophets. We also represent the All-holy Spirit, as He appeared, in the form of a dove.
<158> And if some say we commit idolatry in adoring the Saints, and the Eikons of the Saints, and the other things, we regard it as foolish and frivolous. For we worship with latria the only God in Trinity, and none other; but the Saints we honour upon two accounts: firstly, for their relation to God, since we honour them for His sake; and for themselves, because they are living images of God. But that which is for themselves hath been defined as of dulia. But the holy Eikons [we adore] relatively since the honour paid to them is referred to their prototypes. For he that adoreth the Eikon doth, through the Eikon, adore the prototype; and the honour paid to the Eikon is not at all divided, or at all separated from that of him that is pourtrayed, and is done unto the same, like that done unto a royal embassy.
And what they adduce from Scripture in support of their novelties, doth not help them as they would, but rather appeareth agreeable to us. For we, when reading the Divine Scriptures, examine the occasion and person, <159> the example and cause. Wherefore, when we contemplate God Himself saying at one time, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any idol, or likeness; neither shalt thou adore them, nor serve them;” {Exodus 20:4,5; Deuteronomy 5:8,9} and at another, commanding that Cherubim should be made; {Exodus 25:18} and further, that oxen and lions {1 Kings 7:29} were placed in the Temple, we do not rashly consider the import of these things. For faith is not in assurance; but, as hath been said, considering the occasion and other circumstances, we arrive at the right interpretation of the same; and we conclude that, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any idol, or likeness,” is the same as saying, “Thou shalt not adore strange Gods,” {Exodus 20:4} or rather, “Thou shalt not commit idolatry.” For so both the custom obtaining in the Church from Apostolic times of adoring the holy Eikons relatively is maintained, and the worship of latria reserved for God alone; and God doth not appear to speak contrarily to Himself. For if the Scripture <160> saith [absolutely], “Thou shalt not make,” “Thou shalt not adore,” we fail to see how God afterwards permitted likenesses to be made, even though not for adoration. Wherefore, since the commandment concerneth idolatry only, we find serpents, and lions, and oxen, and Cherubim made, and figures and likenesses; among which Angels appear, as having been adored.
And as to the Saints whom they bring forward as saying, that it is not lawful to adore Eikons; we conclude that they rather help us; since they in their sharp disputations inveighed, as well against those that adore the holy Eikons with latria, as against those that bring the eikons of their deceased relatives into the Church, and subjected to anathema those that so do; but not against the right adoration, either of the Saints, or of the holy Eikons, or of the precious Cross, or of the other things of which mention hath been made; especially since the holy Eikons have been in the Church, and have been adored by the Faithful, even from the times of the Apostles, as is recorded and proclaimed by very many; with whom and after whom the Seventh Holy <161> Œcumenical Synod putteth to shame all heretical impudence.
Since it giveth us most plainly to understand that it behoveth to adore the Holy Eikons, and what have been mentioned above. And it anathematiseth, and subjecteth to excommunication, as well those that adore the Eikons with latria as those that say that the Orthodox commit idolatry in adoring the Eikons. We also, therefore, do anathematise with them such as adore either Saint, or Angel, or Eikon, or Cross, or Relic of Saints, or sacred Vessel, or Gospel, or aught else that is in heaven above, or aught on the earth, or in the sea, with latria; and we ascribe adoration with latria to the only God in Trinity. And we anathematise those that say that the adoration of Eikons is the latria of Eikons, and who adore them not, and honour not the Cross, and the Saints, as the Church hath delivered.
Now we adore the Saints and the Holy Eikons, in the manner declared; and pourtray them in adornment of our temples, and that they may be the books of the unlearned, and for them to imitate the virtues of the Saints; <162> and for them to remember, and have an increase of love, and be vigilant in ever calling upon the Lord, as Sovereign and Father, but upon the Saints, as his servants, and our helpers and mediators.
And so much as to the Chapters and Questions of Cyril. But the heretics do find fault with even the prayers of the pious unto God, for we know not why they should calumniate those of the Monks only. Moreover, that prayer is a conversation with God, and a petitioning for such good things as be meet for us, from Him of whom we hope to receive, an ascent too of the mind unto God, and a pious expression of our purpose towards God, a seeking what is above, the support of a holy soul, a worship most acceptable to God, a token of repentance, and of steadfast hope, we do know; and prayer is made either with the mind alone, or with the mind and voice; thereby engaging in the contemplation of the goodness and mercy of God, of the unworthiness of the petitioner, and in thanksgiving, and in realising the promises attached to obedience to God. And it is accompanied by faith, and hope, <163> and perseverance, and observance of the commandments; and, as already said, is a petitioning for heavenly things; and it hath many fruits, which it is needless to enumerate; and it is made continually, and is accomplished either in an upright posture, or by kneeling. And so great is its efficacy, that it is acknowledged to be both the nourishment and the life of the soul. And all this is gathered from Divine Scripture; so that if any ask for demonstration thereof, he is like a fool, or a blind man, who disputeth about the sun’s light at the hour of noon, and when the sky is clear. But the heretics, wishing to leave nothing unassailed that Christ hath enjoined, carp at this also. But being ashamed thus openly to impiously maintain as much concerning prayer, they do not forbid it to be made at all, but are distributed at the prayers of the Monks; and they act thus, that they may raise in the simple-minded a hatred towards the Monks; so that they may not endure even the sight of them, as though they were profane and innovators, much less allow the dogmas of the pious and Orthodox faith to be taught by them. For the adversary is <164> wise as to evil, and ingenious in inventing calumnies. Wherefore his followers also — such as these heretics especially — are not so much anxious about piety, as desirous of ever involving men in an abyss of evils, and of estranging them into places, which the Lord taketh not under his care. {cf. Deuteronomy 11:12}
They should be asked therefore, what are the prayers of the Monks; and if they can shew that the Monks do anything entirely different from themselves, and not in accordance with the Orthodox worship of Christians, we also will join with them, and say, not only that the Monks are no Monks, but also no Christians. But if the Monks set forth particularly the glory and wonders of God, and continually, and unremittingly, and at all times, as far as is possible for man, proclaim the Diety, with hymns and doxologies; now singing, forsooth, parts of Scripture, and now gathering hymns out of Scripture, or at least giving utterance to what is agreeable to the same; we must acknowledge that they perform a work apostolical and prophetical, or rather that of the Lord.
<165> Wherefore, we also, in singing the Paracletikê, the Triodion, and the Menæon, perform a work in no wise unbecoming Christians. For all such Books discourse of the Diety as one, and yet of more than one personality, and that even in the Hymns; now gathered out of the Divine Scriptures, and now according to the direction of the Spirit; and in order that in the melodies, the words may be paralleled by other words, we sing parts of Scripture; moreover, that it may be quite plain that we always sing parts of Scripture, to every one of our Hymns, called a Troparion, we add a verse of Scripture. And <166> if we sing, or read the Thecara [Threasury], or other prayers composed by the Fathers of old; let them say what there is in these which is blasphemous, or not pious, and we with them will prosecute these [Monks].
But if they say this only, that to pray continually and unremittingly is wrong, what have they to do with us? Let them contend with Christ — as indeed they do contend — who spake the parable of the unjust judge, {Luke 28:2} how that prayer should be made continually; and taught us to watch and pray, {Mark 13:33} in order to escape trials, and to stand before the Son of man. {Luke 21:36} Let them contend with Paul, [who] in the [5th] Chapter {verse 17 JNWBR} of the First [Epistle] <167> to the Thessalonians, and elsewhere in many places [exhorteth to pray unremittingly]. I forbear to mention the divine leaders of the Catholic Church, from Christ until us; for to put these [heretics] to shame sufficeth the accord of the Forefathers, Apostles, and Prophets concerning prayer.
If, therefore, what the Monks do is what the Apostles and Prophets did; and, we may say, what the holy Fathers and Forefathers of Christ Himself did; it is manifest that the prayers of the Monks are fruits of the Holy Spirit, the giver of graces. But the novelties which the Calvinists have blasphemously introduced concerning God and divine things, perverting, mutilating, and abusing the Divine Scriptures, are sophistries and inventions of the devil.
Unavailing too is the assertion, that the Church cannot, without violence and tyranny, appoint fasts and abstinence from certain meats. For the Church for the mortification of the flesh and all the passions, and acting most rightly, carefully appointeth prayer and fasting, of which all the Saints have been <168> lovers and examples; through which our adversary the devil {cf. 1 Peter 5:8} being overthrown by the grace from on high, together with his armies and his hosts — the race {cf. 2 Timothy 4:7} that is set before the pious is the more easily accomplished. In making these provisions the undefiled {cf. Ephesians 5:27} Church everywhere useth neither violence nor tyranny; but exhorteth, admonisheth, and teacheth, in accordance with Scripture, and persuadeth by the power of the Spirit.
And to what hath been mentioned a certain fellow at Charenton — we mean the beforementioned {page 6 ELC} Claud — addeth certain other ridiculous objections against us, and unworthy of any consideration; but what hath been said by him we regard as idle tales; and the man himself we consider as a trifler and altogether illiterate. For from [the time of] Photius what vast numbers have there been, and there are now, in the Eastern Church, eminent for wisdom, and theology, and holiness, by the power of the Spirit. And it is most absurd [to argue] that <169> because certain of the Eastern Priests keep the Holy Bread in wooden vessels, within the Church, but without {outside ELC} the Bema, {sanctuary JNWBR} hung on one of the columns; that, therefore, they do not acknowledge the real and true transmutation of the bread into the Body of the Lord. For that certain of the poor Priests do keep the Lord’s Body in wooden vessels, we do not deny; for truly Christ is not honoured by stones and marbles; but asketh for a sound purpose and a clean heart.
And this is what happened to Paul. “For we have,” {2 Corinthians 4:7} saith he, “the treasure in earthern {sic ELC} vessels.” But where particular Churches able, as with us here in Jerusalem, the Lord’s Body is honourably kept within the Holy Bema of such Churches, and a seven-light lamp always kept burning before it.
And I am tempted to wonder, if it may be that the heretics have seen the Lord’s Body hanging in some Churches without the Bema, because perhaps the walls of the Bema were unsafe on account of age, and so have arrived at these absurd conclusions; but they did not notice Christ pourtrayed on the <170> apse of the Holy Bema as a babe [lying] in the Paten; so that they might have known, how that the Easterns do not represent that there is in the Paten a type, or grace, or aught else, but the Christ Himself; and so believe that the Bread of the Eucharist is naught else, but becometh substantially the Body Itself of the Lord, and so maintain the truth.
But concerning all these things it hath been treated at large and most lucidly in what is called The Confession of the Eastern Church, by George, of Chios, from Coresius in his [Treatises] concerning the Mysteries, and of predestination, and of grace, and of free-will, and of the intercession and adoration of Saints, and of the adoration of Eikons, and in the Refutation composed by him of the illicit Synod of the heretics holden on a certain occasion in Flanders, and in many other [Treatises]; by Gabriel, of Peloponnesus, Metropolitan of Philadelphia; and by Gregory Protosyncellus of Chios in his [Treatises] concerning the Mysteries; by Jeremias, the Most Holy Patriarch <171> of Constantinople, in three dogmatic and Synodical Letters to the Lutherans of Tubingen in Germany; by John, Priest, and Economus of Constantinople, surnamed Nathaniel; by Meletius Syrigus, of Crete, in the Orthodox Refutation composed by him of the Chapters and Questions of the said Cyril {Lucar ELC}; by Theophanes, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his dogmatic Epistle to the Lithuanians, and in innumerable other [Epistles]. And before these hath it been spoken most excellently of these matters by Symeon, of Thessalonica, and before him by all the Fathers, and by the Œcumenical Synods, by ecclesiastical historians too; and even by writers of secular history under the Christian Autocrats of Rome, have these matters been mentioned incidently {sic ELC}; by all of whom, without any controversy, the aforesaid were received from the Apostles; whose traditions, whether by writing, or by word, have through the Fathers descended until us. Further, the argument derived from the heretics also confirmeth the aforesaid. For the Nestorians after the year of Salvation, 428, the Armenians too, and the Copts, and the <172> Syrians, and further even the Ethiopians, who dwell at the Equator, and beyond this towards the tropics of Capricorn, whom those that are there commonly call Campesii, after the year … {The date is wanting in the text. JNWBR} of the Incarnation broke away from the Catholic Church; and each of these hath as peculiar only its heresy, as all know from the Acts of the Œcumenical Synods. Albeit, as concerning the purpose and number of the Sacred Mysteries, and all what hath been said above — except their own particular heresy, as hath been said — they entirely believe with the Catholic Church; as we see with our own eyes every hour, and learn by experience and conversation, here in the Holy City of Jerusalem, in which there either dwell, or are continually sojourning, vast numbers of them all, as well learned, such as they have, as illiterate.
Let, therefore, prating and innovating heretics keep silence, and not endeavour by stealing some sentences, [as] against us, from the Scriptures and the Fathers, to cunningly bolster up falsehood, as all apostates and heretics have ever done; and let them say <173> this one thing only, that in contriving excuses {cf. Psalm 140:4} for sins they have chosen to speak wickedness against God, {cf. Psalm 74:6} and blasphemies against the Saints.
EPILOGUE.
Let us briefly suffice for the reputation of the falsehoods of the adversaries, which they have devised against the Eastern Church, alleging in support of their falsehoods the incoherent and impious Chapters of the said Cyril {Lucar ELC}. And let it not be for a sign to be contradicted {cf. Luke 2:34} of those heretics that unjustly calumniate us, as though they spake truly; but for a sign to be believed, that is for reformation of their innovations, and for their return to the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in which their forefathers also were of old, and assisted at those Synods and contests against heretics, which these now reject and revile. For it was unreasonable on their part, especially as they considered themselves to be wise, to have listened to men that were lovers of self; and profane, and that spake not from the Holy Spirit, but from the prince of lies, <174> and to have forsaken the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which God hath purchased with the Blood of His own Son; {cf. Acts 20:28} and to have abandoned her. For otherwise there will overtake those that have separated from the Church the pains that are reserved for heathens and publicans; but the Lord who hath ever protected her against all enemies, will not neglect the Catholic Church; to Him be glory and dominion unto the ages of the ages. Amen.
In the year of Salvation 1672, on the 16th [day] of the month of March, in the Holy City of Jerusalem: —
I, DOSITHEUS, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, declare and confess this to be the faith of the Eastern Church.
{Chapter VI. concludes with more than five full pages of signatories, omitted here. ELC}
The Confession of Dositheus is a “major pronouncement” and “an important source of Church teaching”, according to Basic Sources of the Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, at the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:
The purpose of this Confession of Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, also was to oppose the Roman and Calvinistic influences. It expresses the orthodox spirit of faith in 18 dogmas, with four questions. This Confession was issued in 13 editions in a short period of time. It is considered one of the major pronouncements of the Orthodox Faith, and an important source of Church teaching.
It is “the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church” on the issues raised by Calvinism, according to Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical? at the Orthodox Christian Information Center:
The Confessio Dosithei presents, in eighteen decrees or articles, a positive statement of the orthodox faith. It follows the order of Cyril’s Confession, which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted [sic] articles. It was formally transmitted by the Eastern Patriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain Bishops of the Church of England, as an ultimatum to be received without further question or conference by all who would be in communion with the Orthodox Church.
Dositheus is a “great teacher” of the Church, according to Tradition in the Orthodox Church, at the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and elsewhere:
There are the writings and Confessions of Faith written by great teachers of the Church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Examples might include the letter of Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441) to all Orthodox Christians; the correspondence of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople with the German Reformers (1573-1581); the council of Jerusalem (1672) and the Confession of Faith by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672), and the writings of St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, who published the Rudder, a book of great canonical and theological importance (1800).
Jordan Hylden: Brave New Church
From Covenant Communion:
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 9:51 pm
The seventy-sixth General Convention of the Episcopal Church made headlines last week for moving forward on same-sex blessings and officially opening its doors for partnered homosexuals to serve as priests and bishops. Stacy Sauls, the Episcopal bishop of Lexington and a close associate of the presiding bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, argued that it was long past time to do it: Over thirty years ago, he said, the church had placed pastoral compassion over Scripture, tradition, and the teachings of Jesus to permit remarriage after divorce, and it would be nothing less than hypocritical for the church not to do likewise for gay and lesbian people.
There is a certain logic to this, of course. If we’re going to set aside the teaching of Jesus for ourselves, shouldn’t we do the same for others? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” as someone once said. According to Bishop Sauls, this was the most important point he made at the convention. Arguably, it was the most important point anyone in attendance made. The Episcopal Church has now, quite definitively, decided to step out on its own, away from Scripture, tradition, and the rest of the Anglican communion. It was a bold and brave step, for with it the church has decided that it is now a church that takes its own counsel, answerable only to God. No doubt it was a matter of prayerful discernment and conscience for many, and no doubt many will shy away from drawing out the full implications of their decision. But the implications are there nonetheless. It is a brave new thing for the Episcopal Church, a brave new church on its own in the world.
The two key resolutions, D025 and C056, were passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of the convention, the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops. The first resolution, D025, effectively gave dioceses the green light to elect bishops in partnered homosexual relationships, thus overturning the commitment of the 2006 convention to “exercise restraint” in doing so. The second resolution, C056, committed the church to develop rites of blessing for same-sex unions with the goal of bringing draft versions for approval at the next convention in 2012. In the meantime, the resolution encouraged dioceses to develop and use rites of their own, with the expectation that such on-the-ground experience will be of value in creating a set of official, churchwide liturgies in the near future.
As such, the two resolutions represent a clear and purposeful departure from the requests made of the Episcopal Church by the rest of the Anglican communion, as expressed repeatedly by all of the official bodies of global Anglicanism over the past several years. Contradicting requests for a moratorium on bishops in same-sex relationships, Resolution D025 asserts that “God has called and may call” persons in such relationships to all of the ordained ministries of the church. And, in the face of requests not to authorize public rites of blessing for same-sex unions, Resolution C056 explicitly calls for their development and authorizes bishops to perform them on a trial basis in their dioceses. It is, in short, a clear victory for those such as Bishop Sauls who have argued for the national autonomy of the Episcopal Church and the need to move forward regardless of Anglican communion requests.
That is, at least, the straightforward interpretation of the resolutions, as understood by media outlets such as the New York Times (“Episcopal Vote Reopens a Door to Gay Bishops,” “Episcopal Bishops Give Ground on Gay Marriage”), the BBC (“US Church Drops Gay Bishops Ban”), Reuters (“Episcopal Vote Widens Anglican Split”), and the Washington Post (“Episcopal Bishops Can Bless Gay Unions”). It is, additionally, how they were understood by Anglican bishop N.T. Wright (“The Americans Know This Will Lead to Schism,”), conservative groups such as Fulcrum and the Anglican Communion Institute, and the ECUSA gay rights lobby, Integrity. Susan Russell, the president of Integrity, celebrated achieving a “clean sweep” on their legislative goals, and justifiably so.
But be that as it may, the official organs of the Episcopal Church have insisted that no matter what it might look like to everyone else, actually nothing much has changed. The two ranking officers of the church, presiding bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies president Bonnie Anderson, wrote in an open letter to Rowan Williams that “nothing in [Resolution D025] goes beyond what has already been provided under our constitution and canons for many years.” By that, they mean to say that since church canons already stipulate that the ordination process is open to all persons regardless of sexual orientation, and since Resolution D025 asserts that future bishops will be considered by following canonical guidelines, they have done nothing new. The 2006 resolution, they note, asked for restraint in granting “consent” to the election of partnered homosexual bishops, and since the new resolution does not mention consent, this has not actually been overturned.
If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, that may be because it is. Indeed, they admit that “it remains to be seen” how the new resolution will be interpreted by dioceses, and that some dioceses will likely understand it as granting them latitude to consent to the election of partnered gay bishops. And no wonder, because that is precisely the point of the resolution. The General Convention, which Bishop Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson insist is the highest governing body in the church, has asserted unequivocally that God calls partnered homosexuals to all of the ordained ministries of the church, and it has asked the church to discern who is called to the episcopacy in this context. Bishop Sauls, for his part, argued in an official church press conference that there isn’t; that is, until they decide to consecrate another partnered gay bishop. It is, to put it mildly, difficult to see how the rest of the Anglican world will interpret this as a positive response to their requests.
As for same-sex blessings, Bishop Christopher Epting, the church’s deputy for ecumenical and interreligious relations, has asserted that despite Resolution C056 the convention actually “did not authorize any public rites” for the blessing of same-sex unions and so did not, in fact, contravene the requests made by the global Anglican instruments of unity. It is notable that this argument was not even attempted by Bishop Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson in their letter. The word game here in play is to insist that while they were asked not to authorize any churchwide rites, no one said anything about unleashing bishops to make and use rites on their own. In short, Bishop Epting’s argument not only fails on its own terms (see here), but it is difficult even to take seriously.
All in all, one is left with the spectacle of the Episcopal Church’s leadership trying desperately to convince the Anglican communion and countless onlookers, by the artful use of lawyerly nuance and political hair-splitting, that they did not do what they did.
Arguably, this is the worst of all possible worlds. While one might wish that the church had not decided to leave behind biblical sexual norms, it is by now clear that this is the position of the great majority of Episcopal leadership. As such, there would have been genuine integrity in stating forthrightly that the Episcopal Church disagrees with its Anglican brothers and sisters, and that, out of their prayerful discernment and sense of God’s justice, they cannot comply with the Anglican world’s requests.
But that is not the path the Episcopal Church’s leaders have chosen. Instead, they have professed their heartfelt desire to remain full members of the Anglican communion, but on none but their own terms. As the Windsor Continuation Group and many others in the Anglican world have warned time and time again, the bonds of trust in Anglicanism have been frayed far past the breaking point in recent years. Many Anglicans around the world no longer believe that they can trust the Episcopal Church to say what it means and do what it says, and the actions of the seventy-sixth General Convention, along with the present stance of church leadership, will almost certainly add fuel to the flame of Anglican discord and mistrust. Honesty and clarity would have been better, but it appears too late for that now. Even for those such as Rowan Williams who have bent over backward to give the most charitable reading of the Episcopal Church’s actions, this may be a bridge too far.
Rowan Williams, for his part, is widely expected to issue a statement in the near future on the Episcopal Church’s actions. In an Anglican communion that seems ever closer to spinning out of control, many are looking to him right now for clarity and guidance. In the past, Archbishop Williams has spoken of “constituent” and “associate” membership to describe the coming covenanted reality of the Anglican communion, with the constituent membership comprised of those churches and dioceses who covenant to walk together on matters of faith and morals, and an associate group of Anglicans who decide instead to place a higher premium on national autonomy. Many hope that Williams will apply this language to the present situation, at least provisionally.
So too, many hope that Williams will reaffirm his commitment to the Anglican Covenant in its present form, the Ridley-Cambridge draft, as well as reconsider the Episcopal Church’s role in the continued covenant process. Given the actions of General Convention, it is clear that serious questions must be raised about the extent of the Episcopal Church’s commitment to the process in the first place.
Finally, the many Episcopal bishops and parishes that have long sought faithfully to remain Anglican are now hoping that Williams, along with the Anglican primates, will give them a place to stand and a way to move forward with clarity and hope. Both clarity and hope are in short supply right now in such dioceses as Dallas, Albany, and South Carolina, not to mention traditionally minded parishes in places like Philadelphia and Lexington. Many ordinary, faithful Episcopalians who seek to remain Anglican are worried about what the future may hold. In short, the Communion Partner bishops and rectors are hoping to find a true partner in the archbishop of Canterbury.
What then of the Episcopal Church’s future? With regard to its continuing relations with the larger Anglican communion, its leadership has a choice to make—either honesty and clarity about their decision to walk apart, or continued obfuscation and maneuvering. With respect to its own members who still seek to walk together with Canterbury and the rest of the covenanted Anglican world, the church’s leaders have a choice to make as well. Either they can graciously allow conservative Episcopalians to do what is necessary to walk with the rest of the Anglican world, or they can follow the imperial road of majority tyranny, coercion, and lawsuits.
As for whatever is left of the Episcopal Church after the dust settles, the future is unclear. By all indices, the church is graying fast and shrinking faster, attracting precious few youth and young families, its progressive reputation notwithstanding. One of the buried stories of the seventy-sixth General Convention is its decision to make drastic cuts to the church budget, including its entire evangelism department. Much of this, of course, is attributable to the economic downturn, but some of it is not—just enough of it to be disturbing. If present trends hold, in the not-so-distant future many of its members will be either in nursing homes or cemeteries, with devastating effects on the numerous small dioceses and parishes that are just barely holding on. And in far, far too many places, especially the seminaries, theological depth and immersion in the Scriptures and the catholic tradition is a thing of the past.
In short, the sad parallels to be drawn with the shriveled, largely post-Christian fate of the United Church of Christ are there without number. Of course, the winds of revival, mission, and theological rigor may yet return one day to the Episcopal Church. Even now, there remain vibrant congregations, exciting scholars, and hopeful young people who believe in the church’s future. And the counsel of Gamaliel still holds true. But against such great odds, it is a brave soul indeed who would entrust her soul to the General Convention and take the Episcopal Church’s future and faith as her own.
For such a small church to venture forth from Scripture’s norm, to leave behind the faith of its fathers, to live at the very razor’s edge of all of catholic Christendom, whether Anglican or no—whatever this is, it at least requires courage. And no doubt there are many within her number who truly and genuinely possess it. However Erastian, bourgeois, and politicized Episcopal conventions may seem these days, one hopes that there are at least some left who are willing to say: This is the will of God, and may God judge me ever so severely if I lead his sheep astray. Any who do not feel the force of this are both foolhardy and fools, damnably so. Those who do feel it run the risk of hubris, of taking God’s place for their own. But those who take their stand with fear and trembling, having prayerfully discerned the mind of Christ, and act in conscience out of love for their brothers and sisters are, I do not doubt, truly brave. It is only, one hopes, a very brave new church that would set off on its own, a lonely new prophet in a brave new world.
- This is article was published by First Things and is co-published here with permission of the author. Jordan Hylden is a Covenant featured author and a graduate student at the Duke Divinity School.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 9:51 pm
The seventy-sixth General Convention of the Episcopal Church made headlines last week for moving forward on same-sex blessings and officially opening its doors for partnered homosexuals to serve as priests and bishops. Stacy Sauls, the Episcopal bishop of Lexington and a close associate of the presiding bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, argued that it was long past time to do it: Over thirty years ago, he said, the church had placed pastoral compassion over Scripture, tradition, and the teachings of Jesus to permit remarriage after divorce, and it would be nothing less than hypocritical for the church not to do likewise for gay and lesbian people.
There is a certain logic to this, of course. If we’re going to set aside the teaching of Jesus for ourselves, shouldn’t we do the same for others? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” as someone once said. According to Bishop Sauls, this was the most important point he made at the convention. Arguably, it was the most important point anyone in attendance made. The Episcopal Church has now, quite definitively, decided to step out on its own, away from Scripture, tradition, and the rest of the Anglican communion. It was a bold and brave step, for with it the church has decided that it is now a church that takes its own counsel, answerable only to God. No doubt it was a matter of prayerful discernment and conscience for many, and no doubt many will shy away from drawing out the full implications of their decision. But the implications are there nonetheless. It is a brave new thing for the Episcopal Church, a brave new church on its own in the world.
The two key resolutions, D025 and C056, were passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of the convention, the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops. The first resolution, D025, effectively gave dioceses the green light to elect bishops in partnered homosexual relationships, thus overturning the commitment of the 2006 convention to “exercise restraint” in doing so. The second resolution, C056, committed the church to develop rites of blessing for same-sex unions with the goal of bringing draft versions for approval at the next convention in 2012. In the meantime, the resolution encouraged dioceses to develop and use rites of their own, with the expectation that such on-the-ground experience will be of value in creating a set of official, churchwide liturgies in the near future.
As such, the two resolutions represent a clear and purposeful departure from the requests made of the Episcopal Church by the rest of the Anglican communion, as expressed repeatedly by all of the official bodies of global Anglicanism over the past several years. Contradicting requests for a moratorium on bishops in same-sex relationships, Resolution D025 asserts that “God has called and may call” persons in such relationships to all of the ordained ministries of the church. And, in the face of requests not to authorize public rites of blessing for same-sex unions, Resolution C056 explicitly calls for their development and authorizes bishops to perform them on a trial basis in their dioceses. It is, in short, a clear victory for those such as Bishop Sauls who have argued for the national autonomy of the Episcopal Church and the need to move forward regardless of Anglican communion requests.
That is, at least, the straightforward interpretation of the resolutions, as understood by media outlets such as the New York Times (“Episcopal Vote Reopens a Door to Gay Bishops,” “Episcopal Bishops Give Ground on Gay Marriage”), the BBC (“US Church Drops Gay Bishops Ban”), Reuters (“Episcopal Vote Widens Anglican Split”), and the Washington Post (“Episcopal Bishops Can Bless Gay Unions”). It is, additionally, how they were understood by Anglican bishop N.T. Wright (“The Americans Know This Will Lead to Schism,”), conservative groups such as Fulcrum and the Anglican Communion Institute, and the ECUSA gay rights lobby, Integrity. Susan Russell, the president of Integrity, celebrated achieving a “clean sweep” on their legislative goals, and justifiably so.
But be that as it may, the official organs of the Episcopal Church have insisted that no matter what it might look like to everyone else, actually nothing much has changed. The two ranking officers of the church, presiding bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies president Bonnie Anderson, wrote in an open letter to Rowan Williams that “nothing in [Resolution D025] goes beyond what has already been provided under our constitution and canons for many years.” By that, they mean to say that since church canons already stipulate that the ordination process is open to all persons regardless of sexual orientation, and since Resolution D025 asserts that future bishops will be considered by following canonical guidelines, they have done nothing new. The 2006 resolution, they note, asked for restraint in granting “consent” to the election of partnered homosexual bishops, and since the new resolution does not mention consent, this has not actually been overturned.
If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, that may be because it is. Indeed, they admit that “it remains to be seen” how the new resolution will be interpreted by dioceses, and that some dioceses will likely understand it as granting them latitude to consent to the election of partnered gay bishops. And no wonder, because that is precisely the point of the resolution. The General Convention, which Bishop Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson insist is the highest governing body in the church, has asserted unequivocally that God calls partnered homosexuals to all of the ordained ministries of the church, and it has asked the church to discern who is called to the episcopacy in this context. Bishop Sauls, for his part, argued in an official church press conference that there isn’t; that is, until they decide to consecrate another partnered gay bishop. It is, to put it mildly, difficult to see how the rest of the Anglican world will interpret this as a positive response to their requests.
As for same-sex blessings, Bishop Christopher Epting, the church’s deputy for ecumenical and interreligious relations, has asserted that despite Resolution C056 the convention actually “did not authorize any public rites” for the blessing of same-sex unions and so did not, in fact, contravene the requests made by the global Anglican instruments of unity. It is notable that this argument was not even attempted by Bishop Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson in their letter. The word game here in play is to insist that while they were asked not to authorize any churchwide rites, no one said anything about unleashing bishops to make and use rites on their own. In short, Bishop Epting’s argument not only fails on its own terms (see here), but it is difficult even to take seriously.
All in all, one is left with the spectacle of the Episcopal Church’s leadership trying desperately to convince the Anglican communion and countless onlookers, by the artful use of lawyerly nuance and political hair-splitting, that they did not do what they did.
Arguably, this is the worst of all possible worlds. While one might wish that the church had not decided to leave behind biblical sexual norms, it is by now clear that this is the position of the great majority of Episcopal leadership. As such, there would have been genuine integrity in stating forthrightly that the Episcopal Church disagrees with its Anglican brothers and sisters, and that, out of their prayerful discernment and sense of God’s justice, they cannot comply with the Anglican world’s requests.
But that is not the path the Episcopal Church’s leaders have chosen. Instead, they have professed their heartfelt desire to remain full members of the Anglican communion, but on none but their own terms. As the Windsor Continuation Group and many others in the Anglican world have warned time and time again, the bonds of trust in Anglicanism have been frayed far past the breaking point in recent years. Many Anglicans around the world no longer believe that they can trust the Episcopal Church to say what it means and do what it says, and the actions of the seventy-sixth General Convention, along with the present stance of church leadership, will almost certainly add fuel to the flame of Anglican discord and mistrust. Honesty and clarity would have been better, but it appears too late for that now. Even for those such as Rowan Williams who have bent over backward to give the most charitable reading of the Episcopal Church’s actions, this may be a bridge too far.
Rowan Williams, for his part, is widely expected to issue a statement in the near future on the Episcopal Church’s actions. In an Anglican communion that seems ever closer to spinning out of control, many are looking to him right now for clarity and guidance. In the past, Archbishop Williams has spoken of “constituent” and “associate” membership to describe the coming covenanted reality of the Anglican communion, with the constituent membership comprised of those churches and dioceses who covenant to walk together on matters of faith and morals, and an associate group of Anglicans who decide instead to place a higher premium on national autonomy. Many hope that Williams will apply this language to the present situation, at least provisionally.
So too, many hope that Williams will reaffirm his commitment to the Anglican Covenant in its present form, the Ridley-Cambridge draft, as well as reconsider the Episcopal Church’s role in the continued covenant process. Given the actions of General Convention, it is clear that serious questions must be raised about the extent of the Episcopal Church’s commitment to the process in the first place.
Finally, the many Episcopal bishops and parishes that have long sought faithfully to remain Anglican are now hoping that Williams, along with the Anglican primates, will give them a place to stand and a way to move forward with clarity and hope. Both clarity and hope are in short supply right now in such dioceses as Dallas, Albany, and South Carolina, not to mention traditionally minded parishes in places like Philadelphia and Lexington. Many ordinary, faithful Episcopalians who seek to remain Anglican are worried about what the future may hold. In short, the Communion Partner bishops and rectors are hoping to find a true partner in the archbishop of Canterbury.
What then of the Episcopal Church’s future? With regard to its continuing relations with the larger Anglican communion, its leadership has a choice to make—either honesty and clarity about their decision to walk apart, or continued obfuscation and maneuvering. With respect to its own members who still seek to walk together with Canterbury and the rest of the covenanted Anglican world, the church’s leaders have a choice to make as well. Either they can graciously allow conservative Episcopalians to do what is necessary to walk with the rest of the Anglican world, or they can follow the imperial road of majority tyranny, coercion, and lawsuits.
As for whatever is left of the Episcopal Church after the dust settles, the future is unclear. By all indices, the church is graying fast and shrinking faster, attracting precious few youth and young families, its progressive reputation notwithstanding. One of the buried stories of the seventy-sixth General Convention is its decision to make drastic cuts to the church budget, including its entire evangelism department. Much of this, of course, is attributable to the economic downturn, but some of it is not—just enough of it to be disturbing. If present trends hold, in the not-so-distant future many of its members will be either in nursing homes or cemeteries, with devastating effects on the numerous small dioceses and parishes that are just barely holding on. And in far, far too many places, especially the seminaries, theological depth and immersion in the Scriptures and the catholic tradition is a thing of the past.
In short, the sad parallels to be drawn with the shriveled, largely post-Christian fate of the United Church of Christ are there without number. Of course, the winds of revival, mission, and theological rigor may yet return one day to the Episcopal Church. Even now, there remain vibrant congregations, exciting scholars, and hopeful young people who believe in the church’s future. And the counsel of Gamaliel still holds true. But against such great odds, it is a brave soul indeed who would entrust her soul to the General Convention and take the Episcopal Church’s future and faith as her own.
For such a small church to venture forth from Scripture’s norm, to leave behind the faith of its fathers, to live at the very razor’s edge of all of catholic Christendom, whether Anglican or no—whatever this is, it at least requires courage. And no doubt there are many within her number who truly and genuinely possess it. However Erastian, bourgeois, and politicized Episcopal conventions may seem these days, one hopes that there are at least some left who are willing to say: This is the will of God, and may God judge me ever so severely if I lead his sheep astray. Any who do not feel the force of this are both foolhardy and fools, damnably so. Those who do feel it run the risk of hubris, of taking God’s place for their own. But those who take their stand with fear and trembling, having prayerfully discerned the mind of Christ, and act in conscience out of love for their brothers and sisters are, I do not doubt, truly brave. It is only, one hopes, a very brave new church that would set off on its own, a lonely new prophet in a brave new world.
- This is article was published by First Things and is co-published here with permission of the author. Jordan Hylden is a Covenant featured author and a graduate student at the Duke Divinity School.
Episcopalians ask: Does church or culture lead?
From the National Catholic Reporter:
Jul. 21, 2009
By Daniel Burke, Religion News Service
ANAHEIM, Calif. -- As the Episcopal Church lifted a de facto ban on gay and lesbian bishops and appears headed toward adapting rites for same-sex unions, one question has repeatedly surfaced in the debates: Does the church takes its cues from the culture, or stand against it?
Episcopal bishops gathered for the denomination's General Convention acknowledged that tension in the very first sentence of a resolution they approved Wednesday (July 16) that allows flexibility in devising blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.
"The changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations," in legalizing gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships "call forth a renewed pastoral response from this Church," the resolution reads.
Bishops overwhelmingly voted to give themselves -- particularly those who work in states where same-sex couples are legally recognized -- the freedom to "provide a generous pastoral response" to gays and lesbians. On Tuesday, the church voted to lift a three-year moratorium on consecrating gay and lesbian bishops.
At an assembly that is quickly confirming the ascendance of liberals in the church, bishops approved the blessings resolution 104 to 30, with two abstentions. It now moves to lay and clergy delegates in the House of Deputies, where it must be approved before becoming church law.
The bishops' resolution also calls on the church "to collect and develop theological and liturgical resources" on blessings for same-gender couples, a compromise that pushes new churchwide rites further down the road than some gay groups wanted.
"It is not `the whole enchilada' -- and there's lots of work still to do before we reach that `full inclusion' place we're headed for," said the Rev. Susan Russell, president of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA.
Still, the resolution is sure to increase tension with sister churches in the global Anglican Communion, which counts the 2.1 million-member Episcopal Church as its U.S. branch. Several Anglican bodies, including international councils and leading archbishops, have repeatedly warned Episcopalians not to authorize liturgical rites for same-gender couples.
Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham, England, an influential conservative, has already accused Episcopalians of "formalizing the schism they initiated six years ago," when the U.S. church consecrated an openly gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire.
But in a country where gay marriage is legal in six states and several more allow civil unions and domestic partnerships, a number of bishops say they feel a need to provide some sort of ceremony for gay couples. The vaguely worded phrase "generous pastoral response" has been widely interpreted as allowing bishops the latitude to adapt church marriage rites for that purpose.
Bishop Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts, one of the bishops from the six states where gay marriage is legal who pushed for the change, said he would not try to interpret the phrase before talking to other bishops and Episcopalians in his diocese.
But, he said, "I am pleased they gave us the pastoral generosity we need to deal with our context in Massachusetts." Shaw and other bishops have said dozens of gay and lesbian couples have approached them asking for their unions to be blessed.
Conservatives, however, have accused Episcopalians, in the words of one activist here, of "having an adulterous relationship with the spirit of the age."
Bishop Peter Beckwith of Springfield, Ill., said, "We are allowing our church to be shaped by the culture rather than pursuing our God-given mission of shaping the secular culture." Beckwith compared homosexuality to gambling, which is legal in several states, but which many Christians oppose on moral grounds.
Even liberals here have said the church should not depend on the state to make decisions for it. Former New Hampshire Bishop Douglas Theuner, who retains a vote in the House of Bishops, argues that all bishops -- not just those in states where same-gender partnerships are legal -- should be allowed to adapt rites of blessings for gay couples.
"If we say we'll only do what the state allows us to do, then in effect we're saying that the state effects our theological decisions, and that shouldn't be," Theuner said.
Episcopalians have taken cues from the culture on marriage mores before, particularly in the 1970s when it voted to allow divorced people to remarry in the church, said Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington, Ky. "That seems to be exactly analogous to the issue we're facing now about the pastoral care of same-sex couples," Sauls said.
"We need to respond to the realities our people face and the culture in which they live," he said. "That doesn't mean we cave to expectations and give up our standards, but it does mean we have to be culturally sensitive."
Jul. 21, 2009
By Daniel Burke, Religion News Service
ANAHEIM, Calif. -- As the Episcopal Church lifted a de facto ban on gay and lesbian bishops and appears headed toward adapting rites for same-sex unions, one question has repeatedly surfaced in the debates: Does the church takes its cues from the culture, or stand against it?
Episcopal bishops gathered for the denomination's General Convention acknowledged that tension in the very first sentence of a resolution they approved Wednesday (July 16) that allows flexibility in devising blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.
"The changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations," in legalizing gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships "call forth a renewed pastoral response from this Church," the resolution reads.
Bishops overwhelmingly voted to give themselves -- particularly those who work in states where same-sex couples are legally recognized -- the freedom to "provide a generous pastoral response" to gays and lesbians. On Tuesday, the church voted to lift a three-year moratorium on consecrating gay and lesbian bishops.
At an assembly that is quickly confirming the ascendance of liberals in the church, bishops approved the blessings resolution 104 to 30, with two abstentions. It now moves to lay and clergy delegates in the House of Deputies, where it must be approved before becoming church law.
The bishops' resolution also calls on the church "to collect and develop theological and liturgical resources" on blessings for same-gender couples, a compromise that pushes new churchwide rites further down the road than some gay groups wanted.
"It is not `the whole enchilada' -- and there's lots of work still to do before we reach that `full inclusion' place we're headed for," said the Rev. Susan Russell, president of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA.
Still, the resolution is sure to increase tension with sister churches in the global Anglican Communion, which counts the 2.1 million-member Episcopal Church as its U.S. branch. Several Anglican bodies, including international councils and leading archbishops, have repeatedly warned Episcopalians not to authorize liturgical rites for same-gender couples.
Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham, England, an influential conservative, has already accused Episcopalians of "formalizing the schism they initiated six years ago," when the U.S. church consecrated an openly gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire.
But in a country where gay marriage is legal in six states and several more allow civil unions and domestic partnerships, a number of bishops say they feel a need to provide some sort of ceremony for gay couples. The vaguely worded phrase "generous pastoral response" has been widely interpreted as allowing bishops the latitude to adapt church marriage rites for that purpose.
Bishop Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts, one of the bishops from the six states where gay marriage is legal who pushed for the change, said he would not try to interpret the phrase before talking to other bishops and Episcopalians in his diocese.
But, he said, "I am pleased they gave us the pastoral generosity we need to deal with our context in Massachusetts." Shaw and other bishops have said dozens of gay and lesbian couples have approached them asking for their unions to be blessed.
Conservatives, however, have accused Episcopalians, in the words of one activist here, of "having an adulterous relationship with the spirit of the age."
Bishop Peter Beckwith of Springfield, Ill., said, "We are allowing our church to be shaped by the culture rather than pursuing our God-given mission of shaping the secular culture." Beckwith compared homosexuality to gambling, which is legal in several states, but which many Christians oppose on moral grounds.
Even liberals here have said the church should not depend on the state to make decisions for it. Former New Hampshire Bishop Douglas Theuner, who retains a vote in the House of Bishops, argues that all bishops -- not just those in states where same-gender partnerships are legal -- should be allowed to adapt rites of blessings for gay couples.
"If we say we'll only do what the state allows us to do, then in effect we're saying that the state effects our theological decisions, and that shouldn't be," Theuner said.
Episcopalians have taken cues from the culture on marriage mores before, particularly in the 1970s when it voted to allow divorced people to remarry in the church, said Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington, Ky. "That seems to be exactly analogous to the issue we're facing now about the pastoral care of same-sex couples," Sauls said.
"We need to respond to the realities our people face and the culture in which they live," he said. "That doesn't mean we cave to expectations and give up our standards, but it does mean we have to be culturally sensitive."
Bishops Discuss Paradoxical Votes on Consecrations, Blessings
From The Living Church:
Posted on: July 24, 2009
As General Convention debated its two most-examined resolutions in July, about ten bishops cast paradoxical votes.
Most of these bishops voted against Resolution D025, which reopens the possibility of consecration for openly gay or lesbian bishops. In contrast, most also voted for C056, which authorizes the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to “collect and develop theological and liturgical resources” for blessing same-gender couples, and allows a “generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church.”
Some bishops discussed their votes with The LivingChurch. Others spoke only through letters they wrote to the clergy and laity of their dioceses. Others did not elaborate on their votes.
The Rt. Rev. John Rabb, Bishop Suffragan in the Diocese of Maryland, said he was pleased by most of D025 but that its final resolve left him unsatisfied.
“My fear was that it will be read as prescriptive, and that made me uncomfortable,” he said.
Bishop Rabb added that he was mindful of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s plea for restraint, and he found the ecclesiology of D025 unsatisfying.
Resolution C056, Bishop Rabb said, will enable the church to begin doing more theological homework, without committing itself to a set result at General Convention in 2012.
“We’ve not done enough work on the theology. It’s not that because the courts change something, the church must change it too,” Bishop Rabb said. “When we don’t get our theology right—and that includes scripture and tradition—it comes back and creates problems later.”
“I voted against D025 because it wasn’t clear, and the reaction from around the world convinced me that it wasn’t clear,” said the Rt. Rev. Stephen Miller, Bishop of Milwaukee. “I wish it had said we were not repealing B033, although that language would have never passed.”
Bishop Miller also voted for C056, and he too believes it enables an important theological discussion. “We have to have the theological discussion we’ve never had,” he said. “I want us to have theological discussion about marriage and same-sex unions and rites.”
The Rt. Rev. George E. Packard, Bishop Suffragan for Federal Ministries (Chaplaincies), is concerned about what message General Convention may have sent in approving D025.
“I voted against D025 with the reasoning that if the choice was between consoling ourselves on the one hand and not kicking sand in the face of our Anglican Communion partners on the other, I choose the latter,” he said. “There’s an anti-war play which tries to portray the damage done to war-torn society as the lead character places a box of butterflies on a table. One by one he lets them go except for the last one, which he burns with a lighted match. The point is that the invaded culture is fragile and easily harmed. It’s a horrific scene and the audience was so traumatized at the debut that the script was rewritten so that only paper butterflies would be incinerated.”
Bishop Packard added: “I maintain this consolation resolution is not the benign legislation we think it is. For my Lambeth friends, I judge it is the real thing, terribly unsettling, no paper butterflies here. Why do this if we already know the way things are among us? What is gained by stating it? There’s so much we could lose. I hope I’m wrong.”
Bishop Packard voted for C056, and was among nearly 30 bishops who volunteered to discuss their conflicting concerns outside of a plenary session.
“It is naive to think we can evade this since some states have already approved civil ceremonies, and Episcopalians—in those places—are asking if their priests and The Book of Common Prayer can be used in the process of blessing civil unions,” he said. “Our church cannot proceed into the future with a single approach, and we should find a way to provision certain dioceses to respond as the bishop sees fit.”
The Rt. Rev. Charles Jenkins, Bishop of Louisiana, said he voted for C056 because his colleagues had responded well to his plea for graciousness.
“During closed session, I stood and asked the majority of the house to please consider the position of the minority,” he said, adding that it took the church from 1976 to 2009 before all bishops supported ordaining women to the priesthood.
“A mature clarity means leaving a place for the other to stand with integrity,” he said. “What happens when your pastoral issue runs up against my pastoral issue? What happens when your sense of justice runs up against mine?”
The bishops who met late into the night to discuss C056 did the needed homework, Bishop Jenkins said.
“I felt I was honor-bound to vote for it because these bishops had done what I had asked them to do,” he said. “I felt that the process was a ray of hope for The Episcopal Church.”
Douglas LeBlanc
Posted on: July 24, 2009
As General Convention debated its two most-examined resolutions in July, about ten bishops cast paradoxical votes.
Most of these bishops voted against Resolution D025, which reopens the possibility of consecration for openly gay or lesbian bishops. In contrast, most also voted for C056, which authorizes the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to “collect and develop theological and liturgical resources” for blessing same-gender couples, and allows a “generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church.”
Some bishops discussed their votes with The LivingChurch. Others spoke only through letters they wrote to the clergy and laity of their dioceses. Others did not elaborate on their votes.
The Rt. Rev. John Rabb, Bishop Suffragan in the Diocese of Maryland, said he was pleased by most of D025 but that its final resolve left him unsatisfied.
“My fear was that it will be read as prescriptive, and that made me uncomfortable,” he said.
Bishop Rabb added that he was mindful of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s plea for restraint, and he found the ecclesiology of D025 unsatisfying.
Resolution C056, Bishop Rabb said, will enable the church to begin doing more theological homework, without committing itself to a set result at General Convention in 2012.
“We’ve not done enough work on the theology. It’s not that because the courts change something, the church must change it too,” Bishop Rabb said. “When we don’t get our theology right—and that includes scripture and tradition—it comes back and creates problems later.”
“I voted against D025 because it wasn’t clear, and the reaction from around the world convinced me that it wasn’t clear,” said the Rt. Rev. Stephen Miller, Bishop of Milwaukee. “I wish it had said we were not repealing B033, although that language would have never passed.”
Bishop Miller also voted for C056, and he too believes it enables an important theological discussion. “We have to have the theological discussion we’ve never had,” he said. “I want us to have theological discussion about marriage and same-sex unions and rites.”
The Rt. Rev. George E. Packard, Bishop Suffragan for Federal Ministries (Chaplaincies), is concerned about what message General Convention may have sent in approving D025.
“I voted against D025 with the reasoning that if the choice was between consoling ourselves on the one hand and not kicking sand in the face of our Anglican Communion partners on the other, I choose the latter,” he said. “There’s an anti-war play which tries to portray the damage done to war-torn society as the lead character places a box of butterflies on a table. One by one he lets them go except for the last one, which he burns with a lighted match. The point is that the invaded culture is fragile and easily harmed. It’s a horrific scene and the audience was so traumatized at the debut that the script was rewritten so that only paper butterflies would be incinerated.”
Bishop Packard added: “I maintain this consolation resolution is not the benign legislation we think it is. For my Lambeth friends, I judge it is the real thing, terribly unsettling, no paper butterflies here. Why do this if we already know the way things are among us? What is gained by stating it? There’s so much we could lose. I hope I’m wrong.”
Bishop Packard voted for C056, and was among nearly 30 bishops who volunteered to discuss their conflicting concerns outside of a plenary session.
“It is naive to think we can evade this since some states have already approved civil ceremonies, and Episcopalians—in those places—are asking if their priests and The Book of Common Prayer can be used in the process of blessing civil unions,” he said. “Our church cannot proceed into the future with a single approach, and we should find a way to provision certain dioceses to respond as the bishop sees fit.”
The Rt. Rev. Charles Jenkins, Bishop of Louisiana, said he voted for C056 because his colleagues had responded well to his plea for graciousness.
“During closed session, I stood and asked the majority of the house to please consider the position of the minority,” he said, adding that it took the church from 1976 to 2009 before all bishops supported ordaining women to the priesthood.
“A mature clarity means leaving a place for the other to stand with integrity,” he said. “What happens when your pastoral issue runs up against my pastoral issue? What happens when your sense of justice runs up against mine?”
The bishops who met late into the night to discuss C056 did the needed homework, Bishop Jenkins said.
“I felt I was honor-bound to vote for it because these bishops had done what I had asked them to do,” he said. “I felt that the process was a ray of hope for The Episcopal Church.”
Douglas LeBlanc
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The Bishop of Dallas Writes His Clergy about General Convention 2009
Posted by Kendall Harmon at TitusOneNine:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ in the Diocese of Dallas,
I write to you in response to the actions of the recent General Convention of The Episcopal Church meeting in Anaheim, California. Some in the diocese will be pleased with much that happened, while others will view with alarm some of the resolutions passed.
I feel compelled to speak a word to the Diocese of Dallas concerning three actions in particular. The first two gathered the most press attention and later comment. Members of our Diocese as well as Anglicans throughout the Communion are particularly concerned about these actions, which took the form of resolutions.
The Communion at large has been looking for a clear word from The Episcopal Church as to whether we will continue to honor the moratoria on developing rites for the blessing of same sex unions and consenting to the election to the episcopate of a person living in a same sex relationship. These moratoria were first suggested in the Windsor Report of October 2004 and were occasioned by the consecration of a bishop in The Episcopal Church living in a non-celibate same-sex relationship. A pledge, known as B033, to “exercise restraint” in giving further consents to such persons was adopted by the Convention of 2006. And while the 2006 Convention did not declare a moratorium on blessing rites for same-sex unions, it nevertheless turned away several resolutions calling for development of such rites. The Primates of the Anglican Communion took note of these actions with gratitude at their meeting in 2007 (Dar es Salaam), but requested greater clarity. That clarity would come in 2009.
It is clear from the resolutions passed, as well as from the floor debate in both Houses, that it is the intention of the leadership of The Episcopal Church that the moratoria requested by the Communion are no longer binding. Although a number of commentators, among them bishops, have maintained that the moratoria themselves were not specifically addressed, it is clear that both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops view their previous pledge as cancelled.
It was the stated desire of both Bishops and Deputies that this General Convention speak clearly to the Communion concerning “the reality of where this church is.”
Resolution D025 reads (in part): “That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call [gay and lesbian persons in lifelong committed relationships], to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church” and further declares that it is competent to deal with these calls in its own “discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”
Resolution C056 reads (in part): “That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th General Convention”.
While it is true that neither of these resolutions deal explicitly with repudiations of either previous actions of the Convention or of specific requests made of our Church, it is also quite true that their intent is plain. The 2006 resolution had called for restraint on giving consent to the consecration of any bishop “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.” That concern is now completely absent in D025, and the only criteria in making such decisions are entirely internal. As for C056, the operative word is “develop.” The plain sense here is to “create,” “produce,” or “promote.”
C056 also resolves that bishops “may provide generous pastoral response” to meet the needs of same-sex couples, and this, before providing any theological support for the rites themselves. This appears to give a “green light” to local, unilateral action, and is already being so interpreted by a number of bishops.
Taken together, this is de facto a repudiation of the repeated requests directed to us by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Communion, and the Anglican Consultative Council. It is also, I would argue, a repudiation of a previous actions of our own General Convention, in 1991, which mandated a “pan-Anglican” and ecumenical consultation on these matters, because “these potentially divisive issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own.” (1991-B020)
Although these resolutions deal specifically with matters concerning same-sex relationships and persons living within them, I want to remind you of the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his paper following our 2006 General Convention (“The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today”):
“And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about 'inclusion', this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against - and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.”
There are many gay and lesbian members of our congregations. Some long for the day when the Church will recognize and bless their relationships. Others among them do not. Add to these a number of people who are considering whether they can even remain in The Episcopal Church any longer. Ministry in these circumstances can be agonizing indeed. The churches of the Diocese of Dallas will, I trust, continue to be a place where all are welcome. We all kneel on level ground before the cross of Christ.
But the larger question is what it means for “the Church” to make these decisions: is it right or good, or even possible, for a congregation, a diocese, or even a province of the Universal Church to make its own way and claim to give “the Church’s blessing” – or God’s? Discerning the mind of Christ surely must mean doing this together. The Christian faith is something we receive, not legislate. Our own Book of Common Prayer recognizes that “the bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. And Holy Scripture commends it to be honored by all people.” (BCP, p. 423)
In the meantime, we need to be clear about where “we are” as a Diocese:
* The Diocese of Dallas will continue to hold up and proclaim the apostles’ teaching that is the ground of Christian fellowship, and the foundational promise of our Baptismal vows.
* We will continue to stand with the larger Church in affirming the primacy of Scripture, the sanctity of marriage and the call to holiness of life.
* We will not consent to the election of a bishop living in a same-sex relationship, and we will not allow the blessings of same-sex relationships in this diocese.
* We will continue to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, engage in mission at home and abroad, plant new congregations and make disciples of our Lord.
These commitments are in keeping with the historic teaching of the Holy Scriptures as held by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion, and, for that matter, the Church throughout the centuries.
I mentioned earlier a third significant resolution passed by the General Convention. Resolution D020 “invites” the dioceses and congregations of the Episcopal Church to study the proposed Anglican Covenant and “to consider the Anglican Covenant proposed draft as a document to inform their understanding of and commitment to our common life in the Anglican Communion.” I commend this study to our churches and I intend to give a prominent place at our Diocesan Convention in October to such a consideration.
Bishop Lambert and I will be conferring with the Standing Committee and the Clergy of this Diocese on these matters. In the meantime, please know that we will continue to stand with the larger Communion and the historic Church in upholding the apostolic faith and fellowship.
It is imperative that we as a Diocese commit ourselves to one another and work together for the building up of God’s kingdom. At no time in the life of this Church has it been so critical for the community to stand together to carry the message of the Good News of Christ to a broken world. We cannot live in isolation from one another but must find ways to work with and support one another in our common mission and ministry. Now is not the time to “run for cover” but to step out in the name of Jesus Christ and continue to worship, work and witness for the glory of God.
Faithfully,
--(The Rt. Rev.) James M. Stanton is Bishop of Dallas
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ in the Diocese of Dallas,
I write to you in response to the actions of the recent General Convention of The Episcopal Church meeting in Anaheim, California. Some in the diocese will be pleased with much that happened, while others will view with alarm some of the resolutions passed.
I feel compelled to speak a word to the Diocese of Dallas concerning three actions in particular. The first two gathered the most press attention and later comment. Members of our Diocese as well as Anglicans throughout the Communion are particularly concerned about these actions, which took the form of resolutions.
The Communion at large has been looking for a clear word from The Episcopal Church as to whether we will continue to honor the moratoria on developing rites for the blessing of same sex unions and consenting to the election to the episcopate of a person living in a same sex relationship. These moratoria were first suggested in the Windsor Report of October 2004 and were occasioned by the consecration of a bishop in The Episcopal Church living in a non-celibate same-sex relationship. A pledge, known as B033, to “exercise restraint” in giving further consents to such persons was adopted by the Convention of 2006. And while the 2006 Convention did not declare a moratorium on blessing rites for same-sex unions, it nevertheless turned away several resolutions calling for development of such rites. The Primates of the Anglican Communion took note of these actions with gratitude at their meeting in 2007 (Dar es Salaam), but requested greater clarity. That clarity would come in 2009.
It is clear from the resolutions passed, as well as from the floor debate in both Houses, that it is the intention of the leadership of The Episcopal Church that the moratoria requested by the Communion are no longer binding. Although a number of commentators, among them bishops, have maintained that the moratoria themselves were not specifically addressed, it is clear that both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops view their previous pledge as cancelled.
It was the stated desire of both Bishops and Deputies that this General Convention speak clearly to the Communion concerning “the reality of where this church is.”
Resolution D025 reads (in part): “That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call [gay and lesbian persons in lifelong committed relationships], to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church” and further declares that it is competent to deal with these calls in its own “discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”
Resolution C056 reads (in part): “That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th General Convention”.
While it is true that neither of these resolutions deal explicitly with repudiations of either previous actions of the Convention or of specific requests made of our Church, it is also quite true that their intent is plain. The 2006 resolution had called for restraint on giving consent to the consecration of any bishop “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.” That concern is now completely absent in D025, and the only criteria in making such decisions are entirely internal. As for C056, the operative word is “develop.” The plain sense here is to “create,” “produce,” or “promote.”
C056 also resolves that bishops “may provide generous pastoral response” to meet the needs of same-sex couples, and this, before providing any theological support for the rites themselves. This appears to give a “green light” to local, unilateral action, and is already being so interpreted by a number of bishops.
Taken together, this is de facto a repudiation of the repeated requests directed to us by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Communion, and the Anglican Consultative Council. It is also, I would argue, a repudiation of a previous actions of our own General Convention, in 1991, which mandated a “pan-Anglican” and ecumenical consultation on these matters, because “these potentially divisive issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own.” (1991-B020)
Although these resolutions deal specifically with matters concerning same-sex relationships and persons living within them, I want to remind you of the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his paper following our 2006 General Convention (“The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today”):
“And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about 'inclusion', this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against - and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.”
There are many gay and lesbian members of our congregations. Some long for the day when the Church will recognize and bless their relationships. Others among them do not. Add to these a number of people who are considering whether they can even remain in The Episcopal Church any longer. Ministry in these circumstances can be agonizing indeed. The churches of the Diocese of Dallas will, I trust, continue to be a place where all are welcome. We all kneel on level ground before the cross of Christ.
But the larger question is what it means for “the Church” to make these decisions: is it right or good, or even possible, for a congregation, a diocese, or even a province of the Universal Church to make its own way and claim to give “the Church’s blessing” – or God’s? Discerning the mind of Christ surely must mean doing this together. The Christian faith is something we receive, not legislate. Our own Book of Common Prayer recognizes that “the bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. And Holy Scripture commends it to be honored by all people.” (BCP, p. 423)
In the meantime, we need to be clear about where “we are” as a Diocese:
* The Diocese of Dallas will continue to hold up and proclaim the apostles’ teaching that is the ground of Christian fellowship, and the foundational promise of our Baptismal vows.
* We will continue to stand with the larger Church in affirming the primacy of Scripture, the sanctity of marriage and the call to holiness of life.
* We will not consent to the election of a bishop living in a same-sex relationship, and we will not allow the blessings of same-sex relationships in this diocese.
* We will continue to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, engage in mission at home and abroad, plant new congregations and make disciples of our Lord.
These commitments are in keeping with the historic teaching of the Holy Scriptures as held by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion, and, for that matter, the Church throughout the centuries.
I mentioned earlier a third significant resolution passed by the General Convention. Resolution D020 “invites” the dioceses and congregations of the Episcopal Church to study the proposed Anglican Covenant and “to consider the Anglican Covenant proposed draft as a document to inform their understanding of and commitment to our common life in the Anglican Communion.” I commend this study to our churches and I intend to give a prominent place at our Diocesan Convention in October to such a consideration.
Bishop Lambert and I will be conferring with the Standing Committee and the Clergy of this Diocese on these matters. In the meantime, please know that we will continue to stand with the larger Communion and the historic Church in upholding the apostolic faith and fellowship.
It is imperative that we as a Diocese commit ourselves to one another and work together for the building up of God’s kingdom. At no time in the life of this Church has it been so critical for the community to stand together to carry the message of the Good News of Christ to a broken world. We cannot live in isolation from one another but must find ways to work with and support one another in our common mission and ministry. Now is not the time to “run for cover” but to step out in the name of Jesus Christ and continue to worship, work and witness for the glory of God.
Faithfully,
--(The Rt. Rev.) James M. Stanton is Bishop of Dallas
'Church of What's Happenin' Now'
From The Washington Times via Stand Firm:
'Inclusivity' accommodates doctrine to the world
By Cal Thomas | Thursday, July 23, 2009
In the early '70s, comedian Flip Wilson created a character for his NBC television program called "Reverend Leroy" of "The Church of What's Happenin' Now." Like some contemporary "reverends," Reverend Leroy was a con artist who, among other things, once took up an offering to go to Las Vegas, explaining he had to study sin in order to effectively preach against it.
Reverend Leroy would feel right at home in the modern Episcopal Church, which recently voted at its denominational meeting in Anaheim, Calif., to end the ban on the ordination of gay bishops and permit marriage "blessings" for same-sex couples.
Denominational leaders explained they are attempting to stem the exodus from their church by embracing a new doctrine they call "inclusivity," which they hope will attract young people.
Apparently church leaders think that if they can reach people before they have fully matured in their faith, they can sidetrack them into beliefs that have nothing to do with the God that Episcopalians once claimed to worship and that they can be shaped into practical secularists who are willing to seek the approval of men, rather than God.
Inclusivity has nothing to do with the foundational truths set forth in Scripture. The church, which belongs to no denomination but to its founding father and His Son, is about exclusivity for those who deny the faith. The church is inclusive only for those who are adopted by faith into God's family. There are more biblical references to this than there is room to cite here, but for the Episcopal leadership, biblical references no longer have the power to persuade, much less compel them to conform. That's because Episcopal leadership has denied the teachings of Scripture in favor of, well, inclusivity, a word that appears nowhere in Scripture. Even if it did, Episcopal heretics -- for that is what they are -- would choose another word to make them feel more comfortable, since accommodation with the world seems to be a more important objective than the favor of God.
Not to single out Episcopalians for special sanction. Other denominations have been putting themselves through theological makeovers in recent years, as have some of their more prominent members.
Take former President Jimmy Carter (and someone should). Mr. Carter, who once attended and occasionally taught a Sunday school class in Washington, which I visited, then claimed to believe much of what Scripture teaches. In practice, though, he was pro-choice on abortion and recently announced his support for same-sex "civil unions." He says he sees nothing prohibitive in Scripture to such arrangements. Mr. Carter must have gotten hold of a Reader's Digest condensed version.
Mr. Carter has announced he is leaving the Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest Protestant body -- because he claims it treats women as inferior to men. In a statement he said, "At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities."
Mr. Carter must have missed the passage about mutual submission between married couples and the requirement that a man love his wife "as Christ loved the church," a very high standard that implies such love be equal to the self-sacrifice demonstrated by Christ on the cross. Such sacrifice can hardly justify any of the sins against women that Mr. Carter unfairly ascribes to the Southern Baptist Convention.
If the church -- Episcopal, Baptist or whatever -- is to be a beacon to an increasingly dark world, it must know not only what it believes but in whom it has placed its faith. For these Episcopalians and the kinds of Baptists admired by Mr. Carter, it is a church that has made its bed in the world, and it has as much power to illuminate as a burned-out bulb.
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
'Inclusivity' accommodates doctrine to the world
By Cal Thomas | Thursday, July 23, 2009
In the early '70s, comedian Flip Wilson created a character for his NBC television program called "Reverend Leroy" of "The Church of What's Happenin' Now." Like some contemporary "reverends," Reverend Leroy was a con artist who, among other things, once took up an offering to go to Las Vegas, explaining he had to study sin in order to effectively preach against it.
Reverend Leroy would feel right at home in the modern Episcopal Church, which recently voted at its denominational meeting in Anaheim, Calif., to end the ban on the ordination of gay bishops and permit marriage "blessings" for same-sex couples.
Denominational leaders explained they are attempting to stem the exodus from their church by embracing a new doctrine they call "inclusivity," which they hope will attract young people.
Apparently church leaders think that if they can reach people before they have fully matured in their faith, they can sidetrack them into beliefs that have nothing to do with the God that Episcopalians once claimed to worship and that they can be shaped into practical secularists who are willing to seek the approval of men, rather than God.
Inclusivity has nothing to do with the foundational truths set forth in Scripture. The church, which belongs to no denomination but to its founding father and His Son, is about exclusivity for those who deny the faith. The church is inclusive only for those who are adopted by faith into God's family. There are more biblical references to this than there is room to cite here, but for the Episcopal leadership, biblical references no longer have the power to persuade, much less compel them to conform. That's because Episcopal leadership has denied the teachings of Scripture in favor of, well, inclusivity, a word that appears nowhere in Scripture. Even if it did, Episcopal heretics -- for that is what they are -- would choose another word to make them feel more comfortable, since accommodation with the world seems to be a more important objective than the favor of God.
Not to single out Episcopalians for special sanction. Other denominations have been putting themselves through theological makeovers in recent years, as have some of their more prominent members.
Take former President Jimmy Carter (and someone should). Mr. Carter, who once attended and occasionally taught a Sunday school class in Washington, which I visited, then claimed to believe much of what Scripture teaches. In practice, though, he was pro-choice on abortion and recently announced his support for same-sex "civil unions." He says he sees nothing prohibitive in Scripture to such arrangements. Mr. Carter must have gotten hold of a Reader's Digest condensed version.
Mr. Carter has announced he is leaving the Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest Protestant body -- because he claims it treats women as inferior to men. In a statement he said, "At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities."
Mr. Carter must have missed the passage about mutual submission between married couples and the requirement that a man love his wife "as Christ loved the church," a very high standard that implies such love be equal to the self-sacrifice demonstrated by Christ on the cross. Such sacrifice can hardly justify any of the sins against women that Mr. Carter unfairly ascribes to the Southern Baptist Convention.
If the church -- Episcopal, Baptist or whatever -- is to be a beacon to an increasingly dark world, it must know not only what it believes but in whom it has placed its faith. For these Episcopalians and the kinds of Baptists admired by Mr. Carter, it is a church that has made its bed in the world, and it has as much power to illuminate as a burned-out bulb.
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
From the who didn't see this coming dept.
via TitusOneNine:
Monday, July 13, 2009
Tired, Postmodern, and a Generally Depressing Convention
by the Rev. Dr. Richard Kew
We have been back in the States for the last three weeks but will be returning to our ministry in Cambridge, England tomorrow. This means we have been around for the razzmatazz that went with the launch of the Anglican Church of North America, and now for the spectacle of the General Convention. Having been present at most General Conventions since the last Anaheim convention in 1985, I am glad I am not there. I have to say that what looks to be happening is a sad, sad spectacle, and from the deluge of words coming out of Anaheim it is evident that the Convention is in little mood to take seriously historic Christianity, or to honor the worldwide Anglican Communion.
As a bishop friend said to me in a personal email from Anaheim a day or two ago, the trend seems to be for TEC to become a stand-alone American denomination rather than part of the worldwide church. Clearly, the presence and advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury for a few days meant little or nothing to the majority of the House of Deputies. As the same episcopal friend also said, those who are for inclusion do not seem to realize that for a large chunk of us that means exclusion -- although we certainly have no desire to be excluded from catholic Christianity through the Communion.
This whole exercise is not about sexuality or sexual behavior, but is fundamentally about what we believe the Christian faith to mean and be about. When it comes down to it, it is about our attitude toward Jesus as God's Son, the nature of the Trinity, divine revelation, Christian obedience, and holiness of life. The cavalier attitude of the Presiding Bishop to the creeds and their recitation is evidence that she considers the likes of me as pedantic has-beens rather than those who are on the cutting edge -- but the cutting edge of what?
Yet the truth really is, as you look around the world, that those who are pushing this worn out postmodern melange and calling it Christian are increasingly the has-beens. They seem to have tied themselves to the coat tails of the last dribblings of the least attractive side of the Enlightenment, and it is entirely likely that they will disappear down the drain with them. I say this as an Episcopalian who lives in England and now functions as part of the church under great pressure.
The church in England is wrestling to adapt to an altogether more secular and hostile climate than exists in most of the USA, and what is interesting, I don't see postmodern Christianity standing up very well in such an environment. It is a limp and aging rag. The creative scholarship, for example, is coming from a far more theologically orthodox direction (as can be seen from the recent awarding of the Michael Ramsey Prize for theological writing to Richard Bauckham for his extraordinary challenge to scholarship in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). Healthy progressive liberal and theologically to-the-left congregations are few and far between, while it the theologically more conservative who are creatively evangelistic that have become the majority of stronger centers of the faith.
This isn't to say that the English church doesn't have a belly-load of problems and challenges, some of which it is refusing to address; but it is illustrative that so-called progressive faith is not flourishing well in an environment which affirms and celebrates many of the values and attitudes it endorses. Picking over concrete evidence from Britain and asking what this might mean for the Episcopal Church of the USA, one can only confess that it does not auger well on this side of the ocean. Looking at the hard statistics about the health of the Episcopal Church that have been coming out of Anaheim, the best interpretation of them is that the church is in serious decline -- if not free fall, and those who say otherwise are clearly in denial with their ostrich necks firmly stuck down holes.
All this is happening in the midst of the deepest recession in living memory, and one that promises to impact us for a very long time to come. Looking at the dire financial state of the Episcopal Church after the Great Depression might be a valuable exercise to help us grasp what the circumstances of denomination, dioceses, and congregations could well be like when the world eventually pulls out of this dive. Money is the mother's milk of ministry, and there are huge problems if there is none, or little or none.
The churches in England that are healthiest are those who approach their Christian witness in a missional manner: which means trying to ask and answer how we take the gospel message and enable it to speak in an environment where the church a bit of a joke -- or worse. Some of them are making whopping mistakes, but at least they are trying! The intelligensia in Britain will generally take every opportunity to denigrate religious people of all flavors, the Church of England in particular. There is little or no social or intellectual kudos to be gained from being a believer in England, and the bulk of the general population doesn't have the vaguest notion of what the Christian faith is all about. There are too many uncanny parallels to the 1st Century.
Yet, there are Anglican churches (and varieties of others) that are packed to the doors. There are some fascinatingly creative experiments being undertaken. The theologically orthodox seminaries are the ones enrolling the majority of new students. The House of Bishops is becoming increasingly orthodox (although they may not want to label themselves that way), and so on, and so on. The end product will ultimately be a church that looks very different from the one we have now, and it is likely to be one that the older folks (like myself) will have our struggles with. But what is more important: our understanding of the right way to express the faith and decline, or a whole new generation being renewed and revived by God to take the message to their lost and floundering contemporaries?
As a priest of the Episcopal Church I honor my ordination vows and I stand with those who stand with the historic, catholic, and evangelical formularies of the faith. I recite the creeds with conviction, I believe Scripture is God's Word written, and I cannot and will not walk away from what is happening.
At the beginning of this decade I was part of the 2020 Task Force that posited ideas and plans for the doubling of the Episcopal Church in the first two decades of the 21st Century. The reverse has happened because that agenda was dumped by 2003 in favor of what Paul might describe as 'another gospel.' I suspect that if the Episcopal Church is half the size it was in 2000 by 2020 it will be a miracle if the present course continues to be followed.
This is a tragedy of monumental proportions, but it does not prevent us from standing firm alongside Augustine, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooker, Janani Luwum, Festo Kivengere and many other selfless women and men who have gone before us in the faith. Error disrupts and does damage, but in the economy of a God who is truth it does not ultimately win the day.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Tired, Postmodern, and a Generally Depressing Convention
by the Rev. Dr. Richard Kew
We have been back in the States for the last three weeks but will be returning to our ministry in Cambridge, England tomorrow. This means we have been around for the razzmatazz that went with the launch of the Anglican Church of North America, and now for the spectacle of the General Convention. Having been present at most General Conventions since the last Anaheim convention in 1985, I am glad I am not there. I have to say that what looks to be happening is a sad, sad spectacle, and from the deluge of words coming out of Anaheim it is evident that the Convention is in little mood to take seriously historic Christianity, or to honor the worldwide Anglican Communion.
As a bishop friend said to me in a personal email from Anaheim a day or two ago, the trend seems to be for TEC to become a stand-alone American denomination rather than part of the worldwide church. Clearly, the presence and advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury for a few days meant little or nothing to the majority of the House of Deputies. As the same episcopal friend also said, those who are for inclusion do not seem to realize that for a large chunk of us that means exclusion -- although we certainly have no desire to be excluded from catholic Christianity through the Communion.
This whole exercise is not about sexuality or sexual behavior, but is fundamentally about what we believe the Christian faith to mean and be about. When it comes down to it, it is about our attitude toward Jesus as God's Son, the nature of the Trinity, divine revelation, Christian obedience, and holiness of life. The cavalier attitude of the Presiding Bishop to the creeds and their recitation is evidence that she considers the likes of me as pedantic has-beens rather than those who are on the cutting edge -- but the cutting edge of what?
Yet the truth really is, as you look around the world, that those who are pushing this worn out postmodern melange and calling it Christian are increasingly the has-beens. They seem to have tied themselves to the coat tails of the last dribblings of the least attractive side of the Enlightenment, and it is entirely likely that they will disappear down the drain with them. I say this as an Episcopalian who lives in England and now functions as part of the church under great pressure.
The church in England is wrestling to adapt to an altogether more secular and hostile climate than exists in most of the USA, and what is interesting, I don't see postmodern Christianity standing up very well in such an environment. It is a limp and aging rag. The creative scholarship, for example, is coming from a far more theologically orthodox direction (as can be seen from the recent awarding of the Michael Ramsey Prize for theological writing to Richard Bauckham for his extraordinary challenge to scholarship in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). Healthy progressive liberal and theologically to-the-left congregations are few and far between, while it the theologically more conservative who are creatively evangelistic that have become the majority of stronger centers of the faith.
This isn't to say that the English church doesn't have a belly-load of problems and challenges, some of which it is refusing to address; but it is illustrative that so-called progressive faith is not flourishing well in an environment which affirms and celebrates many of the values and attitudes it endorses. Picking over concrete evidence from Britain and asking what this might mean for the Episcopal Church of the USA, one can only confess that it does not auger well on this side of the ocean. Looking at the hard statistics about the health of the Episcopal Church that have been coming out of Anaheim, the best interpretation of them is that the church is in serious decline -- if not free fall, and those who say otherwise are clearly in denial with their ostrich necks firmly stuck down holes.
All this is happening in the midst of the deepest recession in living memory, and one that promises to impact us for a very long time to come. Looking at the dire financial state of the Episcopal Church after the Great Depression might be a valuable exercise to help us grasp what the circumstances of denomination, dioceses, and congregations could well be like when the world eventually pulls out of this dive. Money is the mother's milk of ministry, and there are huge problems if there is none, or little or none.
The churches in England that are healthiest are those who approach their Christian witness in a missional manner: which means trying to ask and answer how we take the gospel message and enable it to speak in an environment where the church a bit of a joke -- or worse. Some of them are making whopping mistakes, but at least they are trying! The intelligensia in Britain will generally take every opportunity to denigrate religious people of all flavors, the Church of England in particular. There is little or no social or intellectual kudos to be gained from being a believer in England, and the bulk of the general population doesn't have the vaguest notion of what the Christian faith is all about. There are too many uncanny parallels to the 1st Century.
Yet, there are Anglican churches (and varieties of others) that are packed to the doors. There are some fascinatingly creative experiments being undertaken. The theologically orthodox seminaries are the ones enrolling the majority of new students. The House of Bishops is becoming increasingly orthodox (although they may not want to label themselves that way), and so on, and so on. The end product will ultimately be a church that looks very different from the one we have now, and it is likely to be one that the older folks (like myself) will have our struggles with. But what is more important: our understanding of the right way to express the faith and decline, or a whole new generation being renewed and revived by God to take the message to their lost and floundering contemporaries?
As a priest of the Episcopal Church I honor my ordination vows and I stand with those who stand with the historic, catholic, and evangelical formularies of the faith. I recite the creeds with conviction, I believe Scripture is God's Word written, and I cannot and will not walk away from what is happening.
At the beginning of this decade I was part of the 2020 Task Force that posited ideas and plans for the doubling of the Episcopal Church in the first two decades of the 21st Century. The reverse has happened because that agenda was dumped by 2003 in favor of what Paul might describe as 'another gospel.' I suspect that if the Episcopal Church is half the size it was in 2000 by 2020 it will be a miracle if the present course continues to be followed.
This is a tragedy of monumental proportions, but it does not prevent us from standing firm alongside Augustine, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooker, Janani Luwum, Festo Kivengere and many other selfless women and men who have gone before us in the faith. Error disrupts and does damage, but in the economy of a God who is truth it does not ultimately win the day.
Kendall Harmon opines
The Two Presiding Officers of General Convention wrote Rowan Williams twice in two days—why?
from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon
Back on July 16th the Presiding Bishop and Bonnie Anderson wrote Archbishop Rowan Williams about the General Convention. This, however, in a flurry of confusion inside the Episcopal Church's leadership as to exactly what had occurred, even though such confusion was not shared by the majority of the mainstream media and the Episcopal Church activists for the new theology of human sexuality, was not enough.
So on July 17th the Presiding Bishop and Bonnie Anderson wrote Archbishop Rowan Williams again about the General Convention.
Can anyone name a time previously in Episcopal Church history when this has occurred? It not only looks desperate but it speaks poorly to the level of clarity in what is being done. If you need to explain your explanations, if you need to use words and then more words to explain your words, the issue of what you are actually doing and why comes even more strongly to the fore. Let your yes be yes and your no be no as a standard is being missed, and for a Christian community that is a very sad thing indeed--KSH.
from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon
Back on July 16th the Presiding Bishop and Bonnie Anderson wrote Archbishop Rowan Williams about the General Convention. This, however, in a flurry of confusion inside the Episcopal Church's leadership as to exactly what had occurred, even though such confusion was not shared by the majority of the mainstream media and the Episcopal Church activists for the new theology of human sexuality, was not enough.
So on July 17th the Presiding Bishop and Bonnie Anderson wrote Archbishop Rowan Williams again about the General Convention.
Can anyone name a time previously in Episcopal Church history when this has occurred? It not only looks desperate but it speaks poorly to the level of clarity in what is being done. If you need to explain your explanations, if you need to use words and then more words to explain your words, the issue of what you are actually doing and why comes even more strongly to the fore. Let your yes be yes and your no be no as a standard is being missed, and for a Christian community that is a very sad thing indeed--KSH.
GC2009: Rowan Among The Ruins: What Should the ABC Do Now?
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
7/23/2009
The House of Bishops of the Church of England meets in September when they will consider the new North American Anglican province's (ACNA's) Constitution and Canons. Following Durham Bishop Tom Wright's scathing critique of what transpired at GC2009 there is every likelihood they will support ACNA. A number of Evangelical and Catholic bishops are already doing so - eight have signed the Private Member's Motion - unprecedented in General Synod history.
This puts Dr. Rowan Williams in a very difficult position. At one level he can now offer a two-tier solution to the Anglican Communion's malaise. He can also argue that he can now recognize both TEC and ACNA. He alone decides who to invite to the Lambeth Conference, and can circumvent the Anglican Communion Office and Canon Kenneth Kearon who has sworn eternal fealty to TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada and would never recognize ACNA if his job depended on it. (He needs TEC money to keep ACC afloat).
The General Synod is not in any way beholden to the ACC and can do as it likes. It could even, if it chose, reduce its financial contribution to ACC and ACO. If the Synod debates and passes the motion next February or next July, Kearon can think or say what he likes, it will not affect anything. The determination of who is or is not in communion with the CofE is a joint decision for the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who would find it difficult to refuse a Synod resolution. If ACNA is in then TEC may even be shown the door.
The truth is the ACC has become irrelevant following Jamaica and the debacle over Resolution 4. The vast majority of the CofE do not know what the ACC is, let alone cares. Churchgoers do not elect their ACC "representatives" they are chosen by the national church. Therefore ACC approval is something of an irrelevance. From now on one can expect that province by province will make its own decision. If the great bulk of the Communion declares itself to be in communion with ACNA, the ACC will have to fall in line.
At a deeper level, if ACNA is approved of by the Church of England, then it is not only extreme embarrassment for The Episcopal Church, but also evidence before American courts that TEC is no longer the exclusive holder of the Anglican badge.
The implications for the Dennis Canon are enormous. TEC now bills itself as a hierarchical church. It will have to live and die by that ecclesiastical sword. For those watching from the sidelines, nobody can seriously have expected the 2009 General Convention to hold back from overturning B033, the fig leaf of respectability behind which TEC has been sheltering since 2006, and in Anaheim it finally crossed the Rubicon.
TEC committed itself finally and irrevocably to LGBT "rights" (to all orders of ministry and same-sex blessings) ahead of any other consideration, including the express views of the Anglican Communion at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, and more recently the Windsor Report.
A last-minute plea from Archbishop Rowan Williams at the TEC Convention fell on deaf ears. TEC is already in a state of impaired communion with 22 out of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion. Its internal divisions over property have cost it hundreds of parishes and four dioceses, not to mention millions of dollars in legal fees.
Historically only the Archbishop of Canterbury, who invites the bishops to Lambeth Conferences, has the authority to determine who is in or out of communion, but the recent actions of TEC have forced several large provinces to take such a decision for themselves, thus diminishing the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
A large proportion of the Anglican Communion already out of communion with TEC, will soon declare an end to all relationships with it. This may well be re-echoed by The Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. We shall see.
VOL has begun to outline the growing attrition as a result of Anaheim, as remaining conservatives finally recognize the seriousness of the condition into which their church has been plunged by radical activists, who now have unassailable control of the denomination.
Even the most ardent of orthodox stayers now must ask how long they can endure TEC's leadership which has now taken possession of General Convention and the House of Bishops especially after Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori condemned personal faith in Christ as a Western heresy.
Any lingering doubts in the minds of the Global South that TEC is an apostate and heretical institution were swept aside in Anaheim this past week. GAFCON's Jerusalem Declaration http://tinyurl.com/ntzsfk is more prescient now than ever. When VOL inquired as to why we had heard nothing from archbishops like Akinola and Orombi the answer was simple, "look at the Jerusalem Declaration, what is there left to say?"
The newly installed ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan did opine in an open letter to the Anglican Communion saying, "For Anglican Christians, for the Instruments of Unity (Communion), for interdependent Provinces, for ordinary believers, there is a choice to be made. The choice is between two religions, two roads, two cities, two sets of conflicting values and behaviors." http://tinyurl.com/nq947w
Indeed.
GAFCON was set against the Lambeth Conference and Williams knew it. It was the elephant in the tent at Canterbury. He could not ignore 70% - 80% of the Communion.
But the divisions go still deeper. The onslaught against orthodox Anglicans in the USA and Canada has been of such concern to other provinces that U.S. and Canadian Anglicans have consecrated bishops to offer a place of refuge for orthodox Anglicans and to reach the U.S.'s 130 million unchurched Americans - the goal of the AMiA.
This would not have been necessary if TEC had truly allowed flying bishops with real authority.
Real estate seizures (based on the Dennis Canon), depositions of TEC's orthodox bishops and priests, along with the morphing of the presiding bishop from chairman of the HOB into a full -blown medieval prelate, have created a church founded not on the word of God, but legal fundamentalism, determined to purge itself of all opposition.
Of course it could be argued that had the Archbishop of Canterbury exercised his personal authority as head of the Communion, even though he has no formal legal status, things might have been different. But he didn't and wouldn't. He demurred and deferred holding out the carrot of compromise rather than the stick of expulsion from the communion.
At the end of the day he was not willing to alienate TEC. Even as late as the 2008 Lambeth Conference the invitations to TEC bishops could have been withdrawn, sending the clearest signal that TEC must change direction.
He didn't and wouldn't. The inaction of Rowan Williams has been monumental. Even as the turmoil in the Communion grew he prevaricated and dodged the hard answers he should have given. He lost a golden opportunity in New Orleans and at another historical moment following Dar es Salaam when he was armed with a resolution to hold TEC accountable.
The result is that provinces have determined for themselves who is or is not in communion with them. The GAFCON primates, as they have been dubbed, and who hold the bulk of Anglicans in their bosom are the genuine holders of the Anglican keys.
It is difficult to see how the Archbishop or his office can ever recover the authority it once held. He has alienated his authority and has no one to blame but himself.
A meeting of the Anglican primates at Lambeth Palace preceded the consecration of homogenital bishop Gene Robinson in 2003. At that time Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold was a signatory of a letter urging TEC not to proceed. He nevertheless returned to the U.S. and personally presided at the service, telling everyone that it was not his decision, but that of the church and that he could do nothing about it. He made a mockery of both the statement and Williams himself.
Williams took it lying down.
A wave of protests followed in the U.S. sparking yet more litigation amid dissenters and growing concern elsewhere in the Anglican Communion for the orthodoxy of TEC and for the pastoral care of conservatives within it.
Little was said and nothing was done by Lambeth Palace.
At each subsequent Primates' meeting when orthodox archbishops urged Williams to act, he did nothing, using the language of "I have no power." Worse, Williams continued to protect TEC by doing as little as possible to respond to the concerns of the primates. The primates' meeting was also finally downgraded by Williams who prevented it from meeting as it had done previously.
The 2008 Lambeth Conference saw TEC bring a large contingent of bishops (even though it has only ASA 700,000 Episcopalians) accompanied by numerous activists including the uninvited Gene Robinson and a transsexual priest from the Diocese of Massachusetts.
Williams had to come up with a strategy to hold it all together. He called it "indaba" a process of candid conversation that resolved nothing. It is now being promoted around the Communion as a means of doing business. Indaba has now transmogrified into ubuntu - "I in you and you in me" but this has neither united nor provided the healing balm the Communion needs.
Williams "Affirming Catholicism", supported by the then Scottish primus, former bishop Richard Holloway, as well as a gaggle of English sympathizers and TEC's Frank Griswold has been the ABC's vision for the future of the Anglican Communion. It has flat out failed. The attempt has produced nothing but despair, lamentation and alienation for orthodox Anglicans.
The growing acceptance of women priests in many provinces has further alienated Anglo-Catholics from mainstream Anglicanism. A number of evangelicals believe that making women's ordination mandatory rather than voluntary in TEC and now the CofE has further alienated and angered broad-minded Anglicans. ACNA is demonstrating that both views can live side by side in harmony. The actions of the TEC making women's ordination mandatory virtually guaranteed that they would walk away, and three dioceses have recently done so.
Nonetheless, homosexuality, a salvation issue, remains the lightning rod problem driving evangelical Anglicans out of TEC. A theology of morality impacting Christology and denies the authority of scripture is a bridge too far. Revisionists have liberalized and relativized clear biblical prohibitions at great cost to themselves and before a watching world.
While the scriptural evidence for excluding women from holy orders contains a number of possible ambiguities: no such ambiguity exists with respect to homosexuality, as Pittsburgh Professor Robert Gagnon has so thoroughly demonstrated.
The recent actions by TEC in Anaheim and Jefferts Schori's statements about salvation only vindicate the formation of a new Anglican province in North America. ACNA has garnered the support of the largest Anglican provinces in the communion further alienating Williams who gave TEC his tacit support in Anaheim. Furthermore 40 million Evangelical Anglicans in the Global South found Schori's remarks shallow and theologically offensive.
What is happening is that Williams and the Anglican Consultative Council are simply being bypassed by orthodox Anglicans. GAFCON, ACNA and FCA are simply ignoring the ABC and ACC by going around them to form their own more perfect union and grow the church. Meanwhile, Western pan-Anglicanism slowly withers and dies. Williams' pleas for restraint in Anaheim were blown off like so much Disneyland hype.
On his return to England, for the meeting of the General Synod in York, he was in constant communication with TEC leaders, who delivered the bad news as it happened.
It was reported that on the final day of the Synod he was reduced to feebly hoping that the bishops of TEC would hold the line, despite the overwhelming vote in the House of Deputies. It never happened. On the final day of GC2009 the House of Deputies voted 2 to 1 to pass Resolution C056 allowing rites for same sex unions to be official dogma, even though the Presiding Bishop wrote (not once but twice) that the actions of GC2009 were descriptive not proscriptive. No one with half a brain believes that for a moment.
At the same time, members of the CofE General Synod were flocking to sign a private member's motion calling for the Church of England to be in communion with ACNA; and asking hard questions about the Church of England's relationship with the Church of Sweden, which is about to authorize same gender marriages by its clergy. The biggest bombshell, however, was the announcement by Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham that the ACNA Canons and Constitution have already been laid before the English House of Bishops to be debated in September.
Williams might have hoped for a quieter life following the retirement of conservative bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, to whom he bade a somewhat ungenerous farewell at the end of the Synod, but worse was to come: the endorsement of gay ordinations and of rites for same-gender unions by the TEC House of Bishops produced in short order a ringing denunciation in the Times newspaper by the Bishop of Durham and a matching statement by his liberal evangelical Fulcrum organization, which has hitherto sat carefully on the fence on such issues.
So far there has been silence from Lambeth Palace, presumably a stunned silence. Wright is not only the chief author of the Windsor Report, and a proponent of the ill-fated Covenant which was supposed to draw the Communion back together, but is a leading voice among liberal evangelicals in England. They are large in number and influential in the councils of the Church, and have hitherto been strongly critical of their more conservative counterparts who have supported GAFCON, FCA and ACNA. Williams now faces the prospect of the whole evangelical wing united in condemnation of the Affirming Catholic agenda which he has sought to promote for the last fifteen years."
Williams has nowhere else to look for support. Half of the Anglo-Catholic movement, to which he once belonged, left the Church of England over women priests in 1993. Affirming Catholics enjoyed a period of dominance having supplanted conservative Catholics, and for a while almost every new bishop appointed wore the badge. But once women priests were a fact of life much of the raison d'être of Affirming Catholicism was dissipated, and the movement has lost momentum, so much so that its Scottish branch recently closed for lack of support.
What is most troubling for Williams is that English ordination candidates these days are firmly Evangelical. Congregations and dioceses are asking for Evangelical bishops, and many have been appointed, with every indication that this will be the trend for the foreseeable future. There are 25 evangelical bishops in the HoB and that number seems only to be growing. Conservative Catholics, and much of the mainstream, have disappeared from the ordination process.
Williams' friends in the HoB are steadily retiring, leaving him increasingly isolated in a church which respects his academic credentials, but is less certain of his agenda, and left wondering about his leadership in a time of such crisis.
Williams is being seen more and more as a brilliant fool. Nobody any longer believes in the strategies which have been proposed to resolve the North American crisis. The Instruments of Unity, the Panel of Reference, the Pastoral Visitors, the ACC, the ACO, the Windsor Report, the Covenant, Indaba and Ubuntu are all dead in the water. They have not even delayed, let alone arrested the momentum of TEC towards the edge of the cliff.
The time has come for Williams himself to choose. Will he heed at last the calls of the global south for an Anglicanism which is faithful to scripture? Will he act against the remaining liberal voices in the Church of England who aim to see TEC replicated in the mother church? Will he recognize ACNA as a province in communion with him? Will he work with the new Evangelical bishops in his own provinces who have already concluded that the old order is at an end and that the Anglican Communion must be a Communion of churches in doctrinal, not structural agreement with one another? Will he heed the calls to withdraw recognition of ministers ordained in TEC and instead to recognize ACNA?
His options grow fewer by the day. If he stays silent in Lambeth Palace he will be seen as acquiescing to the left. If he believes the letters put out by Jefferts Schori to himself and to the wider Anglican Communion that nothing really changed at GC2009 he is deluding himself. No one in the Global South is buying the snake oil Jefferts Schori is selling. The scandals, lawsuits and the hemorrhaging of members from TEC will not suddenly cease because of the actions of GC2009.
Will he devise yet more convoluted stratagems designed to pretend that the discussion continues, knowing in his heart of hearts that his master plan for Anglicanism is now in ruins?
It is a lonely position for Williams to occupy. For Williams, his own time came and is now gone. There is no retrieving it. His Affirming Catholicism has failed as it was bound to from the very beginning, for it failed to take into account the great majority of the Anglican Communion which remains committed to the authority, not of an archbishops, or lawyers, or General Conventions, but of something infinitely greater: Holy Scripture.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
7/23/2009
The House of Bishops of the Church of England meets in September when they will consider the new North American Anglican province's (ACNA's) Constitution and Canons. Following Durham Bishop Tom Wright's scathing critique of what transpired at GC2009 there is every likelihood they will support ACNA. A number of Evangelical and Catholic bishops are already doing so - eight have signed the Private Member's Motion - unprecedented in General Synod history.
This puts Dr. Rowan Williams in a very difficult position. At one level he can now offer a two-tier solution to the Anglican Communion's malaise. He can also argue that he can now recognize both TEC and ACNA. He alone decides who to invite to the Lambeth Conference, and can circumvent the Anglican Communion Office and Canon Kenneth Kearon who has sworn eternal fealty to TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada and would never recognize ACNA if his job depended on it. (He needs TEC money to keep ACC afloat).
The General Synod is not in any way beholden to the ACC and can do as it likes. It could even, if it chose, reduce its financial contribution to ACC and ACO. If the Synod debates and passes the motion next February or next July, Kearon can think or say what he likes, it will not affect anything. The determination of who is or is not in communion with the CofE is a joint decision for the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who would find it difficult to refuse a Synod resolution. If ACNA is in then TEC may even be shown the door.
The truth is the ACC has become irrelevant following Jamaica and the debacle over Resolution 4. The vast majority of the CofE do not know what the ACC is, let alone cares. Churchgoers do not elect their ACC "representatives" they are chosen by the national church. Therefore ACC approval is something of an irrelevance. From now on one can expect that province by province will make its own decision. If the great bulk of the Communion declares itself to be in communion with ACNA, the ACC will have to fall in line.
At a deeper level, if ACNA is approved of by the Church of England, then it is not only extreme embarrassment for The Episcopal Church, but also evidence before American courts that TEC is no longer the exclusive holder of the Anglican badge.
The implications for the Dennis Canon are enormous. TEC now bills itself as a hierarchical church. It will have to live and die by that ecclesiastical sword. For those watching from the sidelines, nobody can seriously have expected the 2009 General Convention to hold back from overturning B033, the fig leaf of respectability behind which TEC has been sheltering since 2006, and in Anaheim it finally crossed the Rubicon.
TEC committed itself finally and irrevocably to LGBT "rights" (to all orders of ministry and same-sex blessings) ahead of any other consideration, including the express views of the Anglican Communion at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, and more recently the Windsor Report.
A last-minute plea from Archbishop Rowan Williams at the TEC Convention fell on deaf ears. TEC is already in a state of impaired communion with 22 out of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion. Its internal divisions over property have cost it hundreds of parishes and four dioceses, not to mention millions of dollars in legal fees.
Historically only the Archbishop of Canterbury, who invites the bishops to Lambeth Conferences, has the authority to determine who is in or out of communion, but the recent actions of TEC have forced several large provinces to take such a decision for themselves, thus diminishing the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
A large proportion of the Anglican Communion already out of communion with TEC, will soon declare an end to all relationships with it. This may well be re-echoed by The Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. We shall see.
VOL has begun to outline the growing attrition as a result of Anaheim, as remaining conservatives finally recognize the seriousness of the condition into which their church has been plunged by radical activists, who now have unassailable control of the denomination.
Even the most ardent of orthodox stayers now must ask how long they can endure TEC's leadership which has now taken possession of General Convention and the House of Bishops especially after Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori condemned personal faith in Christ as a Western heresy.
Any lingering doubts in the minds of the Global South that TEC is an apostate and heretical institution were swept aside in Anaheim this past week. GAFCON's Jerusalem Declaration http://tinyurl.com/ntzsfk is more prescient now than ever. When VOL inquired as to why we had heard nothing from archbishops like Akinola and Orombi the answer was simple, "look at the Jerusalem Declaration, what is there left to say?"
The newly installed ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan did opine in an open letter to the Anglican Communion saying, "For Anglican Christians, for the Instruments of Unity (Communion), for interdependent Provinces, for ordinary believers, there is a choice to be made. The choice is between two religions, two roads, two cities, two sets of conflicting values and behaviors." http://tinyurl.com/nq947w
Indeed.
GAFCON was set against the Lambeth Conference and Williams knew it. It was the elephant in the tent at Canterbury. He could not ignore 70% - 80% of the Communion.
But the divisions go still deeper. The onslaught against orthodox Anglicans in the USA and Canada has been of such concern to other provinces that U.S. and Canadian Anglicans have consecrated bishops to offer a place of refuge for orthodox Anglicans and to reach the U.S.'s 130 million unchurched Americans - the goal of the AMiA.
This would not have been necessary if TEC had truly allowed flying bishops with real authority.
Real estate seizures (based on the Dennis Canon), depositions of TEC's orthodox bishops and priests, along with the morphing of the presiding bishop from chairman of the HOB into a full -blown medieval prelate, have created a church founded not on the word of God, but legal fundamentalism, determined to purge itself of all opposition.
Of course it could be argued that had the Archbishop of Canterbury exercised his personal authority as head of the Communion, even though he has no formal legal status, things might have been different. But he didn't and wouldn't. He demurred and deferred holding out the carrot of compromise rather than the stick of expulsion from the communion.
At the end of the day he was not willing to alienate TEC. Even as late as the 2008 Lambeth Conference the invitations to TEC bishops could have been withdrawn, sending the clearest signal that TEC must change direction.
He didn't and wouldn't. The inaction of Rowan Williams has been monumental. Even as the turmoil in the Communion grew he prevaricated and dodged the hard answers he should have given. He lost a golden opportunity in New Orleans and at another historical moment following Dar es Salaam when he was armed with a resolution to hold TEC accountable.
The result is that provinces have determined for themselves who is or is not in communion with them. The GAFCON primates, as they have been dubbed, and who hold the bulk of Anglicans in their bosom are the genuine holders of the Anglican keys.
It is difficult to see how the Archbishop or his office can ever recover the authority it once held. He has alienated his authority and has no one to blame but himself.
A meeting of the Anglican primates at Lambeth Palace preceded the consecration of homogenital bishop Gene Robinson in 2003. At that time Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold was a signatory of a letter urging TEC not to proceed. He nevertheless returned to the U.S. and personally presided at the service, telling everyone that it was not his decision, but that of the church and that he could do nothing about it. He made a mockery of both the statement and Williams himself.
Williams took it lying down.
A wave of protests followed in the U.S. sparking yet more litigation amid dissenters and growing concern elsewhere in the Anglican Communion for the orthodoxy of TEC and for the pastoral care of conservatives within it.
Little was said and nothing was done by Lambeth Palace.
At each subsequent Primates' meeting when orthodox archbishops urged Williams to act, he did nothing, using the language of "I have no power." Worse, Williams continued to protect TEC by doing as little as possible to respond to the concerns of the primates. The primates' meeting was also finally downgraded by Williams who prevented it from meeting as it had done previously.
The 2008 Lambeth Conference saw TEC bring a large contingent of bishops (even though it has only ASA 700,000 Episcopalians) accompanied by numerous activists including the uninvited Gene Robinson and a transsexual priest from the Diocese of Massachusetts.
Williams had to come up with a strategy to hold it all together. He called it "indaba" a process of candid conversation that resolved nothing. It is now being promoted around the Communion as a means of doing business. Indaba has now transmogrified into ubuntu - "I in you and you in me" but this has neither united nor provided the healing balm the Communion needs.
Williams "Affirming Catholicism", supported by the then Scottish primus, former bishop Richard Holloway, as well as a gaggle of English sympathizers and TEC's Frank Griswold has been the ABC's vision for the future of the Anglican Communion. It has flat out failed. The attempt has produced nothing but despair, lamentation and alienation for orthodox Anglicans.
The growing acceptance of women priests in many provinces has further alienated Anglo-Catholics from mainstream Anglicanism. A number of evangelicals believe that making women's ordination mandatory rather than voluntary in TEC and now the CofE has further alienated and angered broad-minded Anglicans. ACNA is demonstrating that both views can live side by side in harmony. The actions of the TEC making women's ordination mandatory virtually guaranteed that they would walk away, and three dioceses have recently done so.
Nonetheless, homosexuality, a salvation issue, remains the lightning rod problem driving evangelical Anglicans out of TEC. A theology of morality impacting Christology and denies the authority of scripture is a bridge too far. Revisionists have liberalized and relativized clear biblical prohibitions at great cost to themselves and before a watching world.
While the scriptural evidence for excluding women from holy orders contains a number of possible ambiguities: no such ambiguity exists with respect to homosexuality, as Pittsburgh Professor Robert Gagnon has so thoroughly demonstrated.
The recent actions by TEC in Anaheim and Jefferts Schori's statements about salvation only vindicate the formation of a new Anglican province in North America. ACNA has garnered the support of the largest Anglican provinces in the communion further alienating Williams who gave TEC his tacit support in Anaheim. Furthermore 40 million Evangelical Anglicans in the Global South found Schori's remarks shallow and theologically offensive.
What is happening is that Williams and the Anglican Consultative Council are simply being bypassed by orthodox Anglicans. GAFCON, ACNA and FCA are simply ignoring the ABC and ACC by going around them to form their own more perfect union and grow the church. Meanwhile, Western pan-Anglicanism slowly withers and dies. Williams' pleas for restraint in Anaheim were blown off like so much Disneyland hype.
On his return to England, for the meeting of the General Synod in York, he was in constant communication with TEC leaders, who delivered the bad news as it happened.
It was reported that on the final day of the Synod he was reduced to feebly hoping that the bishops of TEC would hold the line, despite the overwhelming vote in the House of Deputies. It never happened. On the final day of GC2009 the House of Deputies voted 2 to 1 to pass Resolution C056 allowing rites for same sex unions to be official dogma, even though the Presiding Bishop wrote (not once but twice) that the actions of GC2009 were descriptive not proscriptive. No one with half a brain believes that for a moment.
At the same time, members of the CofE General Synod were flocking to sign a private member's motion calling for the Church of England to be in communion with ACNA; and asking hard questions about the Church of England's relationship with the Church of Sweden, which is about to authorize same gender marriages by its clergy. The biggest bombshell, however, was the announcement by Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham that the ACNA Canons and Constitution have already been laid before the English House of Bishops to be debated in September.
Williams might have hoped for a quieter life following the retirement of conservative bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, to whom he bade a somewhat ungenerous farewell at the end of the Synod, but worse was to come: the endorsement of gay ordinations and of rites for same-gender unions by the TEC House of Bishops produced in short order a ringing denunciation in the Times newspaper by the Bishop of Durham and a matching statement by his liberal evangelical Fulcrum organization, which has hitherto sat carefully on the fence on such issues.
So far there has been silence from Lambeth Palace, presumably a stunned silence. Wright is not only the chief author of the Windsor Report, and a proponent of the ill-fated Covenant which was supposed to draw the Communion back together, but is a leading voice among liberal evangelicals in England. They are large in number and influential in the councils of the Church, and have hitherto been strongly critical of their more conservative counterparts who have supported GAFCON, FCA and ACNA. Williams now faces the prospect of the whole evangelical wing united in condemnation of the Affirming Catholic agenda which he has sought to promote for the last fifteen years."
Williams has nowhere else to look for support. Half of the Anglo-Catholic movement, to which he once belonged, left the Church of England over women priests in 1993. Affirming Catholics enjoyed a period of dominance having supplanted conservative Catholics, and for a while almost every new bishop appointed wore the badge. But once women priests were a fact of life much of the raison d'être of Affirming Catholicism was dissipated, and the movement has lost momentum, so much so that its Scottish branch recently closed for lack of support.
What is most troubling for Williams is that English ordination candidates these days are firmly Evangelical. Congregations and dioceses are asking for Evangelical bishops, and many have been appointed, with every indication that this will be the trend for the foreseeable future. There are 25 evangelical bishops in the HoB and that number seems only to be growing. Conservative Catholics, and much of the mainstream, have disappeared from the ordination process.
Williams' friends in the HoB are steadily retiring, leaving him increasingly isolated in a church which respects his academic credentials, but is less certain of his agenda, and left wondering about his leadership in a time of such crisis.
Williams is being seen more and more as a brilliant fool. Nobody any longer believes in the strategies which have been proposed to resolve the North American crisis. The Instruments of Unity, the Panel of Reference, the Pastoral Visitors, the ACC, the ACO, the Windsor Report, the Covenant, Indaba and Ubuntu are all dead in the water. They have not even delayed, let alone arrested the momentum of TEC towards the edge of the cliff.
The time has come for Williams himself to choose. Will he heed at last the calls of the global south for an Anglicanism which is faithful to scripture? Will he act against the remaining liberal voices in the Church of England who aim to see TEC replicated in the mother church? Will he recognize ACNA as a province in communion with him? Will he work with the new Evangelical bishops in his own provinces who have already concluded that the old order is at an end and that the Anglican Communion must be a Communion of churches in doctrinal, not structural agreement with one another? Will he heed the calls to withdraw recognition of ministers ordained in TEC and instead to recognize ACNA?
His options grow fewer by the day. If he stays silent in Lambeth Palace he will be seen as acquiescing to the left. If he believes the letters put out by Jefferts Schori to himself and to the wider Anglican Communion that nothing really changed at GC2009 he is deluding himself. No one in the Global South is buying the snake oil Jefferts Schori is selling. The scandals, lawsuits and the hemorrhaging of members from TEC will not suddenly cease because of the actions of GC2009.
Will he devise yet more convoluted stratagems designed to pretend that the discussion continues, knowing in his heart of hearts that his master plan for Anglicanism is now in ruins?
It is a lonely position for Williams to occupy. For Williams, his own time came and is now gone. There is no retrieving it. His Affirming Catholicism has failed as it was bound to from the very beginning, for it failed to take into account the great majority of the Anglican Communion which remains committed to the authority, not of an archbishops, or lawyers, or General Conventions, but of something infinitely greater: Holy Scripture.
END
A Message from Bishop David Anderson
Beloved in Christ,
Repercussions from the Episcopal Church (TEC) General Convention in Anaheim, California continue to reverberate around the USA and the world. Any analysis of TEC's actions requires a "new think" dictionary so that one can understand what they say versus what they mean. When they say "generous pastoral care" or "generous pastoral response" for example, it doesn't necessarily mean generosity which is extended to everyone (unless we include "generous legal persecution" as an element of said generosity).
When reading material from the dominant revisionist side of TEC, constantly ask yourself what they mean by these new words and word structures that they are coining-they are almost never what the plain English meaning would suggest. Regarding the passage of D025 which affirmed the church's intent to permit gay bishops, the TEC official news organ reported the next morning that the previous moratorium represented by B033 from 2006 was overturned. This accidental revelation of the truth by their own media was viewed with alarm by the political spinmeisters working with President of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson and Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, and the article was quickly followed the next day by assurances that although the words in D025 said that all orders of ministry would be open to all people inclusive of gay, lesbian, etc., it didn't overturn B033 which said that the church wouldn't ordain such to the episcopate. On which day was TEC telling the truth? Then the legislation was passed which authorized marriage/same-sex union rites to be done on a local diocesan level as part of a "generous pastoral response." All of this happens while the top leadership marginalizes the few orthodox bishops, clergy and laity left in TEC and stresses that TEC wants to be a part of the global Anglican Communion, but on their own terms.
Realizing that they had slapped Dr. Rowan Williams in the face with their actions after he had journeyed from London to Anaheim and made a special appeal not to make things more difficult, TEC leaders wrote to Dr. Williams explaining what they did and what they didn't actually do. A lie told often enough seems to gain a scintilla of truth in the ear that hears it repeatedly. TEC means to push ahead with its current heresies, false doctrines and aberrant practices, and find new ones to add, and yet demand that they be fully a part of the Anglican Communion. There is also a near-frantic concern among TEC leaders that the Anglican Communion in North America (ACNA) not be given any recognition by the Communion, as that will set up an equivalency that they can't live with.
One of the notable things about the General Convention was that there didn't seem to be nearly as many people there as in previous conventions. The exhibit hall had many empty stalls where no one had placed a booth. No one seemed to be walking the exhibit hall visiting the booths except other exhibitors and a few deputies and volunteers trying to gain relief from the meetings. The absence of the four dioceses that have left TEC and joined ACNA, and the people who might otherwise have been there to advocate for conservative causes was apparent. TEC members attributed the decline in participation to the economy. The American Anglican Council (AAC) did have a booth, and we monitored the committee meetings and prepared a daily briefing given at lunch each day. The AAC also had a daily orthodox Eucharist at the Doubletree Hotel, where its headquarters were set up. Orthodox bishops and priests still in TEC took turns as celebrant, preacher and Gospeller. Other orthodox exhibitors found their way over for Eucharist on many occasions, and this gave the faithful an opportunity to check in with each other and stay up to date on what was happening.
It must have seemed exhilarating to the revisionists to have little opposition and to realize that they now had the votes to pass just about anything they wanted. It does, however, signal a grave season for the orthodox Episcopal bishops and their people who are caught in a system that means to replace them with liberal heterodox bishops and priests at the first opportunity. Though some may have been promised security if they are loyal, that train may not go where they were told, and they need to have an alternative plan in hand. It is time for the Communion Partners and the ACNA to work together, and to work with the larger Anglican Communion in a more united way.
While we know that the issues which the Anglican Communion faces aren't ours alone, we are reminded of this with a request from a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) who reads our material. He asks if the orthodox Anglicans would pray for the upcoming (Aug 17-23) ELCA convention and the people in the parishes as they deal with the outcome of decisions made there. The ELCA is following in the path of The Episcopal Church and, it seems, will experience the same hurts and struggles that Anglicans have known over the last 6 years.
Two documents on sexuality issues will be considered at the 2009 ELCA assembly. One is a proposed social statement, "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust." Social statements are theological and teaching documents that form the basis for policy in the ELCA. The other, a "Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies," asks the assembly to consider a process to change ministry policies to make it possible for Lutherans who are in "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gendered relationships" to serve as ELCA associates in ministry, deaconesses, diaconal ministers and ordained ministers. Both documents were mandated by previous church-wide assemblies. Sounds like things the Episcopalians have already had to endure.
According to the committee report, 37 synods sent memorials calling for the church-wide assembly to adopt the proposed social statement, and five called for its rejection. The report listed 34 synods that sent memorials favoring adoption of the ministry recommendation, and 12 called for rejection of the recommendation. Some synods suggested amendments to one or both documents.
Let's remember to pray for our Lutheran Christian brothers and sisters as they go through the same refiner's fire that we are in, and pray that the orthodox will emerge faithful and strong.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
_________________________
Repercussions from the Episcopal Church (TEC) General Convention in Anaheim, California continue to reverberate around the USA and the world. Any analysis of TEC's actions requires a "new think" dictionary so that one can understand what they say versus what they mean. When they say "generous pastoral care" or "generous pastoral response" for example, it doesn't necessarily mean generosity which is extended to everyone (unless we include "generous legal persecution" as an element of said generosity).
When reading material from the dominant revisionist side of TEC, constantly ask yourself what they mean by these new words and word structures that they are coining-they are almost never what the plain English meaning would suggest. Regarding the passage of D025 which affirmed the church's intent to permit gay bishops, the TEC official news organ reported the next morning that the previous moratorium represented by B033 from 2006 was overturned. This accidental revelation of the truth by their own media was viewed with alarm by the political spinmeisters working with President of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson and Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, and the article was quickly followed the next day by assurances that although the words in D025 said that all orders of ministry would be open to all people inclusive of gay, lesbian, etc., it didn't overturn B033 which said that the church wouldn't ordain such to the episcopate. On which day was TEC telling the truth? Then the legislation was passed which authorized marriage/same-sex union rites to be done on a local diocesan level as part of a "generous pastoral response." All of this happens while the top leadership marginalizes the few orthodox bishops, clergy and laity left in TEC and stresses that TEC wants to be a part of the global Anglican Communion, but on their own terms.
Realizing that they had slapped Dr. Rowan Williams in the face with their actions after he had journeyed from London to Anaheim and made a special appeal not to make things more difficult, TEC leaders wrote to Dr. Williams explaining what they did and what they didn't actually do. A lie told often enough seems to gain a scintilla of truth in the ear that hears it repeatedly. TEC means to push ahead with its current heresies, false doctrines and aberrant practices, and find new ones to add, and yet demand that they be fully a part of the Anglican Communion. There is also a near-frantic concern among TEC leaders that the Anglican Communion in North America (ACNA) not be given any recognition by the Communion, as that will set up an equivalency that they can't live with.
One of the notable things about the General Convention was that there didn't seem to be nearly as many people there as in previous conventions. The exhibit hall had many empty stalls where no one had placed a booth. No one seemed to be walking the exhibit hall visiting the booths except other exhibitors and a few deputies and volunteers trying to gain relief from the meetings. The absence of the four dioceses that have left TEC and joined ACNA, and the people who might otherwise have been there to advocate for conservative causes was apparent. TEC members attributed the decline in participation to the economy. The American Anglican Council (AAC) did have a booth, and we monitored the committee meetings and prepared a daily briefing given at lunch each day. The AAC also had a daily orthodox Eucharist at the Doubletree Hotel, where its headquarters were set up. Orthodox bishops and priests still in TEC took turns as celebrant, preacher and Gospeller. Other orthodox exhibitors found their way over for Eucharist on many occasions, and this gave the faithful an opportunity to check in with each other and stay up to date on what was happening.
It must have seemed exhilarating to the revisionists to have little opposition and to realize that they now had the votes to pass just about anything they wanted. It does, however, signal a grave season for the orthodox Episcopal bishops and their people who are caught in a system that means to replace them with liberal heterodox bishops and priests at the first opportunity. Though some may have been promised security if they are loyal, that train may not go where they were told, and they need to have an alternative plan in hand. It is time for the Communion Partners and the ACNA to work together, and to work with the larger Anglican Communion in a more united way.
While we know that the issues which the Anglican Communion faces aren't ours alone, we are reminded of this with a request from a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) who reads our material. He asks if the orthodox Anglicans would pray for the upcoming (Aug 17-23) ELCA convention and the people in the parishes as they deal with the outcome of decisions made there. The ELCA is following in the path of The Episcopal Church and, it seems, will experience the same hurts and struggles that Anglicans have known over the last 6 years.
Two documents on sexuality issues will be considered at the 2009 ELCA assembly. One is a proposed social statement, "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust." Social statements are theological and teaching documents that form the basis for policy in the ELCA. The other, a "Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies," asks the assembly to consider a process to change ministry policies to make it possible for Lutherans who are in "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gendered relationships" to serve as ELCA associates in ministry, deaconesses, diaconal ministers and ordained ministers. Both documents were mandated by previous church-wide assemblies. Sounds like things the Episcopalians have already had to endure.
According to the committee report, 37 synods sent memorials calling for the church-wide assembly to adopt the proposed social statement, and five called for its rejection. The report listed 34 synods that sent memorials favoring adoption of the ministry recommendation, and 12 called for rejection of the recommendation. Some synods suggested amendments to one or both documents.
Let's remember to pray for our Lutheran Christian brothers and sisters as they go through the same refiner's fire that we are in, and pray that the orthodox will emerge faithful and strong.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
_________________________
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
“It seems good to us and the Holy Spirit”: The “Us” of General Convention
From Covenant Communion:
by the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 4:11 am
The more sinful the church, the more that church is reducible to the descriptions of the social scientists, the more “merely” it functions just as any other organization…. So, the theological analysis that does indeed need to be done, should includes this question: which ecclesiology are we now to grasp after, one oriented to our sin or one oriented to our redemption?
Let us leave aside the substantive theological aspects of the recent Episcopal Church General Convention. They are important, of course. But I am interested here in the dynamics of decision-making that underlay the way things turned out. I am interested because these “transactional” aspects, as some call them, may tell us a lot about the future. And we are hearing a lot about these aspects from the Convention: it was surprisingly “respectful”, many have reported; it was engaged without “acrimony” and “contention”, and despite the momentous topics addressed, people were calm and relatively relaxed. All very different from past conventions, with their hand-wringing, protests, weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Where are all the passionate arguments?” many wondered, breathing a slightly uncomfortable sigh of relief. The explanations for the relative peace breaking out varied: some said that the traditionalists of TEC’ had all been “purged” or disappeared or were simply too exhausted and defeated to raise a ruckus; others said that the church had finally moved to a real “consensus” about previously contested matters of sexuality. “This is who we are!”, the Convention could finally say with some coherence.
The “purging” and the “consensus” explanations are probably both right to some degree. But it is a complicated overlap that merits some reflection. This is what I want to offer now. I have been doing some reading of late on the matter of how church councils “decide” things. And inevitably I have had to delve into some of the social scientific literature on related topics. There are two writers in particular who, I think, have something to say about this particular council we call the General Convention that has just met. And applying some of their broad insights can indeed, I suggest, help us to map the future a little bit.
Here, then, are some of the major elements of their thinking that may be pertinent, which I can lay out in the most generalized of ways.
The first thinker in question is Serge Moscovici, a well-known French social psychologist, who did some important experimental and theoretical work from the 1960’s through the 1980’s on “consensus” in organizations both small and large. (I am thinking here of his 1992/1994 book, written with Willem Doise, called Conflict and
Consensus: A General Theory of Collective Decisions.) One of Moscovici’s goals was to counter the then (and still) widespread presupposition that healthy group decision-making tends to “converge” towards the middle, leaving the extreme views of participants aside as the majority moves through discussion and compromise to a more central outlook. But one of the consequences of this postulate of moderated convergence, Moscovici argued, has been the tendency of group leadership to drive out extreme views, wary of their power to upset things. This can be done in many ways, through discouragement, disenfranchisement, shame, manipulation and so on. But it happens rather forcefully in many groups.
And the consequences of excluding “extreme” views, on the basis of some assumption that consensus represents a “moderated convergence”, Moscovici claims, have been generally disastrous on several counts. First, such exclusion tends to limit participation in decision-making altogether: more and more people “abstain” from participation, assuming that their views will not be heard in any case. This means that decisions once reached, while they appear to have few objections voiced against them, are only uncertainly representative of a broad consensus: who really knows what people agree with, if many say or do nothing at all? The corollary of abstention – something one sees even in broad democracies like the United States – is the concentration of decision-making in smaller and smaller hands. Moscovici calls this consolidation a form of “combination”, where smaller units of expertise “combine” in determining consensus. But no matter how competent these experts may be – experts in knowledge, in interest, in activist skills – their decision-making tendencies will be increasingly insulated from alternative views, with the end result of, shall we say, blindness in the face of complex problems. Ironically, the postulate of “moderated convergence” ends by establishing extremism at least in terms of wisdom and prudence. Political examples from the discernment and decision-making around Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs and so on have been widely studied on this matter: smart people, buffered from alternative views (because “extremist”), taking what turn out to be disastrous courses of action.
Moscovici himself, along with others, did experiments and collected data that demonstrated that the postulate of moderated convergence is in fact not the freest, and in his view healthiest, way of reaching consensus. Given relatively un-coerced or un-manipulated parameters of action, groups tend to reach consensus, not through lopping off extreme views and inching towards the middle through compromise. Rather, a relatively free decision-making process will engage in vital wrestling with extreme views, and that engagement will often end by coalescing around some version of an extreme view itself! In other words, as extreme and divergent views are permitted and deliberately engaged over time with freedom from constraint, people actually learn things and change their minds, and a more creative consensus emerges that tends to be more decisive, yet also more aware, in its understanding of what is at stake and what the risks and opportunities actually are. One of the main issues that comes from this kind of research is this: how organize decision-making so as to encourage this form of creative consensus? Leaving aside the theological aspects of this matter, the question is surely timely for churches!
The second thinker I have found helpful in reflecting on church councils is better known in the United States, and that is Albert O. Hirschman, economist and social scientist. One of Hirschman’s most popular books is called Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Published in 1970, the book has been revisited several times since, by Hirschman himself among others. The book’s argument is simple and elegant, but also complex in its implications. In general, Hirschman argues, the real or perceived “decline” in an organization’s quality can be identified and responded to in two ways: by leaving (“exit”) or by “voicing” criticism and reform. This is true with respect to an organization’s membership (e.g. employees) or by “consumers” of an organization’s goods. In real life, of course, “exit” is not always possible (imagine citizens of a closed and coercive society) or easy, and “voice” is not always clearly granted or used. Exit requires available alternatives, and voice requires available procedures. Furthermore, as these two elements exist along a spectrum, response itself can become subtle.
Hirschman, finally, adds a third element in his mix, and that is “loyalty”, a kind of internal psychological or cultural component that informs a participant’s understanding and use of available means of exit and voice. After all, if someone is utterly committed to an organization – say, a political party – “decline” itself will be read in certain ways that mitigate the utilization of available means of exit and voice.
Hirschman’s concepts could be used to argue for the appropriateness of “monopolies” in certain circumstances, e.g. public schools, on the basis of the need to maintain the “voiced” participation of citizens in generalized education, rather than diluting such education through easy exit and multiple choices that no longer offer contexts of accountability. But his categories are also obviously relevant to organizations like churches.
So now let us take some of these ideas and move backwards, as it were, from the recently concluded General Convention. It is obvious that there are fewer traditionalists within the ranks of General Convention deputations and within the House of Bishops. The proportional voting breakdowns on key resolutions regarding sexuality point this out. Yet it is also the case that even here – within the 3-1 proportions of progressive to traditionalist groups – the “voicing” of objections was even less prominent, and the character of “abstention” more looming. At one point in the debate, it was reported, a liberal bishop said he was “uneasy” that there were so few conservatives coming up to the mike. What can account for this?
Most obviously, we know that traditionalists have left the Episcopal Church. But do we actually know how many? And, do we know whether the delegates to General Convention proportionately “represent” the actual viewpoints of TEC’s broader membership? How would we know? It would appear that TEC’s obvious and rather significant loss of membership is a sign of exit. Is the exit a sign of loss of “voice” as well? In which case, we are dealing, not with something that has happened decisively at the 2009 General Convention, but of something that has been happening over the course of several years: perceived decline in the church, voiced dissent, frustration, abstention, exit, and the disappearance of one set of “extreme views”.
We can try to test this possibility. The largest recent “exits” from TEC, obviously, came after the 2003 Convention. Yet why did so many choose to leave at that time rather than stay as “dissident reformers” who raised their voices against what they perceived to be the “decline” of TEC? According to Hirschman’s theory, there are several factors working together: the perceived loss of voice, the availability of alternatives through exit, and a weakened set of constraining loyalties. If this is so, it points us back further, then, perhaps to the formation of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), in 2000. It was at this time, after all, that a clear set of alternatives for exit was established, according to a model that was then followed after 2003: foreign jurisdictions taking departing clergy, congregations, and finally dioceses under their wing, and so somehow maintaining “Anglican Communion” identity (unlike earlier “continuing churches” of “exiting” members). But what of voice and loyalty?
Here we come to the most interesting aspect of this history. Clearly traditionalist voices were losing ground for some time before 2000. Why else would departures have been organized? At the same time, however, ties of loyalty among traditionalists to TEC were also being weakened. How and when did this happen? I would identify two aspects – education and mission – that focus the matter in the 1970’s. (I might also point to matters of Prayer Book revision and woman’s ordination, but I am less convinced that the numbers would bear these two aspects out as being of the same importance.) The founding of Trinity School for Ministry in 1976, with Alfred Stanway as its first dean, represents just this focus. The seminary was started, as we know, out of a perceived need to regain a more “orthodox’ evangelical educational foothold in the Episcopal Church, and also to nourish and renewed missionary commitment and skill set.
Both of these elements, the founders believed, were in “decline” within TEC. But this perception arose from an orientation that had been formed very explicitly by the Charismatic-Evangelical movement that had grown up in the earlier part of the decade.
I believe that a polarizing dynamic took root just at this point in the church, and took root decisively. When I began work in 1981 as an appointed missionary of the Episcopal Church (working in Burundi), I entered a world, organized from the national offices at 815 Second Avenue, New York, that was deeply suspicious of Charismatic-Evangelicals. I know this, because at the time I shared the suspicion and engaged the dynamics of that suspicion! But I was experiencing something that had already embedded itself in the outlook of church leaders. TEC had shrunk its missionary support enormously by this time, a process that began in the 1960’s, for a host of ideological, not to mention simple practical reasons. Although one ought rightly to look at the theological shifts of the church that began in the 1950’s and earlier, the dynamics of missionary and educational struggle only emerged in the 1970’s. And this seems to me to be the cross-roads of decision-making for our church. The question I would then ask is Moscovici’s: what were the dynamics of consensus that took over then, such that abstention and exit became the major choices adopted by traditionalists within the church?
What I would suggest is the following. The advent of the Charismatic-Evangelical revival within the Episcopal Church, which ended by focusing upon education and mission, was something new to the church. (“Evangelicalism” among Episcopalians, insofar as it existed at all, meant something quite different before the 1970’s.) The Charismatic-Evangelical movement represented an “extreme” set of views, that came into conflict with both earlier “traditional’ Episcopal outlooks, but also with the liberal drift in theological education and mission that was already a strong current within the church. And, quite frankly, the decision-making structures of the church did not know what to do with this movement. It was, as George Sumner has put it, a new “Methodist moment” for Anglicanism especially in North America. And nothing was learned from the past! Consciously or unconsciously, the executive network of the Eipscopal Church sought to exclude the role of Charismatic-Evangelicals within the ordering centers of power, especially the executive power of the national headquarters this contrasts with the Church of England).
At the same time, the Charismatic-Evangelical movement itself shifted more and more in a broader cultural evangelical direction, flourished in many areas, and attracted new members whose “loyalty” to the specifically “Episcopal Church” was thin. Indeed, ecclesial loyalty in general began to thin out in the 1970’s and 1980’s, in all sectors of TEC’s membership, as the more consumerist approach to spiritual commitment (or “fulfillment”) became embedded in American religious culture. But the point is this: the advent of the sexuality debate within TEC arrived within a decision-making system in which two realities were now well-established. First, what had were viewed as “conservative” viewpoints were already colored by the suspicions of extremism (the common epithetic of conservatives as “fundamentalists” goes back to the 1970’s and has gained steam) and were therefore held at bay. Having discussions in the church always foundered on this prejudice. And second, thin ecclesial loyalties were ready for alternate choices as they became available. From 2000 on, this becomes the recipe for exit by traditionalists, and “combination” consensus by an insular progressive elite.
All of this is conjecture, I realize. And none of it is particularly relevant to our current situation except insofar as it points to the future. Here Moscovici’s theories lay out a path of somewhat discouraging potential. As traditionalists leave TEC, consensus decision-making will prove more and more devoid of accountable divergent thinking, and the decisions made will become less and less informed and representative. This spells danger and self-destruction for the Episcopal Church. Alas, though, the same is true for the exiting groups. From the perspective of decision-making, the loss of divergent thinking will affect traditionalists who leave TEC as negatively in their own sphere as the liberal church they have left behind: alternative views will be suspect as “extreme” and councils “buffered” from their effects; small groups of decision-makers will prevail over the engagement of broad participation; and, just as importantly, the existence of multiple and available choices will spur exit over loyalty. American Anglicanism has never appeared so vulnerable as now (Canada is just a few steps behind).
A warning, then, a warning to all world Anglicans! All you who pass by! Do not touch the American disease! Too many choices, too many fears, insecurities and enmities, too few loyalties. The Anglican Communion cannot turn into an enclave. That is not what Christian communion embodies. Yet, should it simply split apart, it will become a set of enclaves, spreading their little seeds of insularity.
Of course, I have been deliberately avoiding any theological analysis here. Are churches merely social organizations, to be described according to (debatable) transactional models? What of God’s purposes and the promises of Christ? What of the power of the Holy Spirit? What of the Way, the Truth, and the Life as absolutely given? My guess is that the more sinful the church, the more that church is reducible to the descriptions of the social scientists, the more “merely” it functions just as any other organization. That is my guess. But sin is forgivable, and grace is given. So, the theological analysis that does indeed need to be done, should includes this question: which ecclesiology are we now to grasp after, one oriented to our sin or one oriented to our redemption? Or is it even possible to distinguish the two any longer?
by the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 4:11 am
The more sinful the church, the more that church is reducible to the descriptions of the social scientists, the more “merely” it functions just as any other organization…. So, the theological analysis that does indeed need to be done, should includes this question: which ecclesiology are we now to grasp after, one oriented to our sin or one oriented to our redemption?
Let us leave aside the substantive theological aspects of the recent Episcopal Church General Convention. They are important, of course. But I am interested here in the dynamics of decision-making that underlay the way things turned out. I am interested because these “transactional” aspects, as some call them, may tell us a lot about the future. And we are hearing a lot about these aspects from the Convention: it was surprisingly “respectful”, many have reported; it was engaged without “acrimony” and “contention”, and despite the momentous topics addressed, people were calm and relatively relaxed. All very different from past conventions, with their hand-wringing, protests, weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Where are all the passionate arguments?” many wondered, breathing a slightly uncomfortable sigh of relief. The explanations for the relative peace breaking out varied: some said that the traditionalists of TEC’ had all been “purged” or disappeared or were simply too exhausted and defeated to raise a ruckus; others said that the church had finally moved to a real “consensus” about previously contested matters of sexuality. “This is who we are!”, the Convention could finally say with some coherence.
The “purging” and the “consensus” explanations are probably both right to some degree. But it is a complicated overlap that merits some reflection. This is what I want to offer now. I have been doing some reading of late on the matter of how church councils “decide” things. And inevitably I have had to delve into some of the social scientific literature on related topics. There are two writers in particular who, I think, have something to say about this particular council we call the General Convention that has just met. And applying some of their broad insights can indeed, I suggest, help us to map the future a little bit.
Here, then, are some of the major elements of their thinking that may be pertinent, which I can lay out in the most generalized of ways.
The first thinker in question is Serge Moscovici, a well-known French social psychologist, who did some important experimental and theoretical work from the 1960’s through the 1980’s on “consensus” in organizations both small and large. (I am thinking here of his 1992/1994 book, written with Willem Doise, called Conflict and
Consensus: A General Theory of Collective Decisions.) One of Moscovici’s goals was to counter the then (and still) widespread presupposition that healthy group decision-making tends to “converge” towards the middle, leaving the extreme views of participants aside as the majority moves through discussion and compromise to a more central outlook. But one of the consequences of this postulate of moderated convergence, Moscovici argued, has been the tendency of group leadership to drive out extreme views, wary of their power to upset things. This can be done in many ways, through discouragement, disenfranchisement, shame, manipulation and so on. But it happens rather forcefully in many groups.
And the consequences of excluding “extreme” views, on the basis of some assumption that consensus represents a “moderated convergence”, Moscovici claims, have been generally disastrous on several counts. First, such exclusion tends to limit participation in decision-making altogether: more and more people “abstain” from participation, assuming that their views will not be heard in any case. This means that decisions once reached, while they appear to have few objections voiced against them, are only uncertainly representative of a broad consensus: who really knows what people agree with, if many say or do nothing at all? The corollary of abstention – something one sees even in broad democracies like the United States – is the concentration of decision-making in smaller and smaller hands. Moscovici calls this consolidation a form of “combination”, where smaller units of expertise “combine” in determining consensus. But no matter how competent these experts may be – experts in knowledge, in interest, in activist skills – their decision-making tendencies will be increasingly insulated from alternative views, with the end result of, shall we say, blindness in the face of complex problems. Ironically, the postulate of “moderated convergence” ends by establishing extremism at least in terms of wisdom and prudence. Political examples from the discernment and decision-making around Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs and so on have been widely studied on this matter: smart people, buffered from alternative views (because “extremist”), taking what turn out to be disastrous courses of action.
Moscovici himself, along with others, did experiments and collected data that demonstrated that the postulate of moderated convergence is in fact not the freest, and in his view healthiest, way of reaching consensus. Given relatively un-coerced or un-manipulated parameters of action, groups tend to reach consensus, not through lopping off extreme views and inching towards the middle through compromise. Rather, a relatively free decision-making process will engage in vital wrestling with extreme views, and that engagement will often end by coalescing around some version of an extreme view itself! In other words, as extreme and divergent views are permitted and deliberately engaged over time with freedom from constraint, people actually learn things and change their minds, and a more creative consensus emerges that tends to be more decisive, yet also more aware, in its understanding of what is at stake and what the risks and opportunities actually are. One of the main issues that comes from this kind of research is this: how organize decision-making so as to encourage this form of creative consensus? Leaving aside the theological aspects of this matter, the question is surely timely for churches!
The second thinker I have found helpful in reflecting on church councils is better known in the United States, and that is Albert O. Hirschman, economist and social scientist. One of Hirschman’s most popular books is called Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Published in 1970, the book has been revisited several times since, by Hirschman himself among others. The book’s argument is simple and elegant, but also complex in its implications. In general, Hirschman argues, the real or perceived “decline” in an organization’s quality can be identified and responded to in two ways: by leaving (“exit”) or by “voicing” criticism and reform. This is true with respect to an organization’s membership (e.g. employees) or by “consumers” of an organization’s goods. In real life, of course, “exit” is not always possible (imagine citizens of a closed and coercive society) or easy, and “voice” is not always clearly granted or used. Exit requires available alternatives, and voice requires available procedures. Furthermore, as these two elements exist along a spectrum, response itself can become subtle.
Hirschman, finally, adds a third element in his mix, and that is “loyalty”, a kind of internal psychological or cultural component that informs a participant’s understanding and use of available means of exit and voice. After all, if someone is utterly committed to an organization – say, a political party – “decline” itself will be read in certain ways that mitigate the utilization of available means of exit and voice.
Hirschman’s concepts could be used to argue for the appropriateness of “monopolies” in certain circumstances, e.g. public schools, on the basis of the need to maintain the “voiced” participation of citizens in generalized education, rather than diluting such education through easy exit and multiple choices that no longer offer contexts of accountability. But his categories are also obviously relevant to organizations like churches.
So now let us take some of these ideas and move backwards, as it were, from the recently concluded General Convention. It is obvious that there are fewer traditionalists within the ranks of General Convention deputations and within the House of Bishops. The proportional voting breakdowns on key resolutions regarding sexuality point this out. Yet it is also the case that even here – within the 3-1 proportions of progressive to traditionalist groups – the “voicing” of objections was even less prominent, and the character of “abstention” more looming. At one point in the debate, it was reported, a liberal bishop said he was “uneasy” that there were so few conservatives coming up to the mike. What can account for this?
Most obviously, we know that traditionalists have left the Episcopal Church. But do we actually know how many? And, do we know whether the delegates to General Convention proportionately “represent” the actual viewpoints of TEC’s broader membership? How would we know? It would appear that TEC’s obvious and rather significant loss of membership is a sign of exit. Is the exit a sign of loss of “voice” as well? In which case, we are dealing, not with something that has happened decisively at the 2009 General Convention, but of something that has been happening over the course of several years: perceived decline in the church, voiced dissent, frustration, abstention, exit, and the disappearance of one set of “extreme views”.
We can try to test this possibility. The largest recent “exits” from TEC, obviously, came after the 2003 Convention. Yet why did so many choose to leave at that time rather than stay as “dissident reformers” who raised their voices against what they perceived to be the “decline” of TEC? According to Hirschman’s theory, there are several factors working together: the perceived loss of voice, the availability of alternatives through exit, and a weakened set of constraining loyalties. If this is so, it points us back further, then, perhaps to the formation of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), in 2000. It was at this time, after all, that a clear set of alternatives for exit was established, according to a model that was then followed after 2003: foreign jurisdictions taking departing clergy, congregations, and finally dioceses under their wing, and so somehow maintaining “Anglican Communion” identity (unlike earlier “continuing churches” of “exiting” members). But what of voice and loyalty?
Here we come to the most interesting aspect of this history. Clearly traditionalist voices were losing ground for some time before 2000. Why else would departures have been organized? At the same time, however, ties of loyalty among traditionalists to TEC were also being weakened. How and when did this happen? I would identify two aspects – education and mission – that focus the matter in the 1970’s. (I might also point to matters of Prayer Book revision and woman’s ordination, but I am less convinced that the numbers would bear these two aspects out as being of the same importance.) The founding of Trinity School for Ministry in 1976, with Alfred Stanway as its first dean, represents just this focus. The seminary was started, as we know, out of a perceived need to regain a more “orthodox’ evangelical educational foothold in the Episcopal Church, and also to nourish and renewed missionary commitment and skill set.
Both of these elements, the founders believed, were in “decline” within TEC. But this perception arose from an orientation that had been formed very explicitly by the Charismatic-Evangelical movement that had grown up in the earlier part of the decade.
I believe that a polarizing dynamic took root just at this point in the church, and took root decisively. When I began work in 1981 as an appointed missionary of the Episcopal Church (working in Burundi), I entered a world, organized from the national offices at 815 Second Avenue, New York, that was deeply suspicious of Charismatic-Evangelicals. I know this, because at the time I shared the suspicion and engaged the dynamics of that suspicion! But I was experiencing something that had already embedded itself in the outlook of church leaders. TEC had shrunk its missionary support enormously by this time, a process that began in the 1960’s, for a host of ideological, not to mention simple practical reasons. Although one ought rightly to look at the theological shifts of the church that began in the 1950’s and earlier, the dynamics of missionary and educational struggle only emerged in the 1970’s. And this seems to me to be the cross-roads of decision-making for our church. The question I would then ask is Moscovici’s: what were the dynamics of consensus that took over then, such that abstention and exit became the major choices adopted by traditionalists within the church?
What I would suggest is the following. The advent of the Charismatic-Evangelical revival within the Episcopal Church, which ended by focusing upon education and mission, was something new to the church. (“Evangelicalism” among Episcopalians, insofar as it existed at all, meant something quite different before the 1970’s.) The Charismatic-Evangelical movement represented an “extreme” set of views, that came into conflict with both earlier “traditional’ Episcopal outlooks, but also with the liberal drift in theological education and mission that was already a strong current within the church. And, quite frankly, the decision-making structures of the church did not know what to do with this movement. It was, as George Sumner has put it, a new “Methodist moment” for Anglicanism especially in North America. And nothing was learned from the past! Consciously or unconsciously, the executive network of the Eipscopal Church sought to exclude the role of Charismatic-Evangelicals within the ordering centers of power, especially the executive power of the national headquarters this contrasts with the Church of England).
At the same time, the Charismatic-Evangelical movement itself shifted more and more in a broader cultural evangelical direction, flourished in many areas, and attracted new members whose “loyalty” to the specifically “Episcopal Church” was thin. Indeed, ecclesial loyalty in general began to thin out in the 1970’s and 1980’s, in all sectors of TEC’s membership, as the more consumerist approach to spiritual commitment (or “fulfillment”) became embedded in American religious culture. But the point is this: the advent of the sexuality debate within TEC arrived within a decision-making system in which two realities were now well-established. First, what had were viewed as “conservative” viewpoints were already colored by the suspicions of extremism (the common epithetic of conservatives as “fundamentalists” goes back to the 1970’s and has gained steam) and were therefore held at bay. Having discussions in the church always foundered on this prejudice. And second, thin ecclesial loyalties were ready for alternate choices as they became available. From 2000 on, this becomes the recipe for exit by traditionalists, and “combination” consensus by an insular progressive elite.
All of this is conjecture, I realize. And none of it is particularly relevant to our current situation except insofar as it points to the future. Here Moscovici’s theories lay out a path of somewhat discouraging potential. As traditionalists leave TEC, consensus decision-making will prove more and more devoid of accountable divergent thinking, and the decisions made will become less and less informed and representative. This spells danger and self-destruction for the Episcopal Church. Alas, though, the same is true for the exiting groups. From the perspective of decision-making, the loss of divergent thinking will affect traditionalists who leave TEC as negatively in their own sphere as the liberal church they have left behind: alternative views will be suspect as “extreme” and councils “buffered” from their effects; small groups of decision-makers will prevail over the engagement of broad participation; and, just as importantly, the existence of multiple and available choices will spur exit over loyalty. American Anglicanism has never appeared so vulnerable as now (Canada is just a few steps behind).
A warning, then, a warning to all world Anglicans! All you who pass by! Do not touch the American disease! Too many choices, too many fears, insecurities and enmities, too few loyalties. The Anglican Communion cannot turn into an enclave. That is not what Christian communion embodies. Yet, should it simply split apart, it will become a set of enclaves, spreading their little seeds of insularity.
Of course, I have been deliberately avoiding any theological analysis here. Are churches merely social organizations, to be described according to (debatable) transactional models? What of God’s purposes and the promises of Christ? What of the power of the Holy Spirit? What of the Way, the Truth, and the Life as absolutely given? My guess is that the more sinful the church, the more that church is reducible to the descriptions of the social scientists, the more “merely” it functions just as any other organization. That is my guess. But sin is forgivable, and grace is given. So, the theological analysis that does indeed need to be done, should includes this question: which ecclesiology are we now to grasp after, one oriented to our sin or one oriented to our redemption? Or is it even possible to distinguish the two any longer?
Episcopal Church erred on marriage definition, say Cathedral Dean and Rector
Via VirtueOnline:
Letters to the Editor
The Birmingham News
http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2009/07/episcopal_church_erred_on_marr.html
July 21, 2009
We believe the Episcopal Church, at its most recent General Convention concluded on July 17, has departed from the teachings of historic Christianity and the consistent teaching of Holy Scripture by redefining marriage as a covenant between two committed persons regardless of gender and by opening its ordained ministry to practicing homosexuals. These actions will "tear the fabric of the Anglican Communion at its deepest level" and distance Episcopal congregations from the larger body of Christ.
Though we deeply sympathize with those who may wrestle with issues of human sexuality, and though we sincerely believe we are all equally sinful before God, we must disavow the General Convention's actions. We remain convinced the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman as defined in Holy Scripture is the standard set forth by God. Likewise, we believe the ordained ministry is to be confined to those who submit and adhere to this standard.
As Christian ministers in Birmingham, we pledge to do our part in sharing the word of God and the Christian hope to the world around us. We promise to continually repent of our own sins and invite any and all, regardless of sexual orientation, to join us in the worship of God the Father, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit who lifts us from our human condition and sets us free.
We can be better people, in and through Christ. This is our mission, and we will not be distracted.
Frank Limehouse III Dean,
The Cathedral Church of the Advent
Birmingham
Richmond Webster Rector,
Saint Luke's Episcopal Church
Birmingham
Letters to the Editor
The Birmingham News
http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2009/07/episcopal_church_erred_on_marr.html
July 21, 2009
We believe the Episcopal Church, at its most recent General Convention concluded on July 17, has departed from the teachings of historic Christianity and the consistent teaching of Holy Scripture by redefining marriage as a covenant between two committed persons regardless of gender and by opening its ordained ministry to practicing homosexuals. These actions will "tear the fabric of the Anglican Communion at its deepest level" and distance Episcopal congregations from the larger body of Christ.
Though we deeply sympathize with those who may wrestle with issues of human sexuality, and though we sincerely believe we are all equally sinful before God, we must disavow the General Convention's actions. We remain convinced the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman as defined in Holy Scripture is the standard set forth by God. Likewise, we believe the ordained ministry is to be confined to those who submit and adhere to this standard.
As Christian ministers in Birmingham, we pledge to do our part in sharing the word of God and the Christian hope to the world around us. We promise to continually repent of our own sins and invite any and all, regardless of sexual orientation, to join us in the worship of God the Father, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit who lifts us from our human condition and sets us free.
We can be better people, in and through Christ. This is our mission, and we will not be distracted.
Frank Limehouse III Dean,
The Cathedral Church of the Advent
Birmingham
Richmond Webster Rector,
Saint Luke's Episcopal Church
Birmingham
ENGLAND: CofE 'could back rebel US Church
Via VirtueOnline:
By Trevor Timpson
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8149812.stm
July 15, 2009
The lifting of a temporary ban on appointing gay bishops in the US could boost moves in the Church of England to back breakaway American Anglicans, a UK campaigner claims.
Canon Chris Sugden, a leader of the newly-launched UK section of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), told the BBC News website Monday's decision by the Episcopal Church to drop the ban was "extremely worrying and serious".
He said it could increase support for a motion at the Church of England's General Synod to declare fellowship with the breakaway Anglican Church of North America (ACNA).
The ACNA is a union of traditionalist groups which split from the Episcopal Church following the appointment of an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in New Hampshire.
At the same time, Canon Sugden complains, advocates of a "gay agenda" in the Church are determined to keep pushing the issue.
This includes bringing Bishop Robinson to speak at the UK Church's music and arts festival, Greenbelt, in August. "A number of us are very concerned about that," he says.
Canon Sugden is the executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, a body set up in 2003 to represent "orthodox" views in the Church following the appointment of Bishop Robinson and of the gay Canon Geoffrey John as Bishop of Reading - an appointment he later renounced.
Canon Sugden is also secretary of the organisers of the FCA in Britain and Ireland - which was launched at a 1,600-strong meeting in Westminster on 6 July.
A number of bishops were among those at the launch, which he says was also encouraging because he reckons half the people there were under 40.
'Worldwide crisis'
"The Church is always within a generation of extinction - I think it's good news for the future of the Church that we had a large number of younger people there," he adds.
The FCA was established following the Global Anglican Future conference (Gafcon) which met in Jerusalem in June last year to address what it says is a crisis in the Anglican Communion worldwide - of which the most divisive aspect was the appointment of Gene Robinson.
Same-sex intimacy, Canon Sugden, says, "is something that excludes people - without repentance - from the kingdom of God. That's clear teaching."
Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans launch in the UK (Photo: Stephen Sizer) Several bishops and many young people were at the FCA launch, Chris Sugden says.
He rejects claims he that those who think like him are obsessed with discussing sex, to the exclusion of more valuable Christian pursuits.
The trouble with controversies in the Church, he says, is that they divert attention and work from sharing the Gospel of Christ. He stresses the concerns of the FCA and allied organisations with issues of poverty, war and oppression.
"It's perfectly possible to address pastorally and sensitively the experience of people who have same-sex relationships," he insists.
'Obsessed'
On the other hand, he claims: "It's the people who are continually bringing up the pro-homosexual agenda. They're the ones who are obsessed by this.
"Why is Gene Robinson at Greenbelt? Why is he there? It's not as though he is unknown, it's not as though the issue hasn't been well aired."
He thinks the Church of England will "be looking very carefully" at its formal ties with the Episcopal Church in the US following the decision to end the freeze on appointing gay bishops.
The Archbishop of Canterbury had already said he regretted the US move - before the American House of Bishops confirmed it.
I think we'll see more people expressing the desire to be in fellowship with the ACNA Canon Chris Sugden
A private member's resolution is circulating at the Church of England's General Synod, calling on the English Church to declare itself in fellowship with the ACNA.
Canon Sugden says he has spoken to several bishops about this motion, and they said they would wait for the Americans' decision.
"I think we'll see more people expressing the desire to be in fellowship with the ACNA," he adds.
Some British Anglicans will seek to be in fellowship with both American Churches, Chris Sugden admits.
He says: "That may be an approach that some take - institutional peace - but the issue is not institutional peace the issue is theological integrity and clarity and to say, 'Would you take Communion with those who bless sin?'
"It's not just who are sinners - we're all sinners... but those who bless sin? I think you'll find a great number of people will say No."
END
By Trevor Timpson
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8149812.stm
July 15, 2009
The lifting of a temporary ban on appointing gay bishops in the US could boost moves in the Church of England to back breakaway American Anglicans, a UK campaigner claims.
Canon Chris Sugden, a leader of the newly-launched UK section of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), told the BBC News website Monday's decision by the Episcopal Church to drop the ban was "extremely worrying and serious".
He said it could increase support for a motion at the Church of England's General Synod to declare fellowship with the breakaway Anglican Church of North America (ACNA).
The ACNA is a union of traditionalist groups which split from the Episcopal Church following the appointment of an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in New Hampshire.
At the same time, Canon Sugden complains, advocates of a "gay agenda" in the Church are determined to keep pushing the issue.
This includes bringing Bishop Robinson to speak at the UK Church's music and arts festival, Greenbelt, in August. "A number of us are very concerned about that," he says.
Canon Sugden is the executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, a body set up in 2003 to represent "orthodox" views in the Church following the appointment of Bishop Robinson and of the gay Canon Geoffrey John as Bishop of Reading - an appointment he later renounced.
Canon Sugden is also secretary of the organisers of the FCA in Britain and Ireland - which was launched at a 1,600-strong meeting in Westminster on 6 July.
A number of bishops were among those at the launch, which he says was also encouraging because he reckons half the people there were under 40.
'Worldwide crisis'
"The Church is always within a generation of extinction - I think it's good news for the future of the Church that we had a large number of younger people there," he adds.
The FCA was established following the Global Anglican Future conference (Gafcon) which met in Jerusalem in June last year to address what it says is a crisis in the Anglican Communion worldwide - of which the most divisive aspect was the appointment of Gene Robinson.
Same-sex intimacy, Canon Sugden, says, "is something that excludes people - without repentance - from the kingdom of God. That's clear teaching."
Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans launch in the UK (Photo: Stephen Sizer) Several bishops and many young people were at the FCA launch, Chris Sugden says.
He rejects claims he that those who think like him are obsessed with discussing sex, to the exclusion of more valuable Christian pursuits.
The trouble with controversies in the Church, he says, is that they divert attention and work from sharing the Gospel of Christ. He stresses the concerns of the FCA and allied organisations with issues of poverty, war and oppression.
"It's perfectly possible to address pastorally and sensitively the experience of people who have same-sex relationships," he insists.
'Obsessed'
On the other hand, he claims: "It's the people who are continually bringing up the pro-homosexual agenda. They're the ones who are obsessed by this.
"Why is Gene Robinson at Greenbelt? Why is he there? It's not as though he is unknown, it's not as though the issue hasn't been well aired."
He thinks the Church of England will "be looking very carefully" at its formal ties with the Episcopal Church in the US following the decision to end the freeze on appointing gay bishops.
The Archbishop of Canterbury had already said he regretted the US move - before the American House of Bishops confirmed it.
I think we'll see more people expressing the desire to be in fellowship with the ACNA Canon Chris Sugden
A private member's resolution is circulating at the Church of England's General Synod, calling on the English Church to declare itself in fellowship with the ACNA.
Canon Sugden says he has spoken to several bishops about this motion, and they said they would wait for the Americans' decision.
"I think we'll see more people expressing the desire to be in fellowship with the ACNA," he adds.
Some British Anglicans will seek to be in fellowship with both American Churches, Chris Sugden admits.
He says: "That may be an approach that some take - institutional peace - but the issue is not institutional peace the issue is theological integrity and clarity and to say, 'Would you take Communion with those who bless sin?'
"It's not just who are sinners - we're all sinners... but those who bless sin? I think you'll find a great number of people will say No."
END
Third Great Wave of Departures from The Episcopal Church Begins
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
7/21/2009
Across the nation the actions of General Convention 2009 are beginning to sink in. Two resolutions that affirmed the right of every baptized person, especially and including LGBT persons, to all orders of ministry in The Episcopal Church and the blessings of same-sex unions is galvanizing orthodox parishes.
"People are MAD," said an activist layman in a 1,000-member congregation near Memphis in the Diocese of West Tennessee. "At church this week you could have shot a canon down the middle of the church. I ran into some other Episcopalians from moderate to liberal churches and no one is pleased. I bet we lose 25% to 30% of our diocese."
For liberal bishop Don E. Johnson, his nightmare is just beginning. His predecessor, the evangelical Alex Dickson may well have led his diocese out of The Episcopal Church. Johnson has no intention of doing that.
To date there have been two great exoduses out of The Episcopal Church. The first was orthodox parishes from liberal and revisionist dioceses. There have been some 700. Some have sued to keep their properties. Most have walked away taking their parishioners and leaving the empty or near empty buildings to revisionist bishops who will, over time, be forced to sell them. The second wave was four dioceses leaving TEC, with perhaps more to follow. Now a third wave seems set to begin - orthodox parishes from liberal, but mostly orthodox dioceses.
"West Tennessee is already in bad shape. It is the second smallest diocese in the The Episcopal Church behind Jeffert Schori's former diocese, Nevada, whose entire diocese could fit into Christ Church, Plano. People here are livid. I have talked to people in other parishes," said the layman.
"We have had liberal priests come to town and practically empty congregations and tear them apart preaching this inclusion mess. Now all of the liberal priests have been run off due to damage and the bishop goes and votes for the same thing that ran everybody off. Go figure."
Northern Plains Anglican blogger Fr. Tim Fountain wrote at his blog, "Thanks, General Convention. I'm already losing church members. First departures already underway from Good Shepherd, Sioux Falls, due to the actions of The Episcopal Church leadership. Lost a good Vestry member. At my request, he will be detailing his decision in a letter to be shared with the Vestry and sent on to the Diocese. Now, I have just lost at least three young families and a bunch of kids. A couple of these losses are families that were the first fruits of members taking the risk of evangelism - this is going to hurt morale very badly here."
One of them said, "I just can't see myself inviting other people, knowing what the denomination is really doing. So how can I stay?"
Two orthodox bishops at General Convention were cautious when asked whether they would consider taking their dioceses out of The Episcopal Church. "This pushes us away," said Peter Beckwith Bishop of Springfield. "If things don't change, there will ultimately be no orthodox expression in TEC."
"I don't have the power or authority or interest in taking the diocese out of TEC," said Beckwith, "I have been assisting people and I don't have the money for lawsuits."
When VOL asked Bishop William Love of Albany if a third great wave of leavers, that is, orthodox parishes form orthodox dioceses, will occur after GC2009, Love said the passage of D025 makes life difficult. "Our focus must always be on The Great Commission."
The Bishop of South Carolina, Mark J. Lawrence wrote to his diocese saying, "There is an increasingly aggressive displacement within this Church of the gospel of Jesus Christ's transforming power by the 'new' gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity which seeks to subsume all in its wake. It is marked by an increased evangelistic zeal and mission that hints at imperialistic plans to spread throughout the Communion. This calls for a bold response. It is of the utmost importance that we find more than just a place to stand. Indeed, it is imperative that we find a place to thrive; a place that is faithful, relational and structural-and so we shall."
What exactly is he saying with "This calls for a bold response"? What does he have in mind? Is he preparing his diocese to leave?
A bishop in the newly formed Anglican Church in North America told VOL that those remaining half a dozen orthodox TEC dioceses will be under enormous pressure now to do something. "When they start seeing parishioners leave, they will not be able to remain inactive. I will give them a year and they will be gone." We shall see.
The Episcopal Church is dying under its own weight. "We are losing members, churches and dioceses. It is a disaster and we need to name it for what it is. We are under God's judgment," concluded Bishop Beckwith.
END
www.virtueonline.org
7/21/2009
Across the nation the actions of General Convention 2009 are beginning to sink in. Two resolutions that affirmed the right of every baptized person, especially and including LGBT persons, to all orders of ministry in The Episcopal Church and the blessings of same-sex unions is galvanizing orthodox parishes.
"People are MAD," said an activist layman in a 1,000-member congregation near Memphis in the Diocese of West Tennessee. "At church this week you could have shot a canon down the middle of the church. I ran into some other Episcopalians from moderate to liberal churches and no one is pleased. I bet we lose 25% to 30% of our diocese."
For liberal bishop Don E. Johnson, his nightmare is just beginning. His predecessor, the evangelical Alex Dickson may well have led his diocese out of The Episcopal Church. Johnson has no intention of doing that.
To date there have been two great exoduses out of The Episcopal Church. The first was orthodox parishes from liberal and revisionist dioceses. There have been some 700. Some have sued to keep their properties. Most have walked away taking their parishioners and leaving the empty or near empty buildings to revisionist bishops who will, over time, be forced to sell them. The second wave was four dioceses leaving TEC, with perhaps more to follow. Now a third wave seems set to begin - orthodox parishes from liberal, but mostly orthodox dioceses.
"West Tennessee is already in bad shape. It is the second smallest diocese in the The Episcopal Church behind Jeffert Schori's former diocese, Nevada, whose entire diocese could fit into Christ Church, Plano. People here are livid. I have talked to people in other parishes," said the layman.
"We have had liberal priests come to town and practically empty congregations and tear them apart preaching this inclusion mess. Now all of the liberal priests have been run off due to damage and the bishop goes and votes for the same thing that ran everybody off. Go figure."
Northern Plains Anglican blogger Fr. Tim Fountain wrote at his blog, "Thanks, General Convention. I'm already losing church members. First departures already underway from Good Shepherd, Sioux Falls, due to the actions of The Episcopal Church leadership. Lost a good Vestry member. At my request, he will be detailing his decision in a letter to be shared with the Vestry and sent on to the Diocese. Now, I have just lost at least three young families and a bunch of kids. A couple of these losses are families that were the first fruits of members taking the risk of evangelism - this is going to hurt morale very badly here."
One of them said, "I just can't see myself inviting other people, knowing what the denomination is really doing. So how can I stay?"
Two orthodox bishops at General Convention were cautious when asked whether they would consider taking their dioceses out of The Episcopal Church. "This pushes us away," said Peter Beckwith Bishop of Springfield. "If things don't change, there will ultimately be no orthodox expression in TEC."
"I don't have the power or authority or interest in taking the diocese out of TEC," said Beckwith, "I have been assisting people and I don't have the money for lawsuits."
When VOL asked Bishop William Love of Albany if a third great wave of leavers, that is, orthodox parishes form orthodox dioceses, will occur after GC2009, Love said the passage of D025 makes life difficult. "Our focus must always be on The Great Commission."
The Bishop of South Carolina, Mark J. Lawrence wrote to his diocese saying, "There is an increasingly aggressive displacement within this Church of the gospel of Jesus Christ's transforming power by the 'new' gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity which seeks to subsume all in its wake. It is marked by an increased evangelistic zeal and mission that hints at imperialistic plans to spread throughout the Communion. This calls for a bold response. It is of the utmost importance that we find more than just a place to stand. Indeed, it is imperative that we find a place to thrive; a place that is faithful, relational and structural-and so we shall."
What exactly is he saying with "This calls for a bold response"? What does he have in mind? Is he preparing his diocese to leave?
A bishop in the newly formed Anglican Church in North America told VOL that those remaining half a dozen orthodox TEC dioceses will be under enormous pressure now to do something. "When they start seeing parishioners leave, they will not be able to remain inactive. I will give them a year and they will be gone." We shall see.
The Episcopal Church is dying under its own weight. "We are losing members, churches and dioceses. It is a disaster and we need to name it for what it is. We are under God's judgment," concluded Bishop Beckwith.
END
The Gospel, Anyone?
Via TitusOneNine:
By William Murchison
* Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Not that the secular world walks the floor at night worrying over the Episcopal Church and its waning influence over the minds of all decent and honorable Americans. The secular world lost this decent and honorable habit years ago and likely won't get it back, especially with Episcopalians themselves acting more and more like members of a secular pressure group.
The Episcopal Church, at the legislative/executive level anyway, is into "social justice," and there isn't much anyone can do about it. Save, of course, pray -- a pastime at which the church used to excel (the Book of Common Prayer, you know) before it came to believe the real action lies in resolutions and programs aimed at . well, consider how things went at the recent Episcopal General Convention.
GC, a triennial occasion, met in mid-July in Anaheim, Calif. Just around the corner lay Fantasyland. Good choice of locations. The deputies and bishops engaged almost daily in the fantasy of editing Christian theology to suit their newfound aspirations. These center on accommodating demands from the gay lobby to 1) allow the blessing in churches of same-sex relationships and 2) renew the commitment, earlier put on hold at the request of overseas Anglicans, to remove homosexuality and lesbianism as barriers to church leadership.
No contemporary American is likely to confuse the Episcopal Church with the churches of the so-called religious right. This seems to suit the majority of top-level (as opposed to the majority of lower-down) Episcopalians just fine. In fact, the more intently the "tops" concentrate on questions of "justice" and "inclusion" of supposedly persecuted groups, the happier with themselves, and their achievements, they appear to feel.
The church's presiding bishop, Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, must be one happy camper indeed. The General Convention's deputies and bishops routed the conservatives; routed them so rousingly that orthodox Episcopalians this week were examining their consciences. Could they remain in a church dedicated more to "justice" and "inclusion" than to the Christian distinctives -- salvation, redemption, justification, confession and so on? Time will tell, as it always does.
Secular America may not care. On the other hand, the spectacle of a great Christian body that has contributed to the country a third of its presidents, starting to put things of the earth above things of heaven -- a spectacle of that character should trouble many.
Odd, very odd, such a condition should seem, and does. If ours is, in fact, the world's most church-going nation, you'd kind of expect long-established churches to work hard at weaving the religious fabric tighter, not plucking large threads from it. In fact, the churches of the Protestant mainline -- including the Episcopal Church, which can swing Protestant or Catholic depending on local outlook -- started, during the 1960s, modeling the garments of the rebellious, anti-establishment secular culture. Feminism first, then gay rights, became established articles of faith in big churches -- Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and so on -- that became smaller and smaller and smaller churches as conservatives seceded, then regrouped in new bodies. These new bodies professed to see propagation of the Christian faith as the Christian duty that made all the others essential, not to say possible. Mormons today outnumber the Episcopalians and Presbyterians put together.
Church "progressives," as they like to style themselves, seem untroubled by the exodus of the conservatives. For one thing, the flight of one's opponents means you get things the way you want them. For a while at least -- until, looking about, you wonder what's the difference between a social justice church and the Peace Corps, which operates on federal funds and doesn't require Sunday morning attendance or suggest the reading of old books about dead people in the Middle East.
The Episcopal Church looks less and less like a church, more and more like a convocation of nice, well-meaning folks, who, having helped elect Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress, await the descent of Peace and Goodness from -- well, somewhere. Washington, D.C., maybe, with a little assist from churches that, back when they spoke of themselves as such, truly meant it.
By William Murchison
* Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Not that the secular world walks the floor at night worrying over the Episcopal Church and its waning influence over the minds of all decent and honorable Americans. The secular world lost this decent and honorable habit years ago and likely won't get it back, especially with Episcopalians themselves acting more and more like members of a secular pressure group.
The Episcopal Church, at the legislative/executive level anyway, is into "social justice," and there isn't much anyone can do about it. Save, of course, pray -- a pastime at which the church used to excel (the Book of Common Prayer, you know) before it came to believe the real action lies in resolutions and programs aimed at . well, consider how things went at the recent Episcopal General Convention.
GC, a triennial occasion, met in mid-July in Anaheim, Calif. Just around the corner lay Fantasyland. Good choice of locations. The deputies and bishops engaged almost daily in the fantasy of editing Christian theology to suit their newfound aspirations. These center on accommodating demands from the gay lobby to 1) allow the blessing in churches of same-sex relationships and 2) renew the commitment, earlier put on hold at the request of overseas Anglicans, to remove homosexuality and lesbianism as barriers to church leadership.
No contemporary American is likely to confuse the Episcopal Church with the churches of the so-called religious right. This seems to suit the majority of top-level (as opposed to the majority of lower-down) Episcopalians just fine. In fact, the more intently the "tops" concentrate on questions of "justice" and "inclusion" of supposedly persecuted groups, the happier with themselves, and their achievements, they appear to feel.
The church's presiding bishop, Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, must be one happy camper indeed. The General Convention's deputies and bishops routed the conservatives; routed them so rousingly that orthodox Episcopalians this week were examining their consciences. Could they remain in a church dedicated more to "justice" and "inclusion" than to the Christian distinctives -- salvation, redemption, justification, confession and so on? Time will tell, as it always does.
Secular America may not care. On the other hand, the spectacle of a great Christian body that has contributed to the country a third of its presidents, starting to put things of the earth above things of heaven -- a spectacle of that character should trouble many.
Odd, very odd, such a condition should seem, and does. If ours is, in fact, the world's most church-going nation, you'd kind of expect long-established churches to work hard at weaving the religious fabric tighter, not plucking large threads from it. In fact, the churches of the Protestant mainline -- including the Episcopal Church, which can swing Protestant or Catholic depending on local outlook -- started, during the 1960s, modeling the garments of the rebellious, anti-establishment secular culture. Feminism first, then gay rights, became established articles of faith in big churches -- Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and so on -- that became smaller and smaller and smaller churches as conservatives seceded, then regrouped in new bodies. These new bodies professed to see propagation of the Christian faith as the Christian duty that made all the others essential, not to say possible. Mormons today outnumber the Episcopalians and Presbyterians put together.
Church "progressives," as they like to style themselves, seem untroubled by the exodus of the conservatives. For one thing, the flight of one's opponents means you get things the way you want them. For a while at least -- until, looking about, you wonder what's the difference between a social justice church and the Peace Corps, which operates on federal funds and doesn't require Sunday morning attendance or suggest the reading of old books about dead people in the Middle East.
The Episcopal Church looks less and less like a church, more and more like a convocation of nice, well-meaning folks, who, having helped elect Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress, await the descent of Peace and Goodness from -- well, somewhere. Washington, D.C., maybe, with a little assist from churches that, back when they spoke of themselves as such, truly meant it.
Letter from the Communion Partners to the Archbishop of Canterbury
Via Thinking Anglicans:
104th Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London, England
SE1 7JU
Your Grace:
You will be sent a hard copy of this letter, statement and the list of signatories, but because of our desire to put this material in front of you soon, we are e-mailing this correspondence as well. We must share with you that this letter will also be made public via the trusted websites of the The Livng Church and The Anglican Communion Institute.
Enclosed, please find a statement of the Communion Partner Rectors who welcome and declare our appreciation for the witness of the over 30 Episcopal bishops who have signed the minority statement read in the House of Bishops at the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Anaheim, California on Thursday, July 16, 2009.
Though we have been in touch with you throughout the last year and a half, we simply reiterate our deep desire and commitment to remain constituent members of the greater Anglican Communion. We, as we believe it to be well documented now, concur with your leadership, and that of Lambeth Conference and the ACC that the road to stronger bonds of affection amongst the members of the Communion is our shared commitment to our Lord and His Church, the instruments of Communion and the parameters and councils set forth in the Windsor Process, the three (at present) requested moratoria, the most recent Lambeth Conference, Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and the unfolding Covenant Process, to which we are fully committed.
We do not concur with any action taken that would be interpreted by the larger Communion as divisive, dismissive of our larger Anglican Communion or schismatic. The outgrowth of the decisions of the General Convention has yet to be ultimately determined as to its impact on our common bonds of affection that we should all share, and honor, as part of the worldwide Anglican family.
Some will clearly share the assessment of His Grace, Bishop N.T. Wright that The Episcopal Church has, by its most recent actions, chosen to “walk apart.” It would be our hope that if you share that assessment, that you would also share Bishop’s Wright’s counsel to “…not forget the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, who doggedly loyal to their church, and to the Windsor Report as expressing the mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes within revisionist dioceses (and, for that matter, worshippers within revisionists parishes) who take the same stance,” (The Times, 15 July, 2009). Again, let us categorically state, that we believe our ties to both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion must remain solid and unfettered by any action, resolution or statement that would in any way further tear the very fragile fabric that is now our Anglican family; and therefore would not support any such action, resolution or statement.
Lastly, we reaffirm our pledge of support for the unfolding Covenant process and it is our hope that Part IV of the Ridley Draft will soon be revisited and approved as a pathway for not simply Provinces, but Bishops, Dioceses and individual parishes to renew their commitment not only to the Anglican Communion, but to those vital pillars that in the end, draw us all together, rather than cause further division.
Toward that end and toward all of these matters, we pledge our prayers and support to you, to our Communion Partner Bishops and those Bishops who joined them in signing the Anaheim Statement, and to those Bishops who have made similar statements to their own Dioceses. Please let us know how we can further support you.
Faithfully, on behalf of the attached list of Communion Partner Rectors,
The Advisory Committee of the Communion Partner Rectors
The Reverend Dr. Charles Alley, Rector, St. Matthews, Richmond, Virginia
The Right Reverend Anthony Burton, Rector, Church of the Incarnation, Dallas, Texas
The Very Reverend Anthony Clark, Dean, St. Luke’s Cathedral, Orlando, Florida
The Reverend S. Brooks Keith, Rector, Church of the Transfiguration, Vail, Colorado
The Reverend Dr. Russell J. Levenson, Jr. Rector, St. Martin’s, Houston, Texas
The Reverend Leigh Spruill, Rector, St. George’s, Nashville, Tennessee
The Communion Partner Rectors’ Statement:
July 22, 2009
We, the undersigned clergy in good standing in the Episcopal Church welcome and declare our appreciation for the witness of the bishops who signed the minority statement read in the House of Bishops in Anaheim, California on Thursday, July 16, 2009. We also express our on-going support for all the reaffirmations listed in that document, which read as follows:
* We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this church has received them (BCP 526, 538).
* We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
* We reaffirm our commitment to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in “interpreting the Gospel” which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.
We are committed along with said bishops to be a positive force for the spread of God’s Kingdom in this world; to pray for Christ’s Body, the Church, the Anglican Communion, The Episcopal Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, all bishops and other ministers. We hold that as Christ’s Body, the Church is to be a “pillar and buttress of truth,” (1 Timothy 3:15) through which the Gospel is held high in witness and proclamation, and we pray for the reconciliation of all humankind through the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.
For more information about the Communion Partner Rectors, contact CPRectors@stmartinsepiscopal.org
The Rev. Dr. Charles Alley
Rector, St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church
Richmond, Virginia
The Rev. Christopher L. Ashmore
Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church
Jacksonville, Illinois
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 Rt. Rev. Anthony J. Burton
Rector, Church of the Incarnation
Dallas, Texas
The Rev. William J. Cavanaugh
Rector, The Episcopal Church of the Epiphany
Richardson, Texas
The Very Reverend Anthony Clark
Dean, The Cathedral Church of St. Luke
Orlando, Florida
The Rev. Anthony F. M. Clavier
Rector, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church
La Porte, Indiana
The Rev. C. Carter Croft
Rector, Good Shepherd Episcopal Church
Silver City, New Mexico
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’s Episcopal Church
Tulare, California
The Rev. Theodore W. Edwards, Jr.
Rector, St. George’s Episcopal Church
Bradenton, Florida
The Rev. Richard H. Elwood
Retired 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
Burnet, 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, Kentucky
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. Stuart Brooks Keith III
Rector, Episcopal Church of the Transfiguration
Vail, Colorado
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. 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. Jennie C. Olbrych
Vicar, St. James Santee Episcopal Church
McClellanville, South Carolina
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. Bruce M. Robison, D.Min.
Rector, St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
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, Christ Episcopal Church
Fitchburg, Massachusetts
The Rev. Michael Wyckoff
Rector, St. Luke’s on the Lake
Austin, Texas
104th Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London, England
SE1 7JU
Your Grace:
You will be sent a hard copy of this letter, statement and the list of signatories, but because of our desire to put this material in front of you soon, we are e-mailing this correspondence as well. We must share with you that this letter will also be made public via the trusted websites of the The Livng Church and The Anglican Communion Institute.
Enclosed, please find a statement of the Communion Partner Rectors who welcome and declare our appreciation for the witness of the over 30 Episcopal bishops who have signed the minority statement read in the House of Bishops at the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Anaheim, California on Thursday, July 16, 2009.
Though we have been in touch with you throughout the last year and a half, we simply reiterate our deep desire and commitment to remain constituent members of the greater Anglican Communion. We, as we believe it to be well documented now, concur with your leadership, and that of Lambeth Conference and the ACC that the road to stronger bonds of affection amongst the members of the Communion is our shared commitment to our Lord and His Church, the instruments of Communion and the parameters and councils set forth in the Windsor Process, the three (at present) requested moratoria, the most recent Lambeth Conference, Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and the unfolding Covenant Process, to which we are fully committed.
We do not concur with any action taken that would be interpreted by the larger Communion as divisive, dismissive of our larger Anglican Communion or schismatic. The outgrowth of the decisions of the General Convention has yet to be ultimately determined as to its impact on our common bonds of affection that we should all share, and honor, as part of the worldwide Anglican family.
Some will clearly share the assessment of His Grace, Bishop N.T. Wright that The Episcopal Church has, by its most recent actions, chosen to “walk apart.” It would be our hope that if you share that assessment, that you would also share Bishop’s Wright’s counsel to “…not forget the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, who doggedly loyal to their church, and to the Windsor Report as expressing the mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes within revisionist dioceses (and, for that matter, worshippers within revisionists parishes) who take the same stance,” (The Times, 15 July, 2009). Again, let us categorically state, that we believe our ties to both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion must remain solid and unfettered by any action, resolution or statement that would in any way further tear the very fragile fabric that is now our Anglican family; and therefore would not support any such action, resolution or statement.
Lastly, we reaffirm our pledge of support for the unfolding Covenant process and it is our hope that Part IV of the Ridley Draft will soon be revisited and approved as a pathway for not simply Provinces, but Bishops, Dioceses and individual parishes to renew their commitment not only to the Anglican Communion, but to those vital pillars that in the end, draw us all together, rather than cause further division.
Toward that end and toward all of these matters, we pledge our prayers and support to you, to our Communion Partner Bishops and those Bishops who joined them in signing the Anaheim Statement, and to those Bishops who have made similar statements to their own Dioceses. Please let us know how we can further support you.
Faithfully, on behalf of the attached list of Communion Partner Rectors,
The Advisory Committee of the Communion Partner Rectors
The Reverend Dr. Charles Alley, Rector, St. Matthews, Richmond, Virginia
The Right Reverend Anthony Burton, Rector, Church of the Incarnation, Dallas, Texas
The Very Reverend Anthony Clark, Dean, St. Luke’s Cathedral, Orlando, Florida
The Reverend S. Brooks Keith, Rector, Church of the Transfiguration, Vail, Colorado
The Reverend Dr. Russell J. Levenson, Jr. Rector, St. Martin’s, Houston, Texas
The Reverend Leigh Spruill, Rector, St. George’s, Nashville, Tennessee
The Communion Partner Rectors’ Statement:
July 22, 2009
We, the undersigned clergy in good standing in the Episcopal Church welcome and declare our appreciation for the witness of the bishops who signed the minority statement read in the House of Bishops in Anaheim, California on Thursday, July 16, 2009. We also express our on-going support for all the reaffirmations listed in that document, which read as follows:
* We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this church has received them (BCP 526, 538).
* We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
* We reaffirm our commitment to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship” which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in “interpreting the Gospel” which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.
We are committed along with said bishops to be a positive force for the spread of God’s Kingdom in this world; to pray for Christ’s Body, the Church, the Anglican Communion, The Episcopal Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, all bishops and other ministers. We hold that as Christ’s Body, the Church is to be a “pillar and buttress of truth,” (1 Timothy 3:15) through which the Gospel is held high in witness and proclamation, and we pray for the reconciliation of all humankind through the saving life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.
For more information about the Communion Partner Rectors, contact CPRectors@stmartinsepiscopal.org
The Rev. Dr. Charles Alley
Rector, St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church
Richmond, Virginia
The Rev. Christopher L. Ashmore
Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church
Jacksonville, Illinois
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 Rt. Rev. Anthony J. Burton
Rector, Church of the Incarnation
Dallas, Texas
The Rev. William J. Cavanaugh
Rector, The Episcopal Church of the Epiphany
Richardson, Texas
The Very Reverend Anthony Clark
Dean, The Cathedral Church of St. Luke
Orlando, Florida
The Rev. Anthony F. M. Clavier
Rector, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church
La Porte, Indiana
The Rev. C. Carter Croft
Rector, Good Shepherd Episcopal Church
Silver City, New Mexico
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’s Episcopal Church
Tulare, California
The Rev. Theodore W. Edwards, Jr.
Rector, St. George’s Episcopal Church
Bradenton, Florida
The Rev. Richard H. Elwood
Retired 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
Burnet, 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, Kentucky
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. Stuart Brooks Keith III
Rector, Episcopal Church of the Transfiguration
Vail, Colorado
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. 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. Jennie C. Olbrych
Vicar, St. James Santee Episcopal Church
McClellanville, South Carolina
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. Bruce M. Robison, D.Min.
Rector, St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
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, Christ Episcopal Church
Fitchburg, Massachusetts
The Rev. Michael Wyckoff
Rector, St. Luke’s on the Lake
Austin, Texas
Spinning Wheel, Got to Go Round....
A little explanation - TEO stands for The Episcopal Organization. This is like my occasional use of The Episcopal Fraud.
From Still on Patrol (blog) via Stand Firm:
July 21, 2009
As I read more and more the efforts of certain Bishops within TEO to "explain" that D025 supposedly does NOT repudiate B033 from Gen Con 06 and does NOT lift a moratorium of consecration of gay bishops until one is actually elected, I keep hearing that great Blood, Sweat & Tears tune, "Spinning Wheel":
What goes up must come down
spinning wheel got to go round
Talking about your troubles it's a crying sin
Ride a painted pony
Let the spinning wheel spin
You got no money, and you, you got no home
Spinning wheel all alone
Talking about your troubles and you, you never learn
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel turn
Did you find a directing sign
on the straight and narrow highway?
Would you mind a reflecting sign
Just let it shine within your mind
And show you the colours that are real
Someone is waiting just for you
spinning wheel is spinning true
Drop all your troubles, by the river side
Catch a painted pony
On the spinning wheel ride
Anyway, it never ceases to amaze me the level of arrogance these Bishops have, and how stupid they must think the rest of the world is. Unlike those medieval times when Bishops could get away with such things because few people could read at all, much less read in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, over the last, say, as few as twenty years they should have learned that the people are no longer willing to be treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and having crap dumped on them).
We can read D025, and we did read B033. As Bishop Coadjutor Shannon Johnson stood and said (to no response) in the HOB session (see video on Stand Firm), there is no question but that D025 clearly and directly repudiates any notion of a moratorium on consecration of gay bishops. Merely because it does not include a direct reference to B033, and does not use the words "repudiate" or even "moratorium", the so-called "expression of the mind of the Episcopal Church in 2009" leaves no legitimate question whatsoever of what will happen when the inevitable occurs, and another gay bishop is elected.
Clearly, I am offended by the repudiations of Christianity by the High Priestess and her misguided minions. I am offended by their wanton destruction of an historic church and their disregard for the thousands of parishioners who have spent their lives in its pews only to have its theology hijacked by a revisionist mob. And, even though I am no longer Episcopalian, I am offended at the insulting arrogance and lack of concern held by these Bishops in putting this ridiculous spin on D025.
Their goal is as transparent as it is spineless - they are trying to pull more wool over the already-woolly head of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in hopes of sparing themselves a reprimand for their clear slap in his face by rejecting his personal plea made to them in his speech at the opening of the Convention. While I concur with Greg Griffith in his estimation that ++Williams will do nothing of substance, with the C of E's pending motion to recognize ACNA, TEO will try to camouflage and spin its actions as much as they can to try to hold onto its claim for use of the Anglican brand. Or, as Bishop N.T. Wright put it, TEO will try to fool everyone by claiming to still be Anglican even while re-writing the rules to suit themselves and their secular-political agenda.
At this point in the "listening" game, the rest of the Anglican Communion should apply the old saw to the revisionist side of TEO: "How do you tell when a revisionist TEO Bishop is lying?" "His/her mouth is moving." Do these fools actually believe that anyone is buying it? Apparently so, and they do so because with ++Williams it has worked before. In the aftermath of the Windsor Report, and Dar Es Salaam, he bought into their duplicity in New Orleans, even as the rest of the world was making reference to bovine fecal material.
It is growing increasingly difficult to determine whether more bovine fecal material is being generated in the public explanations of a session of Congress, or of the TEO General Convention. Either way, we should all be well-beyond sick of being lied to, or being treated as if we were felony-stupid. I would hope that even Rowan Williams is pretty fed up with it, but I'm not going to bet hard-earned dollars on it.
From Still on Patrol (blog) via Stand Firm:
July 21, 2009
As I read more and more the efforts of certain Bishops within TEO to "explain" that D025 supposedly does NOT repudiate B033 from Gen Con 06 and does NOT lift a moratorium of consecration of gay bishops until one is actually elected, I keep hearing that great Blood, Sweat & Tears tune, "Spinning Wheel":
What goes up must come down
spinning wheel got to go round
Talking about your troubles it's a crying sin
Ride a painted pony
Let the spinning wheel spin
You got no money, and you, you got no home
Spinning wheel all alone
Talking about your troubles and you, you never learn
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel turn
Did you find a directing sign
on the straight and narrow highway?
Would you mind a reflecting sign
Just let it shine within your mind
And show you the colours that are real
Someone is waiting just for you
spinning wheel is spinning true
Drop all your troubles, by the river side
Catch a painted pony
On the spinning wheel ride
Anyway, it never ceases to amaze me the level of arrogance these Bishops have, and how stupid they must think the rest of the world is. Unlike those medieval times when Bishops could get away with such things because few people could read at all, much less read in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, over the last, say, as few as twenty years they should have learned that the people are no longer willing to be treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and having crap dumped on them).
We can read D025, and we did read B033. As Bishop Coadjutor Shannon Johnson stood and said (to no response) in the HOB session (see video on Stand Firm), there is no question but that D025 clearly and directly repudiates any notion of a moratorium on consecration of gay bishops. Merely because it does not include a direct reference to B033, and does not use the words "repudiate" or even "moratorium", the so-called "expression of the mind of the Episcopal Church in 2009" leaves no legitimate question whatsoever of what will happen when the inevitable occurs, and another gay bishop is elected.
Clearly, I am offended by the repudiations of Christianity by the High Priestess and her misguided minions. I am offended by their wanton destruction of an historic church and their disregard for the thousands of parishioners who have spent their lives in its pews only to have its theology hijacked by a revisionist mob. And, even though I am no longer Episcopalian, I am offended at the insulting arrogance and lack of concern held by these Bishops in putting this ridiculous spin on D025.
Their goal is as transparent as it is spineless - they are trying to pull more wool over the already-woolly head of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in hopes of sparing themselves a reprimand for their clear slap in his face by rejecting his personal plea made to them in his speech at the opening of the Convention. While I concur with Greg Griffith in his estimation that ++Williams will do nothing of substance, with the C of E's pending motion to recognize ACNA, TEO will try to camouflage and spin its actions as much as they can to try to hold onto its claim for use of the Anglican brand. Or, as Bishop N.T. Wright put it, TEO will try to fool everyone by claiming to still be Anglican even while re-writing the rules to suit themselves and their secular-political agenda.
At this point in the "listening" game, the rest of the Anglican Communion should apply the old saw to the revisionist side of TEO: "How do you tell when a revisionist TEO Bishop is lying?" "His/her mouth is moving." Do these fools actually believe that anyone is buying it? Apparently so, and they do so because with ++Williams it has worked before. In the aftermath of the Windsor Report, and Dar Es Salaam, he bought into their duplicity in New Orleans, even as the rest of the world was making reference to bovine fecal material.
It is growing increasingly difficult to determine whether more bovine fecal material is being generated in the public explanations of a session of Congress, or of the TEO General Convention. Either way, we should all be well-beyond sick of being lied to, or being treated as if we were felony-stupid. I would hope that even Rowan Williams is pretty fed up with it, but I'm not going to bet hard-earned dollars on it.
Roll Call Votes on Key Issues
There's a great chart at TitusOneNine on how the bishops voted on two key resolutions, but due either to the limitations of blogspot or my ineptitude at using its features I can't reproduce it here. The Living Church lays out the same information albeit in a less arresting way. ed.
From The Living Church via Stand Firm:
News Updates
Posted on: July 17, 2009
Resolutions D025 and C056 sparked three roll call votes during the House of Bishops' sessions of the 76th General Convention in Anaheim, Calif.
The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio, told the house on July 15 that the official tallies from the votes on D025 that rescinded the moratorium on gay bishops, on a motion offered by the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania to discharge C056, and the final vote on C056 which authorized the collection and development of rites for the blessing of same-sex liturgies, would not be complete until the end of convention. The hand tallies taken by the six tellers at the meetings needed to be reconciled, he said.
Bishop Price reported that Resolution D025 was adopted by a vote of 99 yes, 45 no, 2 abstained.
The Rowe amendment was defeated on a vote of 94 no, 42 yes, 1 abstentions. Resolution D058 was passed on a vote of 104 yes, 30 no, 2 abstentions, Bishop Price said. .
Roll call votes are taken in the House of Bishops in order of seniority taken in order of consecration. The senior bishop present for the votes, the Rt. Rev. David Reed, retired Bishop of Kentucky, is Bishop 603 -- the 603rd bishop consecrated to serve The Episcopal Church since its creation. The junior bishop is the Rt. Rev. J. Scott Mayer, Bishop of Northwest Texas -- Bishop 1035 in order of consecration.
Bishops are listed in order of consecration. The votes are in this order: D025, Rowe, and C056.
David B. Reed, Retired Bishop of Kentucky (y y y)
William Frey, Acting Bishop of the Rio Grande( n _ _ )
Otis Charles. Retired Bishop of Utah (y n y)
Gerald McAllister. Retired Bishop of Oklahoma (n_ _ )
Rustin Kimsey. Assisting Bishop for Alaska (y_ _ )
Herbert A. Donovan. Assisting Bishop of New York (y_ _ )
James H. Ottley. Assisting Bishop of Long Island (y n y)
Leopold Frade. Bishop of Southeast Florida (y n y)
Peter Lee. Bishop of Virginia (y y n)
Don Wimberly, Retired Bishop of Texas (_ _ n)
Robert Ladehoff, Retired Bishop of Oregon (y n _ )
Douglas Theuner, Retired Bishop of New Hampshire. (y n y)
Arthur Williams, Jr., Retired Bishop Suffragan of Ohio ( y y _ )
E. Don Taylor, Assistant Bishop of New York ( _ y y)
Jeffery Rowthorn. Retired (American Churches in Europe) (n y n)
Orris G. Walker, Bishop of Long Island (y _ _ )
Frederick Borsch. Retired Bishop of Los Angeles (y_ _ )
Christopher Epting. Bishop for Ecumenical Relations (y _ _ )
Barbara Harris. Assisting Bishop of Washington (y n y)
John Buchanan, Provisional Bishop of Quincy (y n y)
Robert H. Johnson, Assisting Bishop of Pittsburgh (y y y)
Sanford Hampton, Assisting Bishop of Oregon (y n y)
John W. Howe. Bishop of Central Florida (n y n)
Sergio Carranza-Gomez, Assistant Bishop of Los Angeles (y n y)
Edward L. Salmon. Retired Bishop of South Carolina (n y n)
Charles Keyser. Assisting Bishop of Florida (y y y)
Huntington Williams, Retired Suffragan, North Carolina (y _ y)
Chester L. Talton. Bishop Suffragan of Los Angeles (y n y)
Victor Scantlebury, Assisting Bishop of Chicago (a n a)
Steven Charleston, Assistant Bishop of California (y n y)
Jerry A. Lamb, Provisional Bishop of San Joaquin (y n y)
Alfred C. Marble. Assisting Bishop of North Carolina (y n y)
Peter Beckwith. Bishop of Springfield (n y n)
James Stanton. Bishop of Dallas (n y n)
Jean Duracin. Bishop of Haiti (n y n)
F. Clayton Matthews, Office of Pastoral Development (y n _ )
James Jelinek, Bishop of Minnesota (y n y)
Edwin Gulick, Bishop of Kentucky and Provisional, Fort Worth (y n y)
Russell E. Jacobus. Bishop of Fond du Lac (n y n)
M. Thomas Shaw SSJE, Bishop of Massachusetts (y n y)
Alfredo Morante, Bishop of Litoral Ecuador (n n y)
Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio. (y n y)
Henry I. Louttit. Bishop of Georgia. (n n n)
Dorsey F. Henderson. Bishop of Upper South Carolina. (y n y)
Rev. David Jones. Bishop Suffragan of Virginia (y n y)
Catherine S. Roskam. Bishop Suffragan of New York (y n y)
Geralyn Wolf. Bishop of Rhode Island (n y n)
William Skilton. Assistant Bishop of the Dominican Republic (n y n)
Andrew Smith, Bishop of Connecticut (y _ _ )
Carolyn Irish. Bishop of Utah (y n y)
Paul V. Marshall. Bishop of Bethlehem (y n y)
Clifton Daniel. Bishop of East Carolina (y n y)
Henry Parsley. Bishop of Alabama (n y y)
Gordon Scruton. Bishop of Western Massachusetts (a n y)
F. Neff Powell. Bishop of Southwestern Virginia (y _ y)
Richard Chang. Retired Bishop of Hawai'i (y n y)
Rodney Michel. Assisting Bishop of Pennsylvania (y n y)
Catherine Waynick. Bishop of Indianapolis (y n y)
Bruce Caldwell. Bishop of Wyoming (y n y)
Charles Jenkins. Bishop of Louisiana (n n y)
Barry Howe. Bishop of West Missouri (y n y)
Chilton Knudsen. Retired Bishop of Maine (y n y)
Mark S. Sisk. Bishop of New York (y n y)
Wayne Wright. Bishop of Delaware (y n y)
John Rabb. Bishop Suffragan of Maryland (n n y)
John Croneberger, Assistant Bishop of Bethlehem (_ n y)
Charles von Rosenberg Bishop of East Tennessee (y y n)
William Persell. Retired Bishop of Chicago (y n y)
Keith Whitmore. Assistant Bishop of Atlanta (n n y)
The Rt. Rev. J. Michael Garrison. Bishop of Western New York (y n y)
D. Bruce MacPherson. Bishop of Western Louisiana (n y n)
Wendell N. Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan (y n y)
George Packard, Suffragan, Armed Services (n n y)
Edward Little, Bishop of Northern Indiana (n y n)
J. Jon Bruno.,Bishop of Los Angeles (y n y)
Michael B. Curry. Bishop of North Carolina (y n y)
Duncan Gray III. Bishop of Mississippi (n y n)
William O. Gregg. Assistant Bishop of North Carolina (y n y)
Stacy Sauls. Bishop of Lexington (y n y)
James Curry. Bishop Suffragan of Connecticut (y n y)
Wilfrido Ramos-Orench. Bishop of Central Ecuador (y _ _ )
James Waggoner, Bishop of Spokane ( _ n y)
David Jung-Hsin Lai. Bishop of Taiwan (n y n)
Katharine Jefferts Schori. Presiding Bishop (y n y)
Roy F. Cederholm Jr., Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts (y n y)
Thomas C. Ely, Bishop of Vermont (y n y)
Philip Duncan. Bishop of Central Gulf Coast (n n n)
Don E. Johnson. Bishop of West Tennessee (y n y)
Neil Alexander. Bishop of Atlanta (y n y)
Francisco Duque. Bishop of Colombia (n y _ )
Michie Klusmeyer, Bishop of West Virginia (n y y)
The Rt. Rev. Lloyd Allen. Bishop of Honduras (n y n)
Gladstone B. Adams, Bishop of Central New York (y n y)
Pierre Whalon, Convocation of American Churches in Europe (y n y)
Marc Andrus, Bishop of California (y n y)
G.W. Smith, Bishop of Missouri (y n y)
James M. Adams, Bishop of Western Kansas (n y n)
John Chane. Bishop of Washington (y n y)
Gayle Harris. Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts (y n y)
J.J. "Bud" Shand, Bishop of Easton (n n y)
Alan Scarfe. Bishop of Iowa (y n y)
David Alvarez, Bishop of Puerto Rico (y _ _ )
Joe Burnett, Bishop of Nebraska (y n y)
C. Franklin Brookhart, Jr., Bishop of Montana (y y y)
Rayford High, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n n y)
Robert O'Neill, Bishop of Colorado (y n y)
George Councell, Bishop of New Jersey (y n y)
Steven A. Miller, Bishop of Milwaukee (n n y)
S. Johnson Howard, Bishop of Florida (n y n)
V. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire (y n y)
Dean Wolfe, Bishop of Kansas (y n y)
Gary Lillibridge, Bishop of West Texas (n y n)
Kirk S. Smith, Bishop of Arizona (y y y)
Mark Hollingsworth, Jr., Bishop of Ohio (y n y)
Michael Smith, Bishop of North Dakota (n y n)
G. Porter Taylor, Bishop of Western North Carolina (y n y)
Bavi Rivera, Bishop Suffragan of Olympia (y n y)
James Mathes, Bishop of San Diego (y n y)
Edward Ambrose Gumbs, Bishop of Virgin Islands (n y n)
David Reed, Bishop Suffragan of West Texas (n y n)
S. Todd Ousley, Bishop of Eastern Michigan (y n y)
William Love, Bishop of Albany (n y n)
Barry Beisner, Bishop of Northern California (y n y)
Dena Harrison, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n y n)
Nathan Baxter, Bishop of Central Pennsylvania (y n y)
Larry R. Benfield, Bishop of Arkansas (y n y)
Mark Beckwith, Bishop of Newark (y n y)
John C. Bauerschmidt, Bishop of Tennessee (n y n)
Dabney Smith, Bishop of Southwest Florida (n y y)
Robert Fitzpatrick, Bishop of Hawaii (y y y)
Thomas Breidenthal, Bishop of Southern Ohio (y n y)
Shannon Johnston , Bishop Coadjutor of Virginia (n n y)
Laura Ahrens, Bishop Suffragan of Connecticut (y n y)
Sean Rowe, Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania (n y y)
Edward J. Konieczny, Bishop of Oklahoma (n y n)
Gregory Rickel, Bishop of Olympia (y n y)
Mary Gray-Reeves, Bishop of El Camino Real (y n y)
Dan Edwards, Bishop of Nevada (y n y)
John Sloan, Bishop Suffragan of Alabama (y y y)
Mark J. Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina (n y n)
Jeffrey Lee, Bishop of Chicago (y n y)
Sylveste Romero, Assistant Bishop of New Jersey (y _ _ )
Stephen Lane, Bishop of Maine (y n y)
Prince Singh, Bishop of Rochester (y n y)
Eugene Sutton, Bishop of Maryland (y n y)
Paul Lambert, Bishop Suffragan of Dallas (n y n)
Brian Thom, Bishop of Idaho (y n y)
Andrew Doyle, Bishop of Texas (n y n)
Herman Hollerith, Bishop of Southern Virginia (y n y)
J. Scott Mayer, Bishop of Northwest Texas (_ y y)
(The Rev.) George Conger reporting from General Convention in Anaheim.
From The Living Church via Stand Firm:
News Updates
Posted on: July 17, 2009
Resolutions D025 and C056 sparked three roll call votes during the House of Bishops' sessions of the 76th General Convention in Anaheim, Calif.
The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio, told the house on July 15 that the official tallies from the votes on D025 that rescinded the moratorium on gay bishops, on a motion offered by the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania to discharge C056, and the final vote on C056 which authorized the collection and development of rites for the blessing of same-sex liturgies, would not be complete until the end of convention. The hand tallies taken by the six tellers at the meetings needed to be reconciled, he said.
Bishop Price reported that Resolution D025 was adopted by a vote of 99 yes, 45 no, 2 abstained.
The Rowe amendment was defeated on a vote of 94 no, 42 yes, 1 abstentions. Resolution D058 was passed on a vote of 104 yes, 30 no, 2 abstentions, Bishop Price said. .
Roll call votes are taken in the House of Bishops in order of seniority taken in order of consecration. The senior bishop present for the votes, the Rt. Rev. David Reed, retired Bishop of Kentucky, is Bishop 603 -- the 603rd bishop consecrated to serve The Episcopal Church since its creation. The junior bishop is the Rt. Rev. J. Scott Mayer, Bishop of Northwest Texas -- Bishop 1035 in order of consecration.
Bishops are listed in order of consecration. The votes are in this order: D025, Rowe, and C056.
David B. Reed, Retired Bishop of Kentucky (y y y)
William Frey, Acting Bishop of the Rio Grande( n _ _ )
Otis Charles. Retired Bishop of Utah (y n y)
Gerald McAllister. Retired Bishop of Oklahoma (n_ _ )
Rustin Kimsey. Assisting Bishop for Alaska (y_ _ )
Herbert A. Donovan. Assisting Bishop of New York (y_ _ )
James H. Ottley. Assisting Bishop of Long Island (y n y)
Leopold Frade. Bishop of Southeast Florida (y n y)
Peter Lee. Bishop of Virginia (y y n)
Don Wimberly, Retired Bishop of Texas (_ _ n)
Robert Ladehoff, Retired Bishop of Oregon (y n _ )
Douglas Theuner, Retired Bishop of New Hampshire. (y n y)
Arthur Williams, Jr., Retired Bishop Suffragan of Ohio ( y y _ )
E. Don Taylor, Assistant Bishop of New York ( _ y y)
Jeffery Rowthorn. Retired (American Churches in Europe) (n y n)
Orris G. Walker, Bishop of Long Island (y _ _ )
Frederick Borsch. Retired Bishop of Los Angeles (y_ _ )
Christopher Epting. Bishop for Ecumenical Relations (y _ _ )
Barbara Harris. Assisting Bishop of Washington (y n y)
John Buchanan, Provisional Bishop of Quincy (y n y)
Robert H. Johnson, Assisting Bishop of Pittsburgh (y y y)
Sanford Hampton, Assisting Bishop of Oregon (y n y)
John W. Howe. Bishop of Central Florida (n y n)
Sergio Carranza-Gomez, Assistant Bishop of Los Angeles (y n y)
Edward L. Salmon. Retired Bishop of South Carolina (n y n)
Charles Keyser. Assisting Bishop of Florida (y y y)
Huntington Williams, Retired Suffragan, North Carolina (y _ y)
Chester L. Talton. Bishop Suffragan of Los Angeles (y n y)
Victor Scantlebury, Assisting Bishop of Chicago (a n a)
Steven Charleston, Assistant Bishop of California (y n y)
Jerry A. Lamb, Provisional Bishop of San Joaquin (y n y)
Alfred C. Marble. Assisting Bishop of North Carolina (y n y)
Peter Beckwith. Bishop of Springfield (n y n)
James Stanton. Bishop of Dallas (n y n)
Jean Duracin. Bishop of Haiti (n y n)
F. Clayton Matthews, Office of Pastoral Development (y n _ )
James Jelinek, Bishop of Minnesota (y n y)
Edwin Gulick, Bishop of Kentucky and Provisional, Fort Worth (y n y)
Russell E. Jacobus. Bishop of Fond du Lac (n y n)
M. Thomas Shaw SSJE, Bishop of Massachusetts (y n y)
Alfredo Morante, Bishop of Litoral Ecuador (n n y)
Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio. (y n y)
Henry I. Louttit. Bishop of Georgia. (n n n)
Dorsey F. Henderson. Bishop of Upper South Carolina. (y n y)
Rev. David Jones. Bishop Suffragan of Virginia (y n y)
Catherine S. Roskam. Bishop Suffragan of New York (y n y)
Geralyn Wolf. Bishop of Rhode Island (n y n)
William Skilton. Assistant Bishop of the Dominican Republic (n y n)
Andrew Smith, Bishop of Connecticut (y _ _ )
Carolyn Irish. Bishop of Utah (y n y)
Paul V. Marshall. Bishop of Bethlehem (y n y)
Clifton Daniel. Bishop of East Carolina (y n y)
Henry Parsley. Bishop of Alabama (n y y)
Gordon Scruton. Bishop of Western Massachusetts (a n y)
F. Neff Powell. Bishop of Southwestern Virginia (y _ y)
Richard Chang. Retired Bishop of Hawai'i (y n y)
Rodney Michel. Assisting Bishop of Pennsylvania (y n y)
Catherine Waynick. Bishop of Indianapolis (y n y)
Bruce Caldwell. Bishop of Wyoming (y n y)
Charles Jenkins. Bishop of Louisiana (n n y)
Barry Howe. Bishop of West Missouri (y n y)
Chilton Knudsen. Retired Bishop of Maine (y n y)
Mark S. Sisk. Bishop of New York (y n y)
Wayne Wright. Bishop of Delaware (y n y)
John Rabb. Bishop Suffragan of Maryland (n n y)
John Croneberger, Assistant Bishop of Bethlehem (_ n y)
Charles von Rosenberg Bishop of East Tennessee (y y n)
William Persell. Retired Bishop of Chicago (y n y)
Keith Whitmore. Assistant Bishop of Atlanta (n n y)
The Rt. Rev. J. Michael Garrison. Bishop of Western New York (y n y)
D. Bruce MacPherson. Bishop of Western Louisiana (n y n)
Wendell N. Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan (y n y)
George Packard, Suffragan, Armed Services (n n y)
Edward Little, Bishop of Northern Indiana (n y n)
J. Jon Bruno.,Bishop of Los Angeles (y n y)
Michael B. Curry. Bishop of North Carolina (y n y)
Duncan Gray III. Bishop of Mississippi (n y n)
William O. Gregg. Assistant Bishop of North Carolina (y n y)
Stacy Sauls. Bishop of Lexington (y n y)
James Curry. Bishop Suffragan of Connecticut (y n y)
Wilfrido Ramos-Orench. Bishop of Central Ecuador (y _ _ )
James Waggoner, Bishop of Spokane ( _ n y)
David Jung-Hsin Lai. Bishop of Taiwan (n y n)
Katharine Jefferts Schori. Presiding Bishop (y n y)
Roy F. Cederholm Jr., Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts (y n y)
Thomas C. Ely, Bishop of Vermont (y n y)
Philip Duncan. Bishop of Central Gulf Coast (n n n)
Don E. Johnson. Bishop of West Tennessee (y n y)
Neil Alexander. Bishop of Atlanta (y n y)
Francisco Duque. Bishop of Colombia (n y _ )
Michie Klusmeyer, Bishop of West Virginia (n y y)
The Rt. Rev. Lloyd Allen. Bishop of Honduras (n y n)
Gladstone B. Adams, Bishop of Central New York (y n y)
Pierre Whalon, Convocation of American Churches in Europe (y n y)
Marc Andrus, Bishop of California (y n y)
G.W. Smith, Bishop of Missouri (y n y)
James M. Adams, Bishop of Western Kansas (n y n)
John Chane. Bishop of Washington (y n y)
Gayle Harris. Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts (y n y)
J.J. "Bud" Shand, Bishop of Easton (n n y)
Alan Scarfe. Bishop of Iowa (y n y)
David Alvarez, Bishop of Puerto Rico (y _ _ )
Joe Burnett, Bishop of Nebraska (y n y)
C. Franklin Brookhart, Jr., Bishop of Montana (y y y)
Rayford High, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n n y)
Robert O'Neill, Bishop of Colorado (y n y)
George Councell, Bishop of New Jersey (y n y)
Steven A. Miller, Bishop of Milwaukee (n n y)
S. Johnson Howard, Bishop of Florida (n y n)
V. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire (y n y)
Dean Wolfe, Bishop of Kansas (y n y)
Gary Lillibridge, Bishop of West Texas (n y n)
Kirk S. Smith, Bishop of Arizona (y y y)
Mark Hollingsworth, Jr., Bishop of Ohio (y n y)
Michael Smith, Bishop of North Dakota (n y n)
G. Porter Taylor, Bishop of Western North Carolina (y n y)
Bavi Rivera, Bishop Suffragan of Olympia (y n y)
James Mathes, Bishop of San Diego (y n y)
Edward Ambrose Gumbs, Bishop of Virgin Islands (n y n)
David Reed, Bishop Suffragan of West Texas (n y n)
S. Todd Ousley, Bishop of Eastern Michigan (y n y)
William Love, Bishop of Albany (n y n)
Barry Beisner, Bishop of Northern California (y n y)
Dena Harrison, Bishop Suffragan of Texas (n y n)
Nathan Baxter, Bishop of Central Pennsylvania (y n y)
Larry R. Benfield, Bishop of Arkansas (y n y)
Mark Beckwith, Bishop of Newark (y n y)
John C. Bauerschmidt, Bishop of Tennessee (n y n)
Dabney Smith, Bishop of Southwest Florida (n y y)
Robert Fitzpatrick, Bishop of Hawaii (y y y)
Thomas Breidenthal, Bishop of Southern Ohio (y n y)
Shannon Johnston , Bishop Coadjutor of Virginia (n n y)
Laura Ahrens, Bishop Suffragan of Connecticut (y n y)
Sean Rowe, Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania (n y y)
Edward J. Konieczny, Bishop of Oklahoma (n y n)
Gregory Rickel, Bishop of Olympia (y n y)
Mary Gray-Reeves, Bishop of El Camino Real (y n y)
Dan Edwards, Bishop of Nevada (y n y)
John Sloan, Bishop Suffragan of Alabama (y y y)
Mark J. Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina (n y n)
Jeffrey Lee, Bishop of Chicago (y n y)
Sylveste Romero, Assistant Bishop of New Jersey (y _ _ )
Stephen Lane, Bishop of Maine (y n y)
Prince Singh, Bishop of Rochester (y n y)
Eugene Sutton, Bishop of Maryland (y n y)
Paul Lambert, Bishop Suffragan of Dallas (n y n)
Brian Thom, Bishop of Idaho (y n y)
Andrew Doyle, Bishop of Texas (n y n)
Herman Hollerith, Bishop of Southern Virginia (y n y)
J. Scott Mayer, Bishop of Northwest Texas (_ y y)
(The Rev.) George Conger reporting from General Convention in Anaheim.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
An Open Letter to the Anglican Communion from Archbishop Duncan
From acna.org:
Posted July 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM
22nd July, A.D. 2009
Feast of St. Mary Magdalene
Two Cities: One Choice
An Open Letter to the Anglican Communion
Dearest Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
There are times in the history of God’s people when the prevailing values and behaviors of those then in control of rival cities symbolizes a choice to be made by all of God’s people. For Anglicans such a moment has certainly arrived. The cities symbolizing the present choice are Bedford, Texas, and Anaheim, California. In the last month, the contrasting behaviors and values of the religious leaders who met in these two small cities made each a symbol of Anglicanism’s inescapable choice.
Jerusalem and Babylon come to mind as the Scriptural cities which are enduring symbols of choices to be made by God’s people, and of what can happen when God’s people make a choice for something other than God’s Way, God’s Truth, God’s Life, as set out in God’s Covenant, whether Old or New.
Charles Dickens contrasts London and Paris in the last quarter of the 18th Century in his Tale of Two Cities. Both cities are in crisis, but one operates from received values and behaviors, while the other attempts to re-make the world to its own revolutionary tastes.
St. Augustine of Hippo in his De Civitate Dei contrasts the City of God and the City of the World, explaining the fate of Rome in terms of the favor that comes from conforming to the behaviors and values of the Heavenly City as over against the Earthly City.
The Anglican Church in North America, whose leaders met at Bedford, Texas, from June 20th to June 25th, embraced the values and behaviors familiar to Christians in every age: daily repenting of human sin in disobeying the one Lord, embracing the need (both personal and corporate) of a divine Savior, and recommitting to the proclamation in word and deed of the gospel of transforming love. The unity at Bedford, despite very real differences, was palpable.
The Episcopal Church, whose leaders met at Anaheim, California, from July 8th to 17th, blessed the values and behaviors of a re-defined Christianity: enabling a revisionist anthropology, budgeting litigation rather than evangelism, and confusing received understandings of Scriptural truth, not least concerning the necessity of individual salvation in Christ Jesus. At Anaheim, there were those who valiantly stood against the revolutionary majority, and their pain and grief at what was happening was heartbreaking for all who saw it, not least for their brothers and sisters in the Anglican Church in North America.
The North American poet, Robert Frost, once wrote: “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by. That has made all the difference.” For Anglican Christians, for the Instruments of Unity (Communion), for interdependent Provinces, for ordinary believers, there is a choice to be made. The choice is between two religions, two roads, two cities, two sets of conflicting values and behaviors. In Deuteronomy, chapter 30, Moses sets the choice as between blessing and curse, life and death. For contemporary Anglicanism the present choice is this stark.
I write this humbly and as a sinner. I also write it as one whose hope is in Christ alone, and with deepest love for all for whom He died and rose again.
Faithfully and Obediently,
The Most Reverend Robert William Duncan, D.D.
Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America
Anglican Bishop of Pittsburgh
Posted July 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM
22nd July, A.D. 2009
Feast of St. Mary Magdalene
Two Cities: One Choice
An Open Letter to the Anglican Communion
Dearest Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
There are times in the history of God’s people when the prevailing values and behaviors of those then in control of rival cities symbolizes a choice to be made by all of God’s people. For Anglicans such a moment has certainly arrived. The cities symbolizing the present choice are Bedford, Texas, and Anaheim, California. In the last month, the contrasting behaviors and values of the religious leaders who met in these two small cities made each a symbol of Anglicanism’s inescapable choice.
Jerusalem and Babylon come to mind as the Scriptural cities which are enduring symbols of choices to be made by God’s people, and of what can happen when God’s people make a choice for something other than God’s Way, God’s Truth, God’s Life, as set out in God’s Covenant, whether Old or New.
Charles Dickens contrasts London and Paris in the last quarter of the 18th Century in his Tale of Two Cities. Both cities are in crisis, but one operates from received values and behaviors, while the other attempts to re-make the world to its own revolutionary tastes.
St. Augustine of Hippo in his De Civitate Dei contrasts the City of God and the City of the World, explaining the fate of Rome in terms of the favor that comes from conforming to the behaviors and values of the Heavenly City as over against the Earthly City.
The Anglican Church in North America, whose leaders met at Bedford, Texas, from June 20th to June 25th, embraced the values and behaviors familiar to Christians in every age: daily repenting of human sin in disobeying the one Lord, embracing the need (both personal and corporate) of a divine Savior, and recommitting to the proclamation in word and deed of the gospel of transforming love. The unity at Bedford, despite very real differences, was palpable.
The Episcopal Church, whose leaders met at Anaheim, California, from July 8th to 17th, blessed the values and behaviors of a re-defined Christianity: enabling a revisionist anthropology, budgeting litigation rather than evangelism, and confusing received understandings of Scriptural truth, not least concerning the necessity of individual salvation in Christ Jesus. At Anaheim, there were those who valiantly stood against the revolutionary majority, and their pain and grief at what was happening was heartbreaking for all who saw it, not least for their brothers and sisters in the Anglican Church in North America.
The North American poet, Robert Frost, once wrote: “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by. That has made all the difference.” For Anglican Christians, for the Instruments of Unity (Communion), for interdependent Provinces, for ordinary believers, there is a choice to be made. The choice is between two religions, two roads, two cities, two sets of conflicting values and behaviors. In Deuteronomy, chapter 30, Moses sets the choice as between blessing and curse, life and death. For contemporary Anglicanism the present choice is this stark.
I write this humbly and as a sinner. I also write it as one whose hope is in Christ alone, and with deepest love for all for whom He died and rose again.
Faithfully and Obediently,
The Most Reverend Robert William Duncan, D.D.
Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America
Anglican Bishop of Pittsburgh
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The next post argues that what Anglicans need is what the Roman Catholic Church already has. As I have argued with a reader in the comment section of the Heresy post, Anglicanism doesn't need to become more like Rome. We do need to become more like Eastern Orthodoxy. Our primates operate best in a collegial fashion like Orthodoxy. The development of the Instruments of Communion, or if you prefer, the Instruments of Unity, is a positive step for the Anglican Communion. The production of an Anglican Covenant is also a good sign.
As the next post insists, Anglicanism has hit a crossroads. We cannot continue down the the path of laissez faire. The Church has boundaries that were set by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Those boundaries have been repeatedly violated by pecusa as has been acknowledged implicitly by the actions of the General Convention that just concluded (see the latest from the Anglican Communion Institute posted below).
No, we can't go on as we have in the Anglican Communion but neither do we need a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We do need the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates to guide our Communion back into the channel of biblical orthodoxy. At this point it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that pecusa does not want to pursue this path. She should be cut free from the Anglican flotilla to drift further toward the shoals of heresy on her path of apostasy.
As the next post insists, Anglicanism has hit a crossroads. We cannot continue down the the path of laissez faire. The Church has boundaries that were set by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Those boundaries have been repeatedly violated by pecusa as has been acknowledged implicitly by the actions of the General Convention that just concluded (see the latest from the Anglican Communion Institute posted below).
No, we can't go on as we have in the Anglican Communion but neither do we need a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We do need the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates to guide our Communion back into the channel of biblical orthodoxy. At this point it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that pecusa does not want to pursue this path. She should be cut free from the Anglican flotilla to drift further toward the shoals of heresy on her path of apostasy.
The Episcopalian Rift
From America (the National Catholic Weekly) via TitusOneNine:
Posted at: 2009-07-21 07:36:19.0
Author: Michael Sean Winters
Yesterday’s Washington Post had a story about an Episcopalian church in Virginia that is trying to decide whether or not to stay in the Episcopal Church or to break off and join the more conservative Anglican Church in North America. Already, four dioceses have made the break and dozens of churches nationwide.
There are plenty of jokes to be made about the fact that it is a bit late in the day for Anglicans to be worrying about schism. After all, their communion started as a schismatic Church, breaking with Rome not so much about any doctrinal issues as about issues of state, specifically the desire of the King to set his wife aside.
Most news accounts posit as a given that today’s schisms are the result of the push by gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church to be accepted in their church and to be ordained to all levels of ministry, including the episcopacy. The consecration of openly gay V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2004 is seen as the Rubicon by conservatives. This affirming stance has been criticized by more conservative Anglicans, especially the bishops from the growing Anglican churches in Africa, who hold that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
The problem, however, is not homosexual clergy. The problem is ecclesiology. The much vaunted "via media" that Anglicans pride themselves on has hit a fork in the road. If it had not been the issue of homosexuality it would have been another issue. They need to make a decision that is binding on the whole church, but they have no mechanism for doing so. They need a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as it were, but they very idea seems so un-British. Or, they need to decide that the Baptists and Congregationalists were right all these years, that the local church alone should guide its own destiny and that thoughts of a universal communion are delusional.
The statements coming from the Episcopal Church’s General Convention were purposely not inflammatory, but they did pass a resolution that dug in on their position. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the other Primates of the Anglican Communion, assuring them that the new resolution affirming gays was no news at all. But for conservatives the Rubicon was already crossed. They want a guarantee of orthodoxy and the Anglican church, as a whole, cannot provide it.
For years, Protestants have considered Catholics somewhat servile because of our deference to Rome. "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" are not the words of theological liberalism to be sure. But, for two thousand years, the impulse to keep together, to put ecclesiology at the top of our concern, to take the Lord’s command that all may be one very seriously and to set up structures that facilitate that unity, that impulse has stood us in good stead. I am sure the Episcopalians might not want a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at Lambeth, but I am glad we have one of our own in Rome.
Posted at: 2009-07-21 07:36:19.0
Author: Michael Sean Winters
Yesterday’s Washington Post had a story about an Episcopalian church in Virginia that is trying to decide whether or not to stay in the Episcopal Church or to break off and join the more conservative Anglican Church in North America. Already, four dioceses have made the break and dozens of churches nationwide.
There are plenty of jokes to be made about the fact that it is a bit late in the day for Anglicans to be worrying about schism. After all, their communion started as a schismatic Church, breaking with Rome not so much about any doctrinal issues as about issues of state, specifically the desire of the King to set his wife aside.
Most news accounts posit as a given that today’s schisms are the result of the push by gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church to be accepted in their church and to be ordained to all levels of ministry, including the episcopacy. The consecration of openly gay V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2004 is seen as the Rubicon by conservatives. This affirming stance has been criticized by more conservative Anglicans, especially the bishops from the growing Anglican churches in Africa, who hold that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
The problem, however, is not homosexual clergy. The problem is ecclesiology. The much vaunted "via media" that Anglicans pride themselves on has hit a fork in the road. If it had not been the issue of homosexuality it would have been another issue. They need to make a decision that is binding on the whole church, but they have no mechanism for doing so. They need a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as it were, but they very idea seems so un-British. Or, they need to decide that the Baptists and Congregationalists were right all these years, that the local church alone should guide its own destiny and that thoughts of a universal communion are delusional.
The statements coming from the Episcopal Church’s General Convention were purposely not inflammatory, but they did pass a resolution that dug in on their position. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the other Primates of the Anglican Communion, assuring them that the new resolution affirming gays was no news at all. But for conservatives the Rubicon was already crossed. They want a guarantee of orthodoxy and the Anglican church, as a whole, cannot provide it.
For years, Protestants have considered Catholics somewhat servile because of our deference to Rome. "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" are not the words of theological liberalism to be sure. But, for two thousand years, the impulse to keep together, to put ecclesiology at the top of our concern, to take the Lord’s command that all may be one very seriously and to set up structures that facilitate that unity, that impulse has stood us in good stead. I am sure the Episcopalians might not want a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at Lambeth, but I am glad we have one of our own in Rome.
Resolutions and the Windsor Moratoria
Via Stand Firm:
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009
At its recently concluded General Convention, The Episcopal Church passed resolutions that are widely regarded as repudiations of prior commitments to the Windsor moratoria that have been officially implemented by the Anglican Communion. Apparently reacting to the swift denunciation of these actions by many in the Communion, various constituencies in TEC are now scrambling to re-interpret General Convention’s actions. ENS withdrew and revised its story about a key vote and Convention participants have produced wildly inconsistent, if equally far-fetched, interpretations of what took place. Integrity continues to claim, however, that this Convention was a “virtual clean sweep” for their side.
Bishops
There are now multiple conflicting interpretations of the relationship of Resolution D025 to Resolution B033 and the Windsor moratorium on episcopal elections. During the debate on D025 in the House of Bishops, the Presiding Bishop stated (in response to a leading question from Bishop Gulick) that the moratorium would remain in effect until another gay bishop was consecrated. Bishop Gulick has since repeated this claim himself. In any sense in which this is true at all, it is merely a trivial tautology and therefore of no empirical significance or interest. The Windsor Report was not asking TEC to refrain from consecrating another gay bishop only until such time as they consecrate another gay bishop. It was asking TEC to commit not to do so.
A few days later, in their joint letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies stated that “Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.”
http://ecusa.anglican.org/documents/D025_letter_to_Archbishop.pdf
Note that this letter makes no mention at all of a moratorium. It neither claims that one is still in place or even that one was ever in place. It only refers to the relationship between D025 and B033, and in that context makes the claim that B033 will be interpreted in light of the later D025, not vice versa. The joint letter thus gives D025 priority over B033. Time will tell, they say, whether B033 will either be re-interpreted or treated as repealed. But it is the status of B033 that is up for grabs, not D025.
The Presiding Bishop’s assistant for ecumenical matters, Bishop Epting is among those taking the tack of re-interpreting B033:
The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ passage of resolution D025 does not overturn last General Convention’s call for care and “restraint.” That last resolution (B033) was never a “moratorium” on the ordination and consecration of gay and lesbian persons. It counseled care in approving any bishops whose “manner of life” would cause additional strain on the Anglican Communion.
Quite apart from the press’s (including Episcopal News Service) usual misunderstanding of such things, D025 simply re-asserts what has always been true — the ordination process in The Episcopal Church is governed by the Constitution and Canons of this church.
It would be perfectly possible for a bishop to have voted for D025 and still withhold consent for the election of any bishop-elect. http://ecubishop.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/do25-does-not-overturn-b033
In other words, the Epting defense is that B033 is not repealed because it was never a moratorium to begin with. This points out the flaw in the D025/B033 shell game that is now the party line of TEC progressives. It “preserves” B033 by acknowledging that TEC was never in compliance with the Windsor request anyway. It thereby constitutes a stunning betrayal of the Communion bodies that bent over backwards at the cost of their own credibility to find in B033 the moratorium that the Windsor Report and consecutive Primates’ Meetings requested.
Note that the Windsor Report requested in paragraph 134 that:
the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_d/p2.cfm
The Primates’ Meeting at Dromantine formalized this request and asked that TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada) “respond through their relevant constitutional bodies.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/communique%20_english.pdf Neither the Windsor Report nor the Primates specified that the moratorium needed to be incorporated into canon law; only that the commitment to “effect” the moratorium be given by the relevant constitutional body.
In TEC’s case, a moratorium could have been effected by passing a canon at General Convention, but that was not done. Indeed, it was never proposed. Instead, B033 was merely a resolution requesting restraint. But in TEC’s case, a moratorium could also be effected by a commitment by the constitutional bodies responsible for giving consents to episcopal elections, bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees. The Communion bodies did TEC a great favor by interpreting B033 in precisely this fashion. B033 complied with the Windsor request, they said, because it was a commitment by a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to withhold consent. Thus, the widely-criticized “Sub-Group Report” issued before the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam found TEC in compliance on this front based on its conclusion that:
In voting for this resolution, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion. This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003. It was noted that a small number of bishops indicated that they would not abide by the resolution of General Convention, but in supporting the resolution the majority of bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report…. The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates. (Emphasis added.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf
The compliance with the Windsor request was found therefore not in the canonical enforceability of B033 but in the commitment of a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to a moratorium. And that commitment was manifested by their vote on B033.
In New Orleans in September 2007, the House of Bishops confirmed this interpretation of B033 by endorsing the Sub-group Report:
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”[1] The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains. (Emphasis added.)
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm
In evaluating the House of Bishops’ response after New Orleans, the Communion’s Joint Standing Committee concluded TEC had complied with the Windsor request solely on the basis that it had endorsed the Sub-Group’s conclusions:
By confirming the interpretation of the Communion Sub-Group and quoting it explicitly, as well as making the explicit acknowledgement in the last sentence of their text that Resolution B033 does refer to “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”, the Episcopal House of Bishops is answering the question of the Primates positively. They confirm the understanding of the sub-group that restraint is exercised in a precise way “by not consenting”, and that this specifically includes “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”. They have therefore clearly affirmed that the Communion Sub-Group were correct in interpreting Resolution B033 as meeting the request of the Windsor Report. http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf
As this review shows, the significance to the communion of B033 was the “commitment” manifested by bishops with jurisdiction by their votes to “effect a moratorium” by withholding consent. One can readily see that this was the most favorable interpretation one could possibly give to TEC’s actions in 2006 in passing B033.
Those who gave TEC this benefit of the doubt have now been rewarded with D025 and the claim that no harm has been done because B033 never was a moratorium anyway. Yet those same bishops (including Bp. Epting) concurred in the HOB statement at New Orleans that B033 complied with Windsor and effected a moratorium. We now have the Presiding Bishop (among others) saying the moratorium is still in effect, her ecumenical assistant saying (contrary to what he said at New Orleans) that it was never in effect, the two presiding officers jointly saying only time will tell, but D025 takes precedence and virtually everyone lauding themselves for their “honesty.”
In fact, B033 never was a de jure moratorium, but it could be construed (as the Communion bodies graciously did) as a commitment by bishops with jurisdiction to effect a moratorium. But under this most favorable possible interpretation, that commitment by bishops has now been repudiated by D025. In that resolution, an overwhelming majority of bishops, including bishops with jurisdiction, committed to opening all orders of ministry to partnered homosexuals and accepted a resolution that was explicitly based in its own official Explanation on the claim that homosexual relationships reflect “holy love” and that these “standards” should provide “guidance for access to the discernment process for ordination to the episcopate.” The only conclusion that can be drawn from this vote is that the commitment to effect a moratorium manifested only by the votes for B033 has been repudiated by the very different commitment manifested by the votes for D025. A vote endorsing D025 and the standards articulated in its Explanation is not a commitment to effect a moratorium. It quite obviously is the contrary and is why Integrity regards this convention as a “virtual clean sweep.” A minority of bishops remain committed to B033, but they no longer are the majority the Sub-Group and Joint Standing Committee concluded was sufficient to effect the Windsor moratorium.
Blessings
Similar efforts are underway to obscure the effect of Resolution C056, which approved dioceses’ blessings of same sex unions and began the development of church-wide liturgies. This is a subject with a lengthy history and public record.
In 2003, General Convention by resolution C051 acknowledged that liturgies blessing same sex unions were in use in TEC: “we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.”
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=2003-C051
The Sub-Group Report found that such public liturgies were in use in several TEC dioceses and concluded: “We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life. This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf
In New Orleans, the House of Bishops acknowledged that some, but not a majority, of bishops “make allowance for the blessing of same sex unions.”
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm
In light of this record over several years of acknowledgement of public liturgies of blessing, the language in C056 encouraging bishops to offer “generous pastoral response”—not “private [pastoral] response” as contemplated by the Primates—can only be construed as endorsement by the General Convention of the well-known public liturgies of blessing that have long been acknowledged to be in use in TEC dioceses. That this endorsement was given with obvious cunning and craft is not a point in its favor.
In other words, C056 is the endorsement by TEC as a whole of those bishops who act in violation of the second of the Windsor moratoria. The Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that it is public liturgies of blessing, not just approval of rites, that are implicated by the second Windsor moratorium. The post-New Orleans Joint Standing Committee report, which was accepted by TEC’s Presiding Bishop, a member of that committee, made this explicit:
It needs to be made clear however that we believe that the celebration of a public liturgy which includes a blessing on a same-sex union is not within the breadth of private pastoral response envisaged by the Primates in their Pastoral Letter of 2003, and that the undertaking made by the bishops in New Orleans is understood to mean that the use of any such rites or liturgies will not in future have the bishop’s authority “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action”, a qualification which is in line with the limits that the Constitution of The Episcopal Church places upon the bishops (emphasis added).” http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf
The Windsor Continuation Group Report released earlier this year concluded that those dioceses that were “actively pursuing” public rites of blessing had “only the passive consent of General Convention, which has until now refused to take positive steps toward the recognition of such Rites.” The WCG was willing to conclude the second moratorium was “significantly” holding because it found that the public blessings could not “be characterized as a determined movement by the whole Church to see such Rites firmly established in the life of the Church.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/windsor_continuation/WCG_Report.cfm
C056 quite obviously is a repudiation of the New Orleans undertaking as understood by the Joint Standing Committee and is the “determined movement” by the whole church the WCG did not find earlier this year. C056 made no effort to discourage the long-acknowledged and ongoing public blessings, and no one suggested for a minute that they were not what was being encouraged as a “generous pastoral response.”
Whatever one makes of the resolutions of the last two General Conventions, it is clear that TEC has now charted its own course and no longer considers itself bound by previous undertakings and Communion moratoria.
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009
At its recently concluded General Convention, The Episcopal Church passed resolutions that are widely regarded as repudiations of prior commitments to the Windsor moratoria that have been officially implemented by the Anglican Communion. Apparently reacting to the swift denunciation of these actions by many in the Communion, various constituencies in TEC are now scrambling to re-interpret General Convention’s actions. ENS withdrew and revised its story about a key vote and Convention participants have produced wildly inconsistent, if equally far-fetched, interpretations of what took place. Integrity continues to claim, however, that this Convention was a “virtual clean sweep” for their side.
Bishops
There are now multiple conflicting interpretations of the relationship of Resolution D025 to Resolution B033 and the Windsor moratorium on episcopal elections. During the debate on D025 in the House of Bishops, the Presiding Bishop stated (in response to a leading question from Bishop Gulick) that the moratorium would remain in effect until another gay bishop was consecrated. Bishop Gulick has since repeated this claim himself. In any sense in which this is true at all, it is merely a trivial tautology and therefore of no empirical significance or interest. The Windsor Report was not asking TEC to refrain from consecrating another gay bishop only until such time as they consecrate another gay bishop. It was asking TEC to commit not to do so.
A few days later, in their joint letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies stated that “Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.”
http://ecusa.anglican.org/documents/D025_letter_to_Archbishop.pdf
Note that this letter makes no mention at all of a moratorium. It neither claims that one is still in place or even that one was ever in place. It only refers to the relationship between D025 and B033, and in that context makes the claim that B033 will be interpreted in light of the later D025, not vice versa. The joint letter thus gives D025 priority over B033. Time will tell, they say, whether B033 will either be re-interpreted or treated as repealed. But it is the status of B033 that is up for grabs, not D025.
The Presiding Bishop’s assistant for ecumenical matters, Bishop Epting is among those taking the tack of re-interpreting B033:
The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ passage of resolution D025 does not overturn last General Convention’s call for care and “restraint.” That last resolution (B033) was never a “moratorium” on the ordination and consecration of gay and lesbian persons. It counseled care in approving any bishops whose “manner of life” would cause additional strain on the Anglican Communion.
Quite apart from the press’s (including Episcopal News Service) usual misunderstanding of such things, D025 simply re-asserts what has always been true — the ordination process in The Episcopal Church is governed by the Constitution and Canons of this church.
It would be perfectly possible for a bishop to have voted for D025 and still withhold consent for the election of any bishop-elect. http://ecubishop.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/do25-does-not-overturn-b033
In other words, the Epting defense is that B033 is not repealed because it was never a moratorium to begin with. This points out the flaw in the D025/B033 shell game that is now the party line of TEC progressives. It “preserves” B033 by acknowledging that TEC was never in compliance with the Windsor request anyway. It thereby constitutes a stunning betrayal of the Communion bodies that bent over backwards at the cost of their own credibility to find in B033 the moratorium that the Windsor Report and consecutive Primates’ Meetings requested.
Note that the Windsor Report requested in paragraph 134 that:
the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_d/p2.cfm
The Primates’ Meeting at Dromantine formalized this request and asked that TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada) “respond through their relevant constitutional bodies.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/communique%20_english.pdf Neither the Windsor Report nor the Primates specified that the moratorium needed to be incorporated into canon law; only that the commitment to “effect” the moratorium be given by the relevant constitutional body.
In TEC’s case, a moratorium could have been effected by passing a canon at General Convention, but that was not done. Indeed, it was never proposed. Instead, B033 was merely a resolution requesting restraint. But in TEC’s case, a moratorium could also be effected by a commitment by the constitutional bodies responsible for giving consents to episcopal elections, bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees. The Communion bodies did TEC a great favor by interpreting B033 in precisely this fashion. B033 complied with the Windsor request, they said, because it was a commitment by a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to withhold consent. Thus, the widely-criticized “Sub-Group Report” issued before the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam found TEC in compliance on this front based on its conclusion that:
In voting for this resolution, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion. This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003. It was noted that a small number of bishops indicated that they would not abide by the resolution of General Convention, but in supporting the resolution the majority of bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report…. The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates. (Emphasis added.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf
The compliance with the Windsor request was found therefore not in the canonical enforceability of B033 but in the commitment of a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to a moratorium. And that commitment was manifested by their vote on B033.
In New Orleans in September 2007, the House of Bishops confirmed this interpretation of B033 by endorsing the Sub-group Report:
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”[1] The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains. (Emphasis added.)
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm
In evaluating the House of Bishops’ response after New Orleans, the Communion’s Joint Standing Committee concluded TEC had complied with the Windsor request solely on the basis that it had endorsed the Sub-Group’s conclusions:
By confirming the interpretation of the Communion Sub-Group and quoting it explicitly, as well as making the explicit acknowledgement in the last sentence of their text that Resolution B033 does refer to “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”, the Episcopal House of Bishops is answering the question of the Primates positively. They confirm the understanding of the sub-group that restraint is exercised in a precise way “by not consenting”, and that this specifically includes “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”. They have therefore clearly affirmed that the Communion Sub-Group were correct in interpreting Resolution B033 as meeting the request of the Windsor Report. http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf
As this review shows, the significance to the communion of B033 was the “commitment” manifested by bishops with jurisdiction by their votes to “effect a moratorium” by withholding consent. One can readily see that this was the most favorable interpretation one could possibly give to TEC’s actions in 2006 in passing B033.
Those who gave TEC this benefit of the doubt have now been rewarded with D025 and the claim that no harm has been done because B033 never was a moratorium anyway. Yet those same bishops (including Bp. Epting) concurred in the HOB statement at New Orleans that B033 complied with Windsor and effected a moratorium. We now have the Presiding Bishop (among others) saying the moratorium is still in effect, her ecumenical assistant saying (contrary to what he said at New Orleans) that it was never in effect, the two presiding officers jointly saying only time will tell, but D025 takes precedence and virtually everyone lauding themselves for their “honesty.”
In fact, B033 never was a de jure moratorium, but it could be construed (as the Communion bodies graciously did) as a commitment by bishops with jurisdiction to effect a moratorium. But under this most favorable possible interpretation, that commitment by bishops has now been repudiated by D025. In that resolution, an overwhelming majority of bishops, including bishops with jurisdiction, committed to opening all orders of ministry to partnered homosexuals and accepted a resolution that was explicitly based in its own official Explanation on the claim that homosexual relationships reflect “holy love” and that these “standards” should provide “guidance for access to the discernment process for ordination to the episcopate.” The only conclusion that can be drawn from this vote is that the commitment to effect a moratorium manifested only by the votes for B033 has been repudiated by the very different commitment manifested by the votes for D025. A vote endorsing D025 and the standards articulated in its Explanation is not a commitment to effect a moratorium. It quite obviously is the contrary and is why Integrity regards this convention as a “virtual clean sweep.” A minority of bishops remain committed to B033, but they no longer are the majority the Sub-Group and Joint Standing Committee concluded was sufficient to effect the Windsor moratorium.
Blessings
Similar efforts are underway to obscure the effect of Resolution C056, which approved dioceses’ blessings of same sex unions and began the development of church-wide liturgies. This is a subject with a lengthy history and public record.
In 2003, General Convention by resolution C051 acknowledged that liturgies blessing same sex unions were in use in TEC: “we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.”
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=2003-C051
The Sub-Group Report found that such public liturgies were in use in several TEC dioceses and concluded: “We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life. This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf
In New Orleans, the House of Bishops acknowledged that some, but not a majority, of bishops “make allowance for the blessing of same sex unions.”
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm
In light of this record over several years of acknowledgement of public liturgies of blessing, the language in C056 encouraging bishops to offer “generous pastoral response”—not “private [pastoral] response” as contemplated by the Primates—can only be construed as endorsement by the General Convention of the well-known public liturgies of blessing that have long been acknowledged to be in use in TEC dioceses. That this endorsement was given with obvious cunning and craft is not a point in its favor.
In other words, C056 is the endorsement by TEC as a whole of those bishops who act in violation of the second of the Windsor moratoria. The Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that it is public liturgies of blessing, not just approval of rites, that are implicated by the second Windsor moratorium. The post-New Orleans Joint Standing Committee report, which was accepted by TEC’s Presiding Bishop, a member of that committee, made this explicit:
It needs to be made clear however that we believe that the celebration of a public liturgy which includes a blessing on a same-sex union is not within the breadth of private pastoral response envisaged by the Primates in their Pastoral Letter of 2003, and that the undertaking made by the bishops in New Orleans is understood to mean that the use of any such rites or liturgies will not in future have the bishop’s authority “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action”, a qualification which is in line with the limits that the Constitution of The Episcopal Church places upon the bishops (emphasis added).” http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf
The Windsor Continuation Group Report released earlier this year concluded that those dioceses that were “actively pursuing” public rites of blessing had “only the passive consent of General Convention, which has until now refused to take positive steps toward the recognition of such Rites.” The WCG was willing to conclude the second moratorium was “significantly” holding because it found that the public blessings could not “be characterized as a determined movement by the whole Church to see such Rites firmly established in the life of the Church.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/windsor_continuation/WCG_Report.cfm
C056 quite obviously is a repudiation of the New Orleans undertaking as understood by the Joint Standing Committee and is the “determined movement” by the whole church the WCG did not find earlier this year. C056 made no effort to discourage the long-acknowledged and ongoing public blessings, and no one suggested for a minute that they were not what was being encouraged as a “generous pastoral response.”
Whatever one makes of the resolutions of the last two General Conventions, it is clear that TEC has now charted its own course and no longer considers itself bound by previous undertakings and Communion moratoria.
Reflections on the Future of the Episcopal Church in Light of the Actions of the General Convention
From Covenant Communion:
by Canon Dr. Neal Michell
As many in the Episcopal/Anglican world know, The Episcopal Church just completed its 76th General Convention in Anaheim, California. So, what are the medium-term prospects for the Episcopal Church in light of the decisions recently make by that General Convention?
Okay, let’s take a deep breath. Inhale deeply. . . exhale deeply. . . Here’s my take. First, the positives, and then the negatives.
1. Missions. First, on a positive note, it was evident that The Episcopal Church as a whole and as a sum of its parts is involved in lots of missionary endeavors throughout the world. All the resolutions concerning World Mission were considered with deep respect and generally found easy passage. This church has come a long way from the 1980’s and 1990’s when the World Mission Department of the Presiding Bishop’s office was in such disarray and serious attempts were made to cease sending missionaries from TEC to other parts of the world. Similarly, it is clear that those present at this General Convention value TEC’s membership and participation in the life of the Anglican Communion.
2. Diversity is a Value. The decisions of General Convention also evidence that TEC wants to be a church of more than the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant of the last two centuries in which men dominated the leadership ranks of the church. Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, homosexual persons, and women obviously played prominent roles at various levels of the church. On the positive side, it is a good thing to be in a church that attracts gay and lesbian persons. TEC is attempting to be more inclusive of people who formerly felt alienated from the church. (The downside of this is that as a whole, TEC churches offer acceptance only and not any sense of healing or deeper wholeness. A further downside of this desire to include in positions of leadership people from these formerly marginalized groups is that in several elections, candidates who were more experienced and had a more proven record of service to the church were cast aside in favor of these formerly marginalized people with less experience.)
3. Strategic Plan for Hispanic and Latino Ministries. One glance at the Strategic plan put forward by the Hispanic and Latino Ministries shows that they get it.
Well, that’s about it for the positives. The rest looks pretty grim—and, by the way, it’s not all about sex. Let’s get sex out of the way first, because TEC has more problems than just the conflict over sexuality.
1. Widening Gap Between TEC and the Anglican Communion. The most commented on actions coming out of the Anaheim General Convention has to do with the declarations that discernment for all levels of ordained ministry is open to gay and lesbian persons. Although many have and will argue—specifically, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies—that the moratorium on consenting to the election of a bishop in a same sex union has not been repealed, both the rationale given for the proposed legislation, and the floor debate accompanying said legislation (“D025”) reveals that the intent of the General Convention legislation was to hold the self-restraint as called for in 2006 (“B033”) as no longer binding on the bishops. It must be added that the abrogation of B033 was stated gently, respectfully, and graciously, but the intent of both houses of Deputies and Bishops was to abrogate B033. To interpret D025 otherwise stretches the bounds of credulity. The result at the Communion level will be that the rift between TEC and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion (save for Canada and a number of individual dioceses) has now widened even more considerably, and the likelihood of some form of Communion discipline of TEC is increased.
The Episcopal Church through General Convention also authorized the development of liturgical resources for the blessing of same sex unions to be presented to the 2012 General Convention (C061). Those who want TEC to remain a “constituent member of the Anglican Communion” will argue that no official rites were thereby authorized; it is equally clear through the floor debate on C061 as well as the statement in C056 that “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church.” Again, signal that TEC would move forward on the blessing of same sex unions wase given gently, respectfully, and graciously, but the intent was to move TEC beyond the constraints of the second moratorium requested by the primates in the Windsor Report family of requests. (There is one other problem facing TEC that comes from the sexuality decisions of General Convention in Anaheim. We will deal with that issue later in section 5 below.
However, the problems in TEC expressed through the decisions of General Convention in Anaheim run deeper than the sexuality issues.
2. Financial Shortfall.bishops, It was obvious to all those in attendance at the General Convention in Anaheim that The Episcopal Church as an organization is facing tremendous financial difficulties. Although the economy in general was publicly cited as the reason for the financial problems, it was clear through a review of the contributing dioceses the printed materials that the departure of four dioceses and the disaffection of a number of dioceses also contributed significantly to the shortfall. According to notes distributed to the Bishops and deputies, at least 68 out of 109 dioceses failed in 2008 to pay to TEC the amount requested for the support of the program and structure of TEC. Many good and positive ministries are being given less support or provided no support at all. When the budget was passed, it was also announced that some thirty jobs at “815” would be eliminated within the year.
3. Fair Cuts versus Strategic Cuts. The cuts proposed in the budget for TEC were intended to be “fair” and “across the board.” Sounds fair and reasonable, right? Ah, but that’s the problem. They were not strategic. Any organization experiencing decline should be strategic in its budget allocation. There was no talk of strategy—except a proposal to take money from the strategic planning line item and use it to provide a second part-time assistant for the President of the House of Deputies.
4. Lack of Overall Strategic Direction. Even apart from the lack of strategic allocation of resources in the triennial budget, it is clear that TEC also lacks strategic direction at the highest levels of leadership in TEC. Cuts in Communications were made without consultation of either the Standing Commission on Communications or the Board of Episcopal Life. In addition, the staff and organization of the Presiding Bishop has been in disarray for the past three years and continues to this day. Positions have been eliminated, some staff members have been reassigned, with the result that areas of responsibility have fallen through the cracks in a seemingly disorganized reorganization. Seemingly strategic staff positions of three years ago and even one year ago were eliminated with little dissent.
Clearly, a denominational structure that served 3.6 million members that now serves 2.2 million members has to be reorganized. However, the decisions made at General Convention fails to show whether the leadership is really acknowledging that changed reality.
5. Impact of Liberal vs. Conservative Balance of Power. Most votes concerning issues of sexuality generally passed by similar margins: 70% to 30% in favor of what would be labeled the liberal position. (The one exception was the resolution calling on people in The Episcopal Church to work for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act: it passed by only 55% to 45% in the House of Deputies and was defeated in the House of Bishops). TEC has lost 10% of its average Sunday attendance since 2003 (the year when the bishop of New Hampshire was consecrated). At a time when TEC is in significant decline due to conservatives leaving the denomination, the decisions to allow partnered gays to serve as bishops and to bless same sex unions—while it may bring some people into Episcopal churches—the overall effect will be to cause more theologically and culturally conservative people to leave TEC and will make TEC an even less attractive church for other theologically and culturally conservative people to consider joining.
by Canon Dr. Neal Michell
As many in the Episcopal/Anglican world know, The Episcopal Church just completed its 76th General Convention in Anaheim, California. So, what are the medium-term prospects for the Episcopal Church in light of the decisions recently make by that General Convention?
Okay, let’s take a deep breath. Inhale deeply. . . exhale deeply. . . Here’s my take. First, the positives, and then the negatives.
1. Missions. First, on a positive note, it was evident that The Episcopal Church as a whole and as a sum of its parts is involved in lots of missionary endeavors throughout the world. All the resolutions concerning World Mission were considered with deep respect and generally found easy passage. This church has come a long way from the 1980’s and 1990’s when the World Mission Department of the Presiding Bishop’s office was in such disarray and serious attempts were made to cease sending missionaries from TEC to other parts of the world. Similarly, it is clear that those present at this General Convention value TEC’s membership and participation in the life of the Anglican Communion.
2. Diversity is a Value. The decisions of General Convention also evidence that TEC wants to be a church of more than the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant of the last two centuries in which men dominated the leadership ranks of the church. Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, homosexual persons, and women obviously played prominent roles at various levels of the church. On the positive side, it is a good thing to be in a church that attracts gay and lesbian persons. TEC is attempting to be more inclusive of people who formerly felt alienated from the church. (The downside of this is that as a whole, TEC churches offer acceptance only and not any sense of healing or deeper wholeness. A further downside of this desire to include in positions of leadership people from these formerly marginalized groups is that in several elections, candidates who were more experienced and had a more proven record of service to the church were cast aside in favor of these formerly marginalized people with less experience.)
3. Strategic Plan for Hispanic and Latino Ministries. One glance at the Strategic plan put forward by the Hispanic and Latino Ministries shows that they get it.
Well, that’s about it for the positives. The rest looks pretty grim—and, by the way, it’s not all about sex. Let’s get sex out of the way first, because TEC has more problems than just the conflict over sexuality.
1. Widening Gap Between TEC and the Anglican Communion. The most commented on actions coming out of the Anaheim General Convention has to do with the declarations that discernment for all levels of ordained ministry is open to gay and lesbian persons. Although many have and will argue—specifically, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies—that the moratorium on consenting to the election of a bishop in a same sex union has not been repealed, both the rationale given for the proposed legislation, and the floor debate accompanying said legislation (“D025”) reveals that the intent of the General Convention legislation was to hold the self-restraint as called for in 2006 (“B033”) as no longer binding on the bishops. It must be added that the abrogation of B033 was stated gently, respectfully, and graciously, but the intent of both houses of Deputies and Bishops was to abrogate B033. To interpret D025 otherwise stretches the bounds of credulity. The result at the Communion level will be that the rift between TEC and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion (save for Canada and a number of individual dioceses) has now widened even more considerably, and the likelihood of some form of Communion discipline of TEC is increased.
The Episcopal Church through General Convention also authorized the development of liturgical resources for the blessing of same sex unions to be presented to the 2012 General Convention (C061). Those who want TEC to remain a “constituent member of the Anglican Communion” will argue that no official rites were thereby authorized; it is equally clear through the floor debate on C061 as well as the statement in C056 that “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church.” Again, signal that TEC would move forward on the blessing of same sex unions wase given gently, respectfully, and graciously, but the intent was to move TEC beyond the constraints of the second moratorium requested by the primates in the Windsor Report family of requests. (There is one other problem facing TEC that comes from the sexuality decisions of General Convention in Anaheim. We will deal with that issue later in section 5 below.
However, the problems in TEC expressed through the decisions of General Convention in Anaheim run deeper than the sexuality issues.
2. Financial Shortfall.bishops, It was obvious to all those in attendance at the General Convention in Anaheim that The Episcopal Church as an organization is facing tremendous financial difficulties. Although the economy in general was publicly cited as the reason for the financial problems, it was clear through a review of the contributing dioceses the printed materials that the departure of four dioceses and the disaffection of a number of dioceses also contributed significantly to the shortfall. According to notes distributed to the Bishops and deputies, at least 68 out of 109 dioceses failed in 2008 to pay to TEC the amount requested for the support of the program and structure of TEC. Many good and positive ministries are being given less support or provided no support at all. When the budget was passed, it was also announced that some thirty jobs at “815” would be eliminated within the year.
3. Fair Cuts versus Strategic Cuts. The cuts proposed in the budget for TEC were intended to be “fair” and “across the board.” Sounds fair and reasonable, right? Ah, but that’s the problem. They were not strategic. Any organization experiencing decline should be strategic in its budget allocation. There was no talk of strategy—except a proposal to take money from the strategic planning line item and use it to provide a second part-time assistant for the President of the House of Deputies.
4. Lack of Overall Strategic Direction. Even apart from the lack of strategic allocation of resources in the triennial budget, it is clear that TEC also lacks strategic direction at the highest levels of leadership in TEC. Cuts in Communications were made without consultation of either the Standing Commission on Communications or the Board of Episcopal Life. In addition, the staff and organization of the Presiding Bishop has been in disarray for the past three years and continues to this day. Positions have been eliminated, some staff members have been reassigned, with the result that areas of responsibility have fallen through the cracks in a seemingly disorganized reorganization. Seemingly strategic staff positions of three years ago and even one year ago were eliminated with little dissent.
Clearly, a denominational structure that served 3.6 million members that now serves 2.2 million members has to be reorganized. However, the decisions made at General Convention fails to show whether the leadership is really acknowledging that changed reality.
5. Impact of Liberal vs. Conservative Balance of Power. Most votes concerning issues of sexuality generally passed by similar margins: 70% to 30% in favor of what would be labeled the liberal position. (The one exception was the resolution calling on people in The Episcopal Church to work for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act: it passed by only 55% to 45% in the House of Deputies and was defeated in the House of Bishops). TEC has lost 10% of its average Sunday attendance since 2003 (the year when the bishop of New Hampshire was consecrated). At a time when TEC is in significant decline due to conservatives leaving the denomination, the decisions to allow partnered gays to serve as bishops and to bless same sex unions—while it may bring some people into Episcopal churches—the overall effect will be to cause more theologically and culturally conservative people to leave TEC and will make TEC an even less attractive church for other theologically and culturally conservative people to consider joining.
Bishop authorizes same-sex blessings
From Religious Intelligence:
Monday, 20th July 2009. 12:00pm
By: George Conger.
The Bishop of Niagara has authorized his clergy to begin offering blessings of same-sex couples starting from September 1.
In an explanatory note posed on the diocese’s website, the Niagara Rite was authorized by Bishop Michael Bird for the “voluntary use of priests who wish to offer a sacrament of blessing regardless of the gender of the civilly married persons who wish to receive the blessing of the church and wish to affirm their life commitment to each other before God in the community of the church.”
The note added stated rite was a means “for the church to extend affirmation, support, and commitment to those who present themselves seeking a sign of God’s love in response to the love and commitment they express for each other and have already affirmed in a civil ceremony,” and was designed for the blessing of “any couple who have been civilly married.”
In January the bishop of the south central Ontario diocese met with Dr Rowan Williams at Lambeth Palace to brief the archbishop his plans. Writing in the March issue of his diocesan newspaper, Bishop Bird said the diocese’s call to “prophetic justice-making has made us even more determined to become a more open and inclusive church” and break the Canadian House of Bishops and Lambeth moratorium on the introduction of gay blessings.
At his November 2008 synod, Bishop Bird said he would charter a commission to produce a rite for same-gender couples married under Canada’s gender-neutral matrimonial laws. At its 2007 meeting, by a vote of 239-53 the Niagara synod asked the bishop to allow those clergy "whose conscience permits" to bless gay marriages. However, in Oct 2008 the Canadian House of Bishops called for a stay of liturgical experimentation for gay weddings. Canada’s General Synod would take up the issue in 2010, the bishops said.
Dr Williams’ response to Bishop Bird’s news was less then fulsome. Bishop Bird wrote the archbishop had thanked him “for such a full and detailed report and he indicated how important this opportunity was for him to hear from me personally.”
Monday, 20th July 2009. 12:00pm
By: George Conger.
The Bishop of Niagara has authorized his clergy to begin offering blessings of same-sex couples starting from September 1.
In an explanatory note posed on the diocese’s website, the Niagara Rite was authorized by Bishop Michael Bird for the “voluntary use of priests who wish to offer a sacrament of blessing regardless of the gender of the civilly married persons who wish to receive the blessing of the church and wish to affirm their life commitment to each other before God in the community of the church.”
The note added stated rite was a means “for the church to extend affirmation, support, and commitment to those who present themselves seeking a sign of God’s love in response to the love and commitment they express for each other and have already affirmed in a civil ceremony,” and was designed for the blessing of “any couple who have been civilly married.”
In January the bishop of the south central Ontario diocese met with Dr Rowan Williams at Lambeth Palace to brief the archbishop his plans. Writing in the March issue of his diocesan newspaper, Bishop Bird said the diocese’s call to “prophetic justice-making has made us even more determined to become a more open and inclusive church” and break the Canadian House of Bishops and Lambeth moratorium on the introduction of gay blessings.
At his November 2008 synod, Bishop Bird said he would charter a commission to produce a rite for same-gender couples married under Canada’s gender-neutral matrimonial laws. At its 2007 meeting, by a vote of 239-53 the Niagara synod asked the bishop to allow those clergy "whose conscience permits" to bless gay marriages. However, in Oct 2008 the Canadian House of Bishops called for a stay of liturgical experimentation for gay weddings. Canada’s General Synod would take up the issue in 2010, the bishops said.
Dr Williams’ response to Bishop Bird’s news was less then fulsome. Bishop Bird wrote the archbishop had thanked him “for such a full and detailed report and he indicated how important this opportunity was for him to hear from me personally.”
Anaheim Statement Attracts More Support
From The Living Church via Transfigurations:
Posted on: July 20, 2009
Five additional bishops have signed the Anaheim Statement, the letter of dissent to the actions of the 76th General Convention in which bishops pledge to continue moratoria on same-gender blessings, cross-border interventions, and the ordination of gay and lesbian persons to the episcopate.
The addition of the five bishops brings the total number to 34. The five additional names are: the Rt. Rev. Andy Doyle, Bishop of Texas; the Rt. Rev. Dena Harrison, Bishop Suffragan of Texas; the Rt. Rev. Philip Duncan, Bishop of the Central Gulf Coast; the Rt. Rev. Dan Edwards, Bishop of Nevada; and the Rt. Rev. Julio Holguin, Bishop of the Dominican Republic.
The original statement was issued after the Rt. Rev. Gary W. Lillibridge of West Texas read a statement prepared by an ad hoc committee of concerned bishops during the House of Bishops’ afternoon session July 16.
Posted on: July 20, 2009
Five additional bishops have signed the Anaheim Statement, the letter of dissent to the actions of the 76th General Convention in which bishops pledge to continue moratoria on same-gender blessings, cross-border interventions, and the ordination of gay and lesbian persons to the episcopate.
The addition of the five bishops brings the total number to 34. The five additional names are: the Rt. Rev. Andy Doyle, Bishop of Texas; the Rt. Rev. Dena Harrison, Bishop Suffragan of Texas; the Rt. Rev. Philip Duncan, Bishop of the Central Gulf Coast; the Rt. Rev. Dan Edwards, Bishop of Nevada; and the Rt. Rev. Julio Holguin, Bishop of the Dominican Republic.
The original statement was issued after the Rt. Rev. Gary W. Lillibridge of West Texas read a statement prepared by an ad hoc committee of concerned bishops during the House of Bishops’ afternoon session July 16.
GC2009: The Heresy of 'Individualism'?
Via VirtueOnline:
The 'individualism' we profess is not only not a heresy-it is at the heart of the gospel.
by Richard J. Mouw
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/julyweb-only/128-31.0.html
July 15, 2009
In her opening address to the Episcopal Church's recent General Convention, the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the church's presiding bishop, made a special point of denouncing what she labeled "the great Western heresy"-the teaching, in her words, "that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God." This "individualist focus," she declared, "is a form of idolatry."
There is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the Episcopal Church's presiding bishop is not afraid to denounce heresy. The bad news is that we evangelicals turn out to be the heretics she is denouncing.
I am willing to meet her partway on the subject of her concern. Many of us in the evangelical world have devoted much effort toward remedying what we see as an unhealthy individualist focus in our ranks. If, for example, Bishop Jefferts Schori would take the time to browse through the pages of Christianity Today from the past half-century, she would find many calls for evangelicals to depart from the notion that all that matters is that individuals get saved and prepare for a heavenly reward. Much evangelical attention has been paid to systemic injustice, social structures, the central importance of "body life," and so on.
In all of this, however, the presiding bishop would discover an important nuance. We evangelicals never downplay the importance of individuals-as individuals-coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. We never say that an individual's very personal relationship to God is not important. What we do say is that individual salvation is not enough.
In my own thinking on this subject, which has made much of the centrality of the church and the importance of collective Christian address to the issues of injustice and public morality, there are actual stories that have kept me from endorsing the kind of un-nuanced verdict that seems to have come so easily to Jefferts Schori's lips.
Here is one that has stuck with me from my younger years. A man, a prominent leader in his local church, testified that before becoming a Christian, he had lived a dissolute life. A salesperson who was constantly on the road, he drank heavily and was frequently unfaithful to his wife. One evening, sitting alone in his hotel room, be became very despondent. He did not want another evening spent in the hotel bar, nor did he have an interest in seeking a sexual encounter. Remembering that there was usually a Gideon Bible in one of the dresser drawers in hotel rooms, he found the Scriptures, and began to read the passages recommended in the inside cover under the heading, "Feeling Discouraged? Read ...". As he read the prescribed passages, he was overcome by a sense of his sin, and finally fell to his knees and pleaded with God to do something in his life. That experience was the turning point for him. He confessed his misdeeds to his wife, they sought out a church, and together they matured in the Christian life.
That story has always fit well with my views of salvation and the church. In a profound sense, of course, the church was a living reality in that hotel room-the invitation extended to him by the placing of a Gideon Bible in that room was as "churchly" a reality as any evangelistic sermon preached from a pulpit. But what the Lord, through the placing of that volume, was doing in the privacy of that hotel room was inviting an individual sinner to bring the burden of his sin and guilt to the Cross of Calvary. The man accepted that invitation, and he rightly moved on to the point of identifying himself with the body of Christ.
We evangelicals can tell many stories of that sort. I wish that Jefferts Schori would listen to them and discuss them with us. And I wish also that, having discussed these things together, she would joining us in singing: "My sin-O the bliss of this glorious thought.-/my sin, not in part but the whole, / is nailed to the Cross, and I bear it no more, / praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul."
Call that "individualism" if you want. But for us not only is it not heresy, it is at the heart of what it means to affirm the gospel of Jesus Christ.
----Richard Mouw is the president of Fuller Theological Seminary and author of Praying at Burger King.
The 'individualism' we profess is not only not a heresy-it is at the heart of the gospel.
by Richard J. Mouw
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/julyweb-only/128-31.0.html
July 15, 2009
In her opening address to the Episcopal Church's recent General Convention, the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the church's presiding bishop, made a special point of denouncing what she labeled "the great Western heresy"-the teaching, in her words, "that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God." This "individualist focus," she declared, "is a form of idolatry."
There is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the Episcopal Church's presiding bishop is not afraid to denounce heresy. The bad news is that we evangelicals turn out to be the heretics she is denouncing.
I am willing to meet her partway on the subject of her concern. Many of us in the evangelical world have devoted much effort toward remedying what we see as an unhealthy individualist focus in our ranks. If, for example, Bishop Jefferts Schori would take the time to browse through the pages of Christianity Today from the past half-century, she would find many calls for evangelicals to depart from the notion that all that matters is that individuals get saved and prepare for a heavenly reward. Much evangelical attention has been paid to systemic injustice, social structures, the central importance of "body life," and so on.
In all of this, however, the presiding bishop would discover an important nuance. We evangelicals never downplay the importance of individuals-as individuals-coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. We never say that an individual's very personal relationship to God is not important. What we do say is that individual salvation is not enough.
In my own thinking on this subject, which has made much of the centrality of the church and the importance of collective Christian address to the issues of injustice and public morality, there are actual stories that have kept me from endorsing the kind of un-nuanced verdict that seems to have come so easily to Jefferts Schori's lips.
Here is one that has stuck with me from my younger years. A man, a prominent leader in his local church, testified that before becoming a Christian, he had lived a dissolute life. A salesperson who was constantly on the road, he drank heavily and was frequently unfaithful to his wife. One evening, sitting alone in his hotel room, be became very despondent. He did not want another evening spent in the hotel bar, nor did he have an interest in seeking a sexual encounter. Remembering that there was usually a Gideon Bible in one of the dresser drawers in hotel rooms, he found the Scriptures, and began to read the passages recommended in the inside cover under the heading, "Feeling Discouraged? Read ...". As he read the prescribed passages, he was overcome by a sense of his sin, and finally fell to his knees and pleaded with God to do something in his life. That experience was the turning point for him. He confessed his misdeeds to his wife, they sought out a church, and together they matured in the Christian life.
That story has always fit well with my views of salvation and the church. In a profound sense, of course, the church was a living reality in that hotel room-the invitation extended to him by the placing of a Gideon Bible in that room was as "churchly" a reality as any evangelistic sermon preached from a pulpit. But what the Lord, through the placing of that volume, was doing in the privacy of that hotel room was inviting an individual sinner to bring the burden of his sin and guilt to the Cross of Calvary. The man accepted that invitation, and he rightly moved on to the point of identifying himself with the body of Christ.
We evangelicals can tell many stories of that sort. I wish that Jefferts Schori would listen to them and discuss them with us. And I wish also that, having discussed these things together, she would joining us in singing: "My sin-O the bliss of this glorious thought.-/my sin, not in part but the whole, / is nailed to the Cross, and I bear it no more, / praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul."
Call that "individualism" if you want. But for us not only is it not heresy, it is at the heart of what it means to affirm the gospel of Jesus Christ.
----Richard Mouw is the president of Fuller Theological Seminary and author of Praying at Burger King.
GC2009: Puerto Rico Bishop Demonstrates Hypocrisy Signing HOB Minority Report at GC2009
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
7/18/2009
The question is why?
Alvarez is among the most liberal bishops of TEC's offshore licensee Episcopal dioceses it claims as its own along with Haiti, Honduras and Taiwan, to name but a few.
Alvarez's track record is dismal, to say the least.
He has deposed seven or eight priests because of The Episcopal Church's "Pansexual Agenda". He has also invited the homosexual bishop Gene Robinson to lecture to the diocese on "Human Sexuality"; the new progressive one.
The Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris, a former TEC priest, university psychology professor and author of a book on Alvarez, is one of his victims.
He wrote VOL saying, "He has persecuted every one of us for the last six years. He is on record backing same-sex unions in the Puerto Rico legislature. He has actively promoted the gay agenda in every possible way you could imagine and is on record as saying that the global south leaders are just a bunch of primitive fundamentalists. Alvarez has written quite publicly promoting homosexual practice and unions, and is on record as saying that 'two men having sex is not a sin'."
Paris said Alvarez made the last statement in front of a group of clergy from his own diocese. "He has also ordained practicing homosexuals and does not deny it." So why did he sign the minority report in Anaheim?
"The man smells the future of The Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion and is trying to save face, since all that is happening was predicted in my book that was published in October of 2003. He ordered me to trash the book and then deposed me for not doing it. He has always claimed that my analysis was pure fantasy. The man is a liar, a hypocrite and a traitor to the Faith."
The book "El Error de la Convencion General de la Iglesia Episcopal: Por que no podemos seguirlo", devotes one chapter to each and every argument Alvarez has ever made in public to the local media, in favor of the actions of the 2003 General Convention and the homosexual agenda.
"The whole island knows he is an ardent defender of ordaining practicing homosexuals and of same sex marriage," said Paris.
"Another former TEC priest, Fr. Pedro Balleste is well aware of all of this. He was deposed just for speaking at the presentation of my book. Another priest was deposed for meeting with me just to talk."
"I was sick when I read this. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. I wonder what the ABC (Dr. Rowan Williams) and the people of the liberal evangelical FULCRUM blog will do with this type of bishop?"
"Have no doubt, Alvarez is evil and there are no signs of repentance in him. I know, I live on the same tiny island (100 miles x 38 miles) of Puerto Rico."
"Alvarez is sitting on the other side of the fence to see if he can reclassify himself for what is coming."
END
www.virtueonline.org
7/18/2009
The question is why?
Alvarez is among the most liberal bishops of TEC's offshore licensee Episcopal dioceses it claims as its own along with Haiti, Honduras and Taiwan, to name but a few.
Alvarez's track record is dismal, to say the least.
He has deposed seven or eight priests because of The Episcopal Church's "Pansexual Agenda". He has also invited the homosexual bishop Gene Robinson to lecture to the diocese on "Human Sexuality"; the new progressive one.
The Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris, a former TEC priest, university psychology professor and author of a book on Alvarez, is one of his victims.
He wrote VOL saying, "He has persecuted every one of us for the last six years. He is on record backing same-sex unions in the Puerto Rico legislature. He has actively promoted the gay agenda in every possible way you could imagine and is on record as saying that the global south leaders are just a bunch of primitive fundamentalists. Alvarez has written quite publicly promoting homosexual practice and unions, and is on record as saying that 'two men having sex is not a sin'."
Paris said Alvarez made the last statement in front of a group of clergy from his own diocese. "He has also ordained practicing homosexuals and does not deny it." So why did he sign the minority report in Anaheim?
"The man smells the future of The Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion and is trying to save face, since all that is happening was predicted in my book that was published in October of 2003. He ordered me to trash the book and then deposed me for not doing it. He has always claimed that my analysis was pure fantasy. The man is a liar, a hypocrite and a traitor to the Faith."
The book "El Error de la Convencion General de la Iglesia Episcopal: Por que no podemos seguirlo", devotes one chapter to each and every argument Alvarez has ever made in public to the local media, in favor of the actions of the 2003 General Convention and the homosexual agenda.
"The whole island knows he is an ardent defender of ordaining practicing homosexuals and of same sex marriage," said Paris.
"Another former TEC priest, Fr. Pedro Balleste is well aware of all of this. He was deposed just for speaking at the presentation of my book. Another priest was deposed for meeting with me just to talk."
"I was sick when I read this. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. I wonder what the ABC (Dr. Rowan Williams) and the people of the liberal evangelical FULCRUM blog will do with this type of bishop?"
"Have no doubt, Alvarez is evil and there are no signs of repentance in him. I know, I live on the same tiny island (100 miles x 38 miles) of Puerto Rico."
"Alvarez is sitting on the other side of the fence to see if he can reclassify himself for what is coming."
END
Monday, July 20, 2009
The New Remnant: Evangelical Episcopalians
From Christianity Today via TitusOneNine:
July 20, 2009 9:21AM
Pro-gay Episcopal church further alienates its conservative evangelical minority.
Timothy C. Morgan
Last Friday, The Episcopal Church (TEC) completed its General Convention in Anaheim, California. The bottom line for conservatives still inside TEC is that they are increasingly adopting the language of remnant theology to describe their commitment to remain within TEC.
The church's Left-learning majority exercised extraordinary dominance and pressed forward with two measures:
D025. Gay Clergy, Bishops. This measure strongly endorses opening the office of priest and bishop to all qualified persons and is widely viewed as legally opening the door to gay and lesbian ordination as clergy and consecration as bishop.
C056. Same-sex blessings. This measure authorizes church leaders to develop services for the blessing of same-sex unions and openly allows bishops to respond sort of on a case by case basis and grants an attitude of generosity toward LGBT couples seeking a church blessing of their relationship.
In response, about 29 bishops (nearly all conservatives) signed the so-called Anaheim Statement. George Conger reports:
Twenty-nine bishops have endorsed a letter affirming their desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church while being faithful to the calls for restraint made by the wider church.
Styled as the “Anaheim Statement,” the letter of dissent to the actions of the 76th General Convention pledged the bishops’ fealty to the requests made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the primates’ meetings and ACC-14 to observe a moratoria on same-gender blessings, cross-border interventions and the ordination of gay and lesbian people to the episcopate.
So, the big question for conservatives is this: What is holding this remnant together?
The Left sees only conservative condemnations and what conservative evangelicals are against as the glue that can only hold the Right together for so long.
The Right, however, puts high hopes on the Anglican Convenant, evangelism, natural church growth, and liberal over-reach as elements that will give them the edge in the long haul.
Posted by Tim Morgan on July 20, 2009 9:21AM
July 20, 2009 9:21AM
Pro-gay Episcopal church further alienates its conservative evangelical minority.
Timothy C. Morgan
Last Friday, The Episcopal Church (TEC) completed its General Convention in Anaheim, California. The bottom line for conservatives still inside TEC is that they are increasingly adopting the language of remnant theology to describe their commitment to remain within TEC.
The church's Left-learning majority exercised extraordinary dominance and pressed forward with two measures:
D025. Gay Clergy, Bishops. This measure strongly endorses opening the office of priest and bishop to all qualified persons and is widely viewed as legally opening the door to gay and lesbian ordination as clergy and consecration as bishop.
C056. Same-sex blessings. This measure authorizes church leaders to develop services for the blessing of same-sex unions and openly allows bishops to respond sort of on a case by case basis and grants an attitude of generosity toward LGBT couples seeking a church blessing of their relationship.
In response, about 29 bishops (nearly all conservatives) signed the so-called Anaheim Statement. George Conger reports:
Twenty-nine bishops have endorsed a letter affirming their desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church while being faithful to the calls for restraint made by the wider church.
Styled as the “Anaheim Statement,” the letter of dissent to the actions of the 76th General Convention pledged the bishops’ fealty to the requests made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the primates’ meetings and ACC-14 to observe a moratoria on same-gender blessings, cross-border interventions and the ordination of gay and lesbian people to the episcopate.
So, the big question for conservatives is this: What is holding this remnant together?
The Left sees only conservative condemnations and what conservative evangelicals are against as the glue that can only hold the Right together for so long.
The Right, however, puts high hopes on the Anglican Convenant, evangelism, natural church growth, and liberal over-reach as elements that will give them the edge in the long haul.
Posted by Tim Morgan on July 20, 2009 9:21AM
The Rector of Christ Church Sant Antonio Writes His Parish
Personal note: The Rev. Church Collins is the son of our deacon at St. Francis on the Hill in El Paso when Mary, Rebecca and I were there in the 90s. He returned to the Diocese of the Rio Grande around 1990 and left that position to become rector of Christ Church. ed.
The 76th General Convention meeting in Anaheim, CA has just ended. If you have followed the actions of this Convention on our diocesan website or on other sites you know that The Episcopal Church (TEC) has traveled much farther down the road of theological innovation. In a move at the end of the Convention to save some hope, Bishop Lillibridge and others presented to the bishops the “Anaheim Statement” that attempts to hold those dioceses to some Anglican Communion norms. But what Bishop MacNaughton wrote in 1995 has proven to be prophetic: within TEC there are two churches: one determined to remain faithful to mainstream biblical Christianity, the other determined to follow new theologies and understandings. Churches like Christ Church are now a distinct minority as evidenced in some of the big stories of this General Convention:
Presiding Bishop Schori in her opening sermon remarkably blamed the current crises on “the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.” She went on to say, “That individualist focus is a form of idolatry.”
In spite of a passionate plea against its passage from the Archbishop of Canterbury, a resolution was passed with overwhelming support of lay, clergy and bishops that effectively ends the 2006 General Convention’s moratorium on non-celibate gay bishops in the church. Our bishops both voted against this resolution. Bishop Lillibridge said on the diocesan website that Resolution D025 “accurately reflects where we are as a Church. If it is descriptive, I am in favor of it. But if it is proscriptive, telling me what I can and cannot do as a bishop, that’s an entirely different thing for me.” This resolution makes official what is already the practice in the church, that every bishop and diocese will do whatever they choose in these matters. After the vote, English Bishop Tom Wright (Durham) said, “The Americans know this will end in schism” (link below).The House of Deputies voted to accept the recommendation of the Evangelism Committee to “discharge” (i.e. kill) Resolution C069 that affirms the uniqueness of Jesus Christ in a multi-faith world. The same resolution proposed and passed in the Church of England’s Synod earlier this year.
The church cannot discriminate against persons who seek ordination in TEC because they are transgender, transsexual or transvestite, according to Resolution C001.
Episcopalians must now work against “Defense of Marriage” statutes or constitutional amendments that come before their states, according to Resolution C023.
TEC will now collect and develop rites for same-sex blessings before the next General Convention in 2011, and in the meantime each bishop will decide whether or not same-sex blessings will be sanctioned in their diocese (Resolution C056). It is one thing to look the other way while renegade bishops allow same-sex blessings and an altogether new thing when the church officially allows them. To sanction this in our prayers is to endorse this as official theology. 104 bishops voted “yes,” 30 voted “no.” Our bishops both voted against this resolution.
The House of Deputies declined to concur with the House of Bishops on a resolution sponsored by the Diocese of West Texas (C067) asking the National Office to disclose the amount of money spent by their office suing churches and dioceses who have left TEC. Last count TEC has recently initiated 57 law suits and it is anyone’s guess how much has been spent on legal costs.
The two churches within TEC were very evident at General Convention with conservatives outnumbered 2 to 1. Even in our own diocesan delegation several deputies commented about how there was not always unity on the issues. For example, while our bishop expressed sadness over the battles fought and lost, our Diocesan Chancellor and alternate deputy to Convention, Drew Cauthorn, blogging on our diocesan website about his experience in Anaheim, is elated with the experience of General Convention. He wrote, “I am encouraged by the passage of D025 and hope the House of Deputies will concur with the House of Bishops in the passage of C056, which move The Episcopal Church closer to the inclusion of all persons to full participation in all aspects of ministry and closer to the blessing of committed relationships of enduring love, mutuality and fidelity.”
Several months ago I asked Bishop Lillibridge to come to our August vestry meeting to report and to answer questions. He has graciously agreed to come Tuesday, August 18, 5:00 PM in the Parish Hall. All meetings of the vestry are open to anyone interested in attending, and I hope you will come if you are interested in hearing from our bishop.
Here are several questions that I hope he will answer:
Is there room in the Diocese of West Texas for a rector (church) that does not support the enactments of General Convention or the Presiding Bishop?
Is there room in the Diocese of West Texas for a rector (church) who cannot call good what the Bible calls sin – who will offer partnered gays and lesbians what he offers all sinners, all parishioners: nonjudgmental love, friendship, encouragement in Christ, AND the gospel of repentance, forgiveness, amendment of life, and God’s healing?
We have declared ourselves a Windsor diocese, and the Windsor Report calls us to adhere to traditional sexual morals (Lambeth 1.10) and calls for a moratorium on ordinations of non-celibate homosexuals and the practice of blessing same-sex couples. This obviously puts us at odds with the majority of Episcopalians, and in complete agreement with those in other Anglican jurisdictions in the United States. Will Christ Church be allowed to work in mission and ministry with Windsor-compliant churches from other Anglican provinces, including being able to call clergy who currently serve in those provinces?
I love the breadth and generosity of our heritage, but I don’t love how TEC has lost its salt and connection to historic Anglicanism. The wider Anglican Communion accepts the Bible as uniquely inspired by God and is our primary authority, while encouraging each member to wrestle with Holy Scriptures for themselves – I love that! It proclaims that we are justified by faith by God’s grace, but allows for diversity and wideness in God’s mercy – I love that! It respects other religions while holding fast to the belief that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and no one comes to the Father except through him – I love it! Where gays and lesbians are welcome as everyone is welcome – I love that! That treats sin seriously as a pastoral matter, not as a bludgeon – I particularly love that! This is the fabric of our life together at Christ Church and the core values that attracted me to join you in ministry eight years ago. These commitments continue to make Christ Church an extraordinary church and will into the future. I can’t help but wonder, though, will there ever be a day when we can focus on reaching more people for Jesus Christ, and worshipping in the beauty of holiness, and growing in our love for one another, without the weight of a deviant denomination on our shoulder?
--The Rev. Chuck Collins is rector, Christ Church, San Antonio, Texas
The 76th General Convention meeting in Anaheim, CA has just ended. If you have followed the actions of this Convention on our diocesan website or on other sites you know that The Episcopal Church (TEC) has traveled much farther down the road of theological innovation. In a move at the end of the Convention to save some hope, Bishop Lillibridge and others presented to the bishops the “Anaheim Statement” that attempts to hold those dioceses to some Anglican Communion norms. But what Bishop MacNaughton wrote in 1995 has proven to be prophetic: within TEC there are two churches: one determined to remain faithful to mainstream biblical Christianity, the other determined to follow new theologies and understandings. Churches like Christ Church are now a distinct minority as evidenced in some of the big stories of this General Convention:
Presiding Bishop Schori in her opening sermon remarkably blamed the current crises on “the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.” She went on to say, “That individualist focus is a form of idolatry.”
In spite of a passionate plea against its passage from the Archbishop of Canterbury, a resolution was passed with overwhelming support of lay, clergy and bishops that effectively ends the 2006 General Convention’s moratorium on non-celibate gay bishops in the church. Our bishops both voted against this resolution. Bishop Lillibridge said on the diocesan website that Resolution D025 “accurately reflects where we are as a Church. If it is descriptive, I am in favor of it. But if it is proscriptive, telling me what I can and cannot do as a bishop, that’s an entirely different thing for me.” This resolution makes official what is already the practice in the church, that every bishop and diocese will do whatever they choose in these matters. After the vote, English Bishop Tom Wright (Durham) said, “The Americans know this will end in schism” (link below).The House of Deputies voted to accept the recommendation of the Evangelism Committee to “discharge” (i.e. kill) Resolution C069 that affirms the uniqueness of Jesus Christ in a multi-faith world. The same resolution proposed and passed in the Church of England’s Synod earlier this year.
The church cannot discriminate against persons who seek ordination in TEC because they are transgender, transsexual or transvestite, according to Resolution C001.
Episcopalians must now work against “Defense of Marriage” statutes or constitutional amendments that come before their states, according to Resolution C023.
TEC will now collect and develop rites for same-sex blessings before the next General Convention in 2011, and in the meantime each bishop will decide whether or not same-sex blessings will be sanctioned in their diocese (Resolution C056). It is one thing to look the other way while renegade bishops allow same-sex blessings and an altogether new thing when the church officially allows them. To sanction this in our prayers is to endorse this as official theology. 104 bishops voted “yes,” 30 voted “no.” Our bishops both voted against this resolution.
The House of Deputies declined to concur with the House of Bishops on a resolution sponsored by the Diocese of West Texas (C067) asking the National Office to disclose the amount of money spent by their office suing churches and dioceses who have left TEC. Last count TEC has recently initiated 57 law suits and it is anyone’s guess how much has been spent on legal costs.
The two churches within TEC were very evident at General Convention with conservatives outnumbered 2 to 1. Even in our own diocesan delegation several deputies commented about how there was not always unity on the issues. For example, while our bishop expressed sadness over the battles fought and lost, our Diocesan Chancellor and alternate deputy to Convention, Drew Cauthorn, blogging on our diocesan website about his experience in Anaheim, is elated with the experience of General Convention. He wrote, “I am encouraged by the passage of D025 and hope the House of Deputies will concur with the House of Bishops in the passage of C056, which move The Episcopal Church closer to the inclusion of all persons to full participation in all aspects of ministry and closer to the blessing of committed relationships of enduring love, mutuality and fidelity.”
Several months ago I asked Bishop Lillibridge to come to our August vestry meeting to report and to answer questions. He has graciously agreed to come Tuesday, August 18, 5:00 PM in the Parish Hall. All meetings of the vestry are open to anyone interested in attending, and I hope you will come if you are interested in hearing from our bishop.
Here are several questions that I hope he will answer:
Is there room in the Diocese of West Texas for a rector (church) that does not support the enactments of General Convention or the Presiding Bishop?
Is there room in the Diocese of West Texas for a rector (church) who cannot call good what the Bible calls sin – who will offer partnered gays and lesbians what he offers all sinners, all parishioners: nonjudgmental love, friendship, encouragement in Christ, AND the gospel of repentance, forgiveness, amendment of life, and God’s healing?
We have declared ourselves a Windsor diocese, and the Windsor Report calls us to adhere to traditional sexual morals (Lambeth 1.10) and calls for a moratorium on ordinations of non-celibate homosexuals and the practice of blessing same-sex couples. This obviously puts us at odds with the majority of Episcopalians, and in complete agreement with those in other Anglican jurisdictions in the United States. Will Christ Church be allowed to work in mission and ministry with Windsor-compliant churches from other Anglican provinces, including being able to call clergy who currently serve in those provinces?
I love the breadth and generosity of our heritage, but I don’t love how TEC has lost its salt and connection to historic Anglicanism. The wider Anglican Communion accepts the Bible as uniquely inspired by God and is our primary authority, while encouraging each member to wrestle with Holy Scriptures for themselves – I love that! It proclaims that we are justified by faith by God’s grace, but allows for diversity and wideness in God’s mercy – I love that! It respects other religions while holding fast to the belief that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and no one comes to the Father except through him – I love it! Where gays and lesbians are welcome as everyone is welcome – I love that! That treats sin seriously as a pastoral matter, not as a bludgeon – I particularly love that! This is the fabric of our life together at Christ Church and the core values that attracted me to join you in ministry eight years ago. These commitments continue to make Christ Church an extraordinary church and will into the future. I can’t help but wonder, though, will there ever be a day when we can focus on reaching more people for Jesus Christ, and worshipping in the beauty of holiness, and growing in our love for one another, without the weight of a deviant denomination on our shoulder?
--The Rev. Chuck Collins is rector, Christ Church, San Antonio, Texas
RESPONSE TO BISHOP TOM WRIGHT on TEC General Convention 2009
From the Rev. Dr. Stephen Noll via TitusOneNine:
Friday, July 17, 2009
I want to join others in appreciating the strong statement by Bp. Tom Wright http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6710640.ece on the actions of the Episcopal General Convention 2009. It is not time to quibble about the past. He clearly sees the road taken by The Episcopal Church and expounds the biblical basis for marriage and against homosexual practice which undergirds the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality. Bravo!
As for Bp. Wright’s concern about Anglican Church in North America, I am sure, knowing the Anglican Communion hierarchy, that there will be no rush to enfranchise ACNA or disenfranchise the Communion Partners remaining in TEC. But is it too much to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to reaffirm the Primates’ call at Dar es Salaam for the cessation on lawsuits for all orthodox in TEC and ACNA on threat of immediately withdrawing his recognition?
The big question for the days ahead is whether the two streams of the orthodox movement – which had coalesced in the Anglican Communion Network in North America and the Global South coalition – will begin to come together again. I believe their reunion, not at first political but spiritual and practical, is devoutly to be wished.
Let me point out two positive indicators for why this can happen.
First, from the side of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, there has always been an openness to the wider Communion. Note the following words in the GAFCON Statement from a year ago:
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, are a fellowship of confessing Anglicans for the benefit of the Church and the furtherance of its mission. We are a fellowship of people united in the communion (koinonia) of the one Spirit and committed to work and pray together in the common mission of Christ. It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future. We are a fellowship of Anglicans, including provinces, dioceses, churches, missionary jurisdictions, para-church organisations and individual Anglican Christians whose goal is to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world.
And Jerusalem Declaration, clause 11:
We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.
And again:
…we shall seek to expand participation in this fellowship beyond those who have come to Jerusalem, including cooperation with the Global South and the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa.
I see no reason to think that ACNA and the GAFCON churches would desire to rush to exclude the remnant in TEC from recognition by Canterbury and the wider Communion, even if they had that power, which clearly they do not. I would think that the GAFCON Provinces like Uganda will continue to consider itself in communion with all those who stand against the heretics – can we now call them schismatics as well? – in TEC.
Secondly, I find it significant that Bp. Wright is concerned that the faithful remnant of TEC be able to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. I agree. Therefore it must be clear to the ABC and his consulting group that section 4.1.5 remain untampered with in any final draft. It reads as follows:
(4.1.5) It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant. Adoption of this Covenant does not bring any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion. Such recognition and membership are dependent on the satisfaction of those conditions set out by each of the Instruments. However, adoption of the Covenant by a Church may be accompanied by a formal request to the Instruments for recognition and membership to be acted upon according to each Instrument's procedures.
This clause in particular is the reason that section 4 of the Covenant was torpedoed in Jamaica – torpedoed by the very folks who have passed Resolution D025 in Anaheim. If it were to happen that the ABC and his advisors were to weaken or remove section 4.1.5, I hope Bp. Wright would be the first to denounce such an action, and I hope the rest of the churches would ignore the amendments and adopt the original Ridley Cambridge Text.* Section 4.1.5 offers hope both to the orthodox in TEC and to the ACNA that there will be an ultimate reconciliation of believers within the Anglican Communion. Noli hoc tangere. Don’t touch!
These are days of sadness and stress for faithful Anglicans inside and outside The Episcopal Church. We know that “weeping may remain for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning.” I believe a new morning is breaking for our Communion and our tradition.
*Of course, one might wish the Covenant Text to be strengthened, but that seems a stretch given the ABC’s appointees and can be done later by amendment.
Friday, July 17, 2009
I want to join others in appreciating the strong statement by Bp. Tom Wright http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6710640.ece on the actions of the Episcopal General Convention 2009. It is not time to quibble about the past. He clearly sees the road taken by The Episcopal Church and expounds the biblical basis for marriage and against homosexual practice which undergirds the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality. Bravo!
As for Bp. Wright’s concern about Anglican Church in North America, I am sure, knowing the Anglican Communion hierarchy, that there will be no rush to enfranchise ACNA or disenfranchise the Communion Partners remaining in TEC. But is it too much to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to reaffirm the Primates’ call at Dar es Salaam for the cessation on lawsuits for all orthodox in TEC and ACNA on threat of immediately withdrawing his recognition?
The big question for the days ahead is whether the two streams of the orthodox movement – which had coalesced in the Anglican Communion Network in North America and the Global South coalition – will begin to come together again. I believe their reunion, not at first political but spiritual and practical, is devoutly to be wished.
Let me point out two positive indicators for why this can happen.
First, from the side of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, there has always been an openness to the wider Communion. Note the following words in the GAFCON Statement from a year ago:
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, are a fellowship of confessing Anglicans for the benefit of the Church and the furtherance of its mission. We are a fellowship of people united in the communion (koinonia) of the one Spirit and committed to work and pray together in the common mission of Christ. It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future. We are a fellowship of Anglicans, including provinces, dioceses, churches, missionary jurisdictions, para-church organisations and individual Anglican Christians whose goal is to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world.
And Jerusalem Declaration, clause 11:
We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.
And again:
…we shall seek to expand participation in this fellowship beyond those who have come to Jerusalem, including cooperation with the Global South and the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa.
I see no reason to think that ACNA and the GAFCON churches would desire to rush to exclude the remnant in TEC from recognition by Canterbury and the wider Communion, even if they had that power, which clearly they do not. I would think that the GAFCON Provinces like Uganda will continue to consider itself in communion with all those who stand against the heretics – can we now call them schismatics as well? – in TEC.
Secondly, I find it significant that Bp. Wright is concerned that the faithful remnant of TEC be able to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. I agree. Therefore it must be clear to the ABC and his consulting group that section 4.1.5 remain untampered with in any final draft. It reads as follows:
(4.1.5) It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant. Adoption of this Covenant does not bring any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion. Such recognition and membership are dependent on the satisfaction of those conditions set out by each of the Instruments. However, adoption of the Covenant by a Church may be accompanied by a formal request to the Instruments for recognition and membership to be acted upon according to each Instrument's procedures.
This clause in particular is the reason that section 4 of the Covenant was torpedoed in Jamaica – torpedoed by the very folks who have passed Resolution D025 in Anaheim. If it were to happen that the ABC and his advisors were to weaken or remove section 4.1.5, I hope Bp. Wright would be the first to denounce such an action, and I hope the rest of the churches would ignore the amendments and adopt the original Ridley Cambridge Text.* Section 4.1.5 offers hope both to the orthodox in TEC and to the ACNA that there will be an ultimate reconciliation of believers within the Anglican Communion. Noli hoc tangere. Don’t touch!
These are days of sadness and stress for faithful Anglicans inside and outside The Episcopal Church. We know that “weeping may remain for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning.” I believe a new morning is breaking for our Communion and our tradition.
*Of course, one might wish the Covenant Text to be strengthened, but that seems a stretch given the ABC’s appointees and can be done later by amendment.
The DCNY blog approach
During the past two weeks I have tried to be the essential news, less hysteria site while posting about General Convention. If you want the hysteria there are a few other places you can visit. Here I've worked to limit the number of posts so as not to enrage the demons of hysteria. Bishops are now giving their appraisals of GC09 and I will post those which really are good. If you want to see all the others, again, there are sites for that.
btw, TitusOneNine, one of the most reasonable sites, is still operating from its back-up site today. The address is:
http://t19backup.blogspot.com/
btw, TitusOneNine, one of the most reasonable sites, is still operating from its back-up site today. The address is:
http://t19backup.blogspot.com/
Celebrating a Virtual Clean Sweep on our GC2009 Legislative Agenda
Remember how Bp Skip Adams said that not much happened at GC09? Here's an alternative view from the homosexual lobby of pecusa. ed.
From Integrity via BabyBlueOnline:
Saturday, July 18, 2009
I’m going to write more about “General Convention in General,” but here’s a legislative wrap up (coming later in the day than I’d meant it to but I’ve decided to give up waiting for the official GC2009 resolution web pages to come back up online – will just add the links to the citations later.)
Heading to Anaheim, Integrity had two primary “agenda items:”
• Move the Episcopal Church beyond B033 and reopen ordination processes to all the baptized;
• More the Episcopal Church forward on the blessing of same sex marriages and unions.
We saw those goals realized in the adoption of the following resolutions:
D025 – Supports inclusive ordination processes for ALL orders of ministry
C056 – Authorizes “generous pastoral support” for blessing marriages, unions & partnerships and collection of liturgical resources for consideration at GC2012
As noteworthy as the content of the resolutions is the context. These resolutions passed not by narrow margins after rancorous debate. They passed by overwhelming consensus after respectful dialogue that left no doubt that those who gathered in Anaheim are committed to an inclusive Anglicanism that keeps at the table all who desire so to do.
D025 -- Ordination
It can – and has – been said that D025 does not “repeal” B033 – and that is, of course, true. There will still be bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees who will choose to “exercise restraint” when consenting the election of a bishop whose “manner of life” would cause concern to the wider Anglican Communion. (And we all know that is code for “partnered gay or lesbian bishop.”) Nevertheless, the inclusive and expansive language of D025 states “this is where we are in 2009” – and frees bishops and standing committees to focus on the theological orientation rather than the sexual orientation of qualified candidates to the episcopate if they choose to.
Furthermore, by stating unequivocally that “God has called and may call any individual in the church to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church, in accordance with the discernment process set forth in the Constitution and Canons of the church” – D025 actually states for the first time as an official resolution of the Episcopal Church that the extra-canonical requirement of celibacy of gay and lesbian candidates for ordination is not the mind of this church.
From the letter by the Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Nothing in the Resolution goes beyond what has already been provided under our Constitution and Canons for many years. In reading the resolution, you will note its key points, that:
• Our Church is deeply and genuinely committed to our relationships in the Anglican Communion;
• We recognize the contributions gay and lesbian Christians, members of our Church both lay and
• ordained, have made and continue to make to our common life and ministry;
• Our Church can and does bear witness to the fact that many of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters live in faithful, monogamous, lifelong and life-giving committed relationships;
• While ordination is not a “right” guaranteed to any individual, access to our Church’s discernment and ordination process is open to all baptized members according to our Constitution and Canons; and
• Members of The Episcopal Church do, in fact, disagree faithfully and conscientiously about issues of human sexuality.
C056 -- Blessings
What the Episcopal Church adopted in Resolution C056 is a broad local option for the blessings of the marriages, unions and partnerships of same sex couples and a call to the church to work together toward common liturgical expressions of those blessings.
The Rev. Sam Candler (Atlanta), chair of the committee that presented the resolution, called it "an elegant blend of theological care, ecclesiastical breadth and pastoral generosity."
The Rev. Dan Martins (Northern Indiana) had this to say about C056: “If there was ambiguity surrounding D025--and I have contended that there is -- there is none here. This convention has abrogated every positive gesture it has made toward the Anglican Communion since 2003. Everything we did three years ago in response to the Windsor Report is down the drain.”
I believe that's what we call "clarity."
In other historic action, the General Convention adopted resolutions supporting the enactment of anti-discrimination and hate crimes legislation protecting transgender people at local, state and federal levels. Both houses also adopted resolutions adding "gender identity and expression" to its nondiscrimination policy for hiring lay employees and calling for the revision of church paper and electronic forms to allow a wider range of gender identifications.
In review:
C056 – Authorizes “generous pastoral support” for blessing marriages, unions & partnerships and collection of liturgical resources for consideration at GC2012
C048 – Urges support of fully inclusive ENDA legislation pending in Washington
D012 -- Support for Transgender Civil Rights
D025 – Supports inclusive ordination processes for ALL orders of ministry
D032 -- Non-discrimination clause including gender identity and gender expression for lay employees
D076 -- Support for immigration equality for gay couples
D090 -- Church paper work to be made more accessible to flexibility in gender identity and pronoun preference
C023 – Urging support for repeal of DOMA (“Defense of Marriage Act”) passed in Deputies and was referred by Bishops to Executive Council – where we expect affirmative action will be taken to take the voice of the Episcopal Church to Washington on this important issue.
Finally, Integrity applauds the amazing work of ALL our allies in advancing resolutions on a broad range of critical gospel issues. Unlike our last two General Conventions, where the resolutions regarding human sexuality so consumed our legislative process that there was precious little left for anything else, this 76th General Convention worked long, hard and diligently to “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God” – acting on everything from lay equity in pension plans to ending torture; on labor issues and human rights violations; on universal health care and climate change; on human trafficking and ending the blockade in Cuba.
One of the most moving moments for me came on the last day of legislation when Frank Wade reminded us that our actions in the House of Deputies were -- in their own way --offerings being laid at the altar of our God who calls us to this work of justice, compassion and love. The reminder that “liturgical” and “political” are words that share a root – and that both the work of the people – was a holy container for this holy work we have been about for the last ten days in Anaheim.
There are miles to go before we rest – before the kingdom come on earth IS as it is in heaven. But BIG steps forward were taken by The Episcopal Church at this General Convention. And for that, we rejoice and are glad!
.
Posted by SUSAN RUSSELL at 8:00 PM
From Integrity via BabyBlueOnline:
Saturday, July 18, 2009
I’m going to write more about “General Convention in General,” but here’s a legislative wrap up (coming later in the day than I’d meant it to but I’ve decided to give up waiting for the official GC2009 resolution web pages to come back up online – will just add the links to the citations later.)
Heading to Anaheim, Integrity had two primary “agenda items:”
• Move the Episcopal Church beyond B033 and reopen ordination processes to all the baptized;
• More the Episcopal Church forward on the blessing of same sex marriages and unions.
We saw those goals realized in the adoption of the following resolutions:
D025 – Supports inclusive ordination processes for ALL orders of ministry
C056 – Authorizes “generous pastoral support” for blessing marriages, unions & partnerships and collection of liturgical resources for consideration at GC2012
As noteworthy as the content of the resolutions is the context. These resolutions passed not by narrow margins after rancorous debate. They passed by overwhelming consensus after respectful dialogue that left no doubt that those who gathered in Anaheim are committed to an inclusive Anglicanism that keeps at the table all who desire so to do.
D025 -- Ordination
It can – and has – been said that D025 does not “repeal” B033 – and that is, of course, true. There will still be bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees who will choose to “exercise restraint” when consenting the election of a bishop whose “manner of life” would cause concern to the wider Anglican Communion. (And we all know that is code for “partnered gay or lesbian bishop.”) Nevertheless, the inclusive and expansive language of D025 states “this is where we are in 2009” – and frees bishops and standing committees to focus on the theological orientation rather than the sexual orientation of qualified candidates to the episcopate if they choose to.
Furthermore, by stating unequivocally that “God has called and may call any individual in the church to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church, in accordance with the discernment process set forth in the Constitution and Canons of the church” – D025 actually states for the first time as an official resolution of the Episcopal Church that the extra-canonical requirement of celibacy of gay and lesbian candidates for ordination is not the mind of this church.
From the letter by the Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Nothing in the Resolution goes beyond what has already been provided under our Constitution and Canons for many years. In reading the resolution, you will note its key points, that:
• Our Church is deeply and genuinely committed to our relationships in the Anglican Communion;
• We recognize the contributions gay and lesbian Christians, members of our Church both lay and
• ordained, have made and continue to make to our common life and ministry;
• Our Church can and does bear witness to the fact that many of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters live in faithful, monogamous, lifelong and life-giving committed relationships;
• While ordination is not a “right” guaranteed to any individual, access to our Church’s discernment and ordination process is open to all baptized members according to our Constitution and Canons; and
• Members of The Episcopal Church do, in fact, disagree faithfully and conscientiously about issues of human sexuality.
C056 -- Blessings
What the Episcopal Church adopted in Resolution C056 is a broad local option for the blessings of the marriages, unions and partnerships of same sex couples and a call to the church to work together toward common liturgical expressions of those blessings.
The Rev. Sam Candler (Atlanta), chair of the committee that presented the resolution, called it "an elegant blend of theological care, ecclesiastical breadth and pastoral generosity."
The Rev. Dan Martins (Northern Indiana) had this to say about C056: “If there was ambiguity surrounding D025--and I have contended that there is -- there is none here. This convention has abrogated every positive gesture it has made toward the Anglican Communion since 2003. Everything we did three years ago in response to the Windsor Report is down the drain.”
I believe that's what we call "clarity."
In other historic action, the General Convention adopted resolutions supporting the enactment of anti-discrimination and hate crimes legislation protecting transgender people at local, state and federal levels. Both houses also adopted resolutions adding "gender identity and expression" to its nondiscrimination policy for hiring lay employees and calling for the revision of church paper and electronic forms to allow a wider range of gender identifications.
In review:
C056 – Authorizes “generous pastoral support” for blessing marriages, unions & partnerships and collection of liturgical resources for consideration at GC2012
C048 – Urges support of fully inclusive ENDA legislation pending in Washington
D012 -- Support for Transgender Civil Rights
D025 – Supports inclusive ordination processes for ALL orders of ministry
D032 -- Non-discrimination clause including gender identity and gender expression for lay employees
D076 -- Support for immigration equality for gay couples
D090 -- Church paper work to be made more accessible to flexibility in gender identity and pronoun preference
C023 – Urging support for repeal of DOMA (“Defense of Marriage Act”) passed in Deputies and was referred by Bishops to Executive Council – where we expect affirmative action will be taken to take the voice of the Episcopal Church to Washington on this important issue.
Finally, Integrity applauds the amazing work of ALL our allies in advancing resolutions on a broad range of critical gospel issues. Unlike our last two General Conventions, where the resolutions regarding human sexuality so consumed our legislative process that there was precious little left for anything else, this 76th General Convention worked long, hard and diligently to “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God” – acting on everything from lay equity in pension plans to ending torture; on labor issues and human rights violations; on universal health care and climate change; on human trafficking and ending the blockade in Cuba.
One of the most moving moments for me came on the last day of legislation when Frank Wade reminded us that our actions in the House of Deputies were -- in their own way --offerings being laid at the altar of our God who calls us to this work of justice, compassion and love. The reminder that “liturgical” and “political” are words that share a root – and that both the work of the people – was a holy container for this holy work we have been about for the last ten days in Anaheim.
There are miles to go before we rest – before the kingdom come on earth IS as it is in heaven. But BIG steps forward were taken by The Episcopal Church at this General Convention. And for that, we rejoice and are glad!
.
Posted by SUSAN RUSSELL at 8:00 PM
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Orthodox Bishops Call Episcopal Church's Actions 'Cynical Double-Think'
Via Transfigurations:
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Sun, Jul. 19 2009 12:01 PM EDT
Conservative bishops believe that The Episcopal Church's recent decisions favoring gay ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions will only lead to disaster.
Enlarge this Image
Although The Episcopal Church reaffirmed its commitment to the wider Anglican Communion, the denomination's actions this past week have few orthodox bishops convinced of the authenticity of that pledge.
"Once again, we are saying we want to be part of the Anglican Communion and that we value that partnership," said William Love, Episcopal Bishop of Albany, according to VirtueOnline. "Yet there is always that 'but' we want to do it on our terms and we expect you to approve that. The rest of the Anglican Communion says it won't."
Resolution D025, approved Tuesday by The Episcopal Church's House of Deputies, states that the denomination is still "deeply and genuinely" committed to their relationships in the Anglican Communion while at the same time stating that access to their ordination process is open to all baptized members, including practicing homosexuals.
The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of Anglicanism.
Although Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said in a letter, dated Thursday, to Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams that the newly passed resolution did not repeal a 2006 resolution that urged restraint concerning the election of bishops whose "manner of life" would cause offense to the wider Anglican Communion, orthodox bishops believe the U.S. Episcopalians have crossed the line.
"The wider Anglican Communion will now say we have gone too far," Love told VirtueOnline.
"Rather than bringing people into the church it will accelerate the death of The Episcopal Church and will drive people away," he added. "It will accelerate the splitting up of the Anglican Communion and that is very sad. TEC has so much to offer. We are far from being at our best."
The Rt. Rev. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, wrote in U.K.'s The Times that The Episcopal Church's actions mark a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.
"In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether," he stated.
"Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing," he continued. "They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other 'instruments of communion' that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practicing homosexuals as bishops."
Commenting on the U.S. body's vow to remain committed to the wider communion, Wright said they should not be fooled.
"[S]aying 'we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules' is cynical double-think," he wrote.
The Episcopal Church widened rifts and pushed the Communion closer to schism when it consecrated its first openly gay bishop in 2003. In the months leading up to the U.S. body's triennial General Convention in Anaheim, Calif., this year, Anglican bishops overseas urged Episcopal leaders not to pass legislation on human sexuality.
Although homosexuality has been the main cause of tension and controversy within the Anglican Communion, Bishop David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council, said the real issue is the authority of Scripture and Christology.
"Sex is symptomatic of the problems we face," Anderson said, as reported by VirtueOnline.
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Sun, Jul. 19 2009 12:01 PM EDT
Conservative bishops believe that The Episcopal Church's recent decisions favoring gay ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions will only lead to disaster.
Enlarge this Image
Although The Episcopal Church reaffirmed its commitment to the wider Anglican Communion, the denomination's actions this past week have few orthodox bishops convinced of the authenticity of that pledge.
"Once again, we are saying we want to be part of the Anglican Communion and that we value that partnership," said William Love, Episcopal Bishop of Albany, according to VirtueOnline. "Yet there is always that 'but' we want to do it on our terms and we expect you to approve that. The rest of the Anglican Communion says it won't."
Resolution D025, approved Tuesday by The Episcopal Church's House of Deputies, states that the denomination is still "deeply and genuinely" committed to their relationships in the Anglican Communion while at the same time stating that access to their ordination process is open to all baptized members, including practicing homosexuals.
The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of Anglicanism.
Although Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said in a letter, dated Thursday, to Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams that the newly passed resolution did not repeal a 2006 resolution that urged restraint concerning the election of bishops whose "manner of life" would cause offense to the wider Anglican Communion, orthodox bishops believe the U.S. Episcopalians have crossed the line.
"The wider Anglican Communion will now say we have gone too far," Love told VirtueOnline.
"Rather than bringing people into the church it will accelerate the death of The Episcopal Church and will drive people away," he added. "It will accelerate the splitting up of the Anglican Communion and that is very sad. TEC has so much to offer. We are far from being at our best."
The Rt. Rev. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, wrote in U.K.'s The Times that The Episcopal Church's actions mark a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.
"In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether," he stated.
"Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing," he continued. "They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other 'instruments of communion' that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practicing homosexuals as bishops."
Commenting on the U.S. body's vow to remain committed to the wider communion, Wright said they should not be fooled.
"[S]aying 'we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules' is cynical double-think," he wrote.
The Episcopal Church widened rifts and pushed the Communion closer to schism when it consecrated its first openly gay bishop in 2003. In the months leading up to the U.S. body's triennial General Convention in Anaheim, Calif., this year, Anglican bishops overseas urged Episcopal leaders not to pass legislation on human sexuality.
Although homosexuality has been the main cause of tension and controversy within the Anglican Communion, Bishop David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council, said the real issue is the authority of Scripture and Christology.
"Sex is symptomatic of the problems we face," Anderson said, as reported by VirtueOnline.
Dishonesty and Clarity
If there is any question about the dishonesty of Bishop Adams of the DCNY as well as the Presiding Bishop (see the posts about her letter to the ABC) and Bishop Stacy Sauls (see the post about D025), I believe that the letter below by Bishop Mark Lawrence brings clarity to that question and a number of others. Read on, faithful reader.
Maybe Bishop Lawrence will now look at the one place to thrive in North American within Anglicanism, the ACNA.
Maybe Bishop Lawrence will now look at the one place to thrive in North American within Anglicanism, the ACNA.
Bishop Lawrence Writes to the Clergy of the Diocese Regarding General Convention 2009
Via TitusOneNine:
July 18, 2009
Anaheim, California
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
“…not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:7-8
Grace, peace and courage to you in our Lord Jesus Christ, who was lifted high upon the cross that he might draw the whole world into the redeeming love of the Father and sustain us in the power of the Holy Spirit.
I write to you in the aftermath of General Convention 2009. You need to know that the landscape of Anglicanism and The Episcopal Church has once again changed. I haven’t time now to describe these matters in the detail that they deserve and I am still too close to the events to adequately evaluate them. I shall write you at greater length when I return to Charleston next week. But let me answer ever so briefly two questions: Where is the Episcopal Church after General Convention 2009? What does it mean for South Carolina?
Where is The Episcopal Church after General Convention 2009?
First, TEC has contravened the clear teaching of Holy Scripture and breached the bonds of affection within the Anglican Communion. At General Convention 2003 the debate centered on the clarity of Lambeth 1.10. At GC’06 it focused on the Windsor Report and process which had less clarity than Lambeth 1.10. Here in 2009 Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor were hardly mentioned and the debate returned occasionally to B033 which of course was far weaker than what Lambeth 1.10 or Windsor called for. The trajectory is clear—greater and greater autonomy, license, and stepping apart. Yet the official spin of TEC continues unabated.
Secondly, during our debate some protested that we are moving too quickly. The question is not how quickly we are moving. If blessing same-sex unions is morally wrong now, it will be morally wrong in the future. The matter in dispute in TEC is not like the one St. Paul writes about in I Corinthians 8 of a morally neutral activity such as eating meat offered to idols. In that situation whether to eat or refrain from eating was to be guided by the conscience of other Christians. But this question is completely different, it involves the nature of Christian marriage and the teaching of the universal church about the proper context in which to use the gift of sexuality. The problem isn’t the speed at which the train is moving down the rail: it is the destination to which it is headed.
Thirdly, while the full significance of TEC’s adoption of C056 is not yet clear to me, this much is clear: In allowing Bishops “generous discretion” for granting the blessings of same-sex “marriage” we have entered into a new era of pastoral and canonical chaos, with General Convention’s approval.
What Does This Mean for the Diocese of South Carolina?
I will be meeting with the Standing Committee, Deans and others after my return late Wednesday evening. I will be clarifying my thoughts and seeking greater clarity from the Lord in the intervening days. Please keep me in your prayers as you will be in mine. God has prepared us as a diocese to address this hour in the life of our Church—of that I am confident. It is not a time for alarm. It is a time for thoughtful and steady resolve. We face significant challenges. They are no longer the challenges of tomorrow they are the challenges of today. This cannot be brushed aside as if it is of little consequence.
There is an increasingly aggressive displacement within this Church of the gospel of Jesus Christ’s transforming power by the “new” gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity which seeks to subsume all in its wake. It is marked by an increased evangelistic zeal and mission that hints at imperialistic plans to spread throughout the Communion. This calls for a bold response. It is of the utmost importance that we find more than just a place to stand. Indeed, it is imperative that we find a place to thrive; a place that is faithful, relational and structural—and so we shall!
Faithfully yours in Christ,
+Mark J. Lawrence
Bishop of South Carolina
July 18, 2009
Anaheim, California
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
“…not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:7-8
Grace, peace and courage to you in our Lord Jesus Christ, who was lifted high upon the cross that he might draw the whole world into the redeeming love of the Father and sustain us in the power of the Holy Spirit.
I write to you in the aftermath of General Convention 2009. You need to know that the landscape of Anglicanism and The Episcopal Church has once again changed. I haven’t time now to describe these matters in the detail that they deserve and I am still too close to the events to adequately evaluate them. I shall write you at greater length when I return to Charleston next week. But let me answer ever so briefly two questions: Where is the Episcopal Church after General Convention 2009? What does it mean for South Carolina?
Where is The Episcopal Church after General Convention 2009?
First, TEC has contravened the clear teaching of Holy Scripture and breached the bonds of affection within the Anglican Communion. At General Convention 2003 the debate centered on the clarity of Lambeth 1.10. At GC’06 it focused on the Windsor Report and process which had less clarity than Lambeth 1.10. Here in 2009 Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor were hardly mentioned and the debate returned occasionally to B033 which of course was far weaker than what Lambeth 1.10 or Windsor called for. The trajectory is clear—greater and greater autonomy, license, and stepping apart. Yet the official spin of TEC continues unabated.
Secondly, during our debate some protested that we are moving too quickly. The question is not how quickly we are moving. If blessing same-sex unions is morally wrong now, it will be morally wrong in the future. The matter in dispute in TEC is not like the one St. Paul writes about in I Corinthians 8 of a morally neutral activity such as eating meat offered to idols. In that situation whether to eat or refrain from eating was to be guided by the conscience of other Christians. But this question is completely different, it involves the nature of Christian marriage and the teaching of the universal church about the proper context in which to use the gift of sexuality. The problem isn’t the speed at which the train is moving down the rail: it is the destination to which it is headed.
Thirdly, while the full significance of TEC’s adoption of C056 is not yet clear to me, this much is clear: In allowing Bishops “generous discretion” for granting the blessings of same-sex “marriage” we have entered into a new era of pastoral and canonical chaos, with General Convention’s approval.
What Does This Mean for the Diocese of South Carolina?
I will be meeting with the Standing Committee, Deans and others after my return late Wednesday evening. I will be clarifying my thoughts and seeking greater clarity from the Lord in the intervening days. Please keep me in your prayers as you will be in mine. God has prepared us as a diocese to address this hour in the life of our Church—of that I am confident. It is not a time for alarm. It is a time for thoughtful and steady resolve. We face significant challenges. They are no longer the challenges of tomorrow they are the challenges of today. This cannot be brushed aside as if it is of little consequence.
There is an increasingly aggressive displacement within this Church of the gospel of Jesus Christ’s transforming power by the “new” gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity which seeks to subsume all in its wake. It is marked by an increased evangelistic zeal and mission that hints at imperialistic plans to spread throughout the Communion. This calls for a bold response. It is of the utmost importance that we find more than just a place to stand. Indeed, it is imperative that we find a place to thrive; a place that is faithful, relational and structural—and so we shall!
Faithfully yours in Christ,
+Mark J. Lawrence
Bishop of South Carolina
Pared-Down Episcopal Church Is Looking to Grow Through ‘Inclusivity’
From the New York Times via TitusOneNine:
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: July 18, 2009
ANAHEIM, Calif. — The Episcopal Church is betting its future on the hope that there are more young people out there like Will Hay.
Mr. Hay, 17, was one of the youngest voting delegates at the church’s 10-day triennial convention, which ended Friday. He has stuck with his church, even when the priest and most of the parishioners in his conservative San Diego parish quit the Episcopal Church two years ago in protest of its liberal moves, particularly the approval in 2003 of an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson. Mr. Hay has helped rebuild his parish, which was left with 48 people and has since drawn nearly 100 new members.
Mr. Hay is no left-wing ideologue, and in fact fears that some of the convention’s landmark decisions last week may alienate even more conservatives. The church’s convention voted not to stand in the way if another gay bishop were elected and to allow for the blessing of same-sex couples.
But Mr. Hay was not troubled by those things. And he believes that the church can grow by emphasizing “inclusivity,” the favorite buzzword of Episcopalians.
“I’m sure we will attract people who are saying maybe we are doing it right,” Mr. Hay said as he came off the convention floor for lunch one day with his mother. “For me it seems right because I was raised in a household where we were always taught to accept everyone, regardless of creed, color, gender or sexual identity.”
Whether Episcopalians really can regenerate a church based on youth and “inclusivity” remains to be seen.
So far, they have paid a price for their actions. Four bishops, the majority of their dioceses and numerous parishes around the country jumped ship in the last few years to form a new, theologically conservative entity called the Anglican Church in North America. That group will not consecrate women, not to mention gay men and lesbians, as bishops. It has about 100,000 members, while the Episcopal Church has about two million.
But a church study shows that membership declined about 6 percent from 2003 to 2007.
The Episcopal Church also saw its contributions decline, though church experts say it is hard to know how much of that drop is attributable to the economic downturn. The convention voted last week to cut the budget by $23 million over three years and eliminate about 30 out of 180 staff positions at church headquarters in New York and other locations.
To theological conservatives, these are signs of a church that will ultimately collapse because it has sold its soul to secular political causes. Two conservative bishops who have remained in the Episcopal Church appeared at a news briefing last week organized by a conservative Anglican group and mourned the direction their church has taken.
“I am a lifelong Episcopalian, a lifelong Anglican,” said Bishop William Love of Albany, who appeared on the verge of tears. “It is breaking my heart to see the church destroy itself.
“Rather than being a blessing for the church, I believe ultimately it will be a curse on the church. Rather than bringing more people into the church, I believe it will drive more people away.”
Bishop Peter Beckwith of Springfield, Ill., said, “It’s a disaster.”
But when asked whether they would lead their dioceses out of the church, both bishops said probably not. Part of the reason was that they would be likely to face legal wrangling over properties, and part is simply their faithfulness to the church.
“I have not sensed that this is the direction the Lord is calling us to,” Bishop Love said. “It all depends on what you focus on. My intent is to keep us focused on Jesus Christ and not on the storm.”
It may be that all the motivated conservative bishops and parishes that considered homosexuality the deal breaker have already left, or have just grown tired of fighting.
Toward the end of the convention last week, 27 of the church’s active and retired bishops signed a minority report putting their objections on record. Above all, they are concerned that the Episcopal Church has jeopardized its place in the Anglican Communion, the international network of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England. But the conservative bishops concluded in their minority report that they had not been made to feel like they did not belong, and signaled that they, too, did not intend to leave.
“We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the church,” they wrote.
Mr. Hay, the 17-year-old convention deputy, said he knew that other conservative Episcopal parishes in San Diego were “on the fence,” and he hoped they would not depart.
“What it’s about is keeping people at the table,” he said, “pushing more discussion.”
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: July 18, 2009
ANAHEIM, Calif. — The Episcopal Church is betting its future on the hope that there are more young people out there like Will Hay.
Mr. Hay, 17, was one of the youngest voting delegates at the church’s 10-day triennial convention, which ended Friday. He has stuck with his church, even when the priest and most of the parishioners in his conservative San Diego parish quit the Episcopal Church two years ago in protest of its liberal moves, particularly the approval in 2003 of an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson. Mr. Hay has helped rebuild his parish, which was left with 48 people and has since drawn nearly 100 new members.
Mr. Hay is no left-wing ideologue, and in fact fears that some of the convention’s landmark decisions last week may alienate even more conservatives. The church’s convention voted not to stand in the way if another gay bishop were elected and to allow for the blessing of same-sex couples.
But Mr. Hay was not troubled by those things. And he believes that the church can grow by emphasizing “inclusivity,” the favorite buzzword of Episcopalians.
“I’m sure we will attract people who are saying maybe we are doing it right,” Mr. Hay said as he came off the convention floor for lunch one day with his mother. “For me it seems right because I was raised in a household where we were always taught to accept everyone, regardless of creed, color, gender or sexual identity.”
Whether Episcopalians really can regenerate a church based on youth and “inclusivity” remains to be seen.
So far, they have paid a price for their actions. Four bishops, the majority of their dioceses and numerous parishes around the country jumped ship in the last few years to form a new, theologically conservative entity called the Anglican Church in North America. That group will not consecrate women, not to mention gay men and lesbians, as bishops. It has about 100,000 members, while the Episcopal Church has about two million.
But a church study shows that membership declined about 6 percent from 2003 to 2007.
The Episcopal Church also saw its contributions decline, though church experts say it is hard to know how much of that drop is attributable to the economic downturn. The convention voted last week to cut the budget by $23 million over three years and eliminate about 30 out of 180 staff positions at church headquarters in New York and other locations.
To theological conservatives, these are signs of a church that will ultimately collapse because it has sold its soul to secular political causes. Two conservative bishops who have remained in the Episcopal Church appeared at a news briefing last week organized by a conservative Anglican group and mourned the direction their church has taken.
“I am a lifelong Episcopalian, a lifelong Anglican,” said Bishop William Love of Albany, who appeared on the verge of tears. “It is breaking my heart to see the church destroy itself.
“Rather than being a blessing for the church, I believe ultimately it will be a curse on the church. Rather than bringing more people into the church, I believe it will drive more people away.”
Bishop Peter Beckwith of Springfield, Ill., said, “It’s a disaster.”
But when asked whether they would lead their dioceses out of the church, both bishops said probably not. Part of the reason was that they would be likely to face legal wrangling over properties, and part is simply their faithfulness to the church.
“I have not sensed that this is the direction the Lord is calling us to,” Bishop Love said. “It all depends on what you focus on. My intent is to keep us focused on Jesus Christ and not on the storm.”
It may be that all the motivated conservative bishops and parishes that considered homosexuality the deal breaker have already left, or have just grown tired of fighting.
Toward the end of the convention last week, 27 of the church’s active and retired bishops signed a minority report putting their objections on record. Above all, they are concerned that the Episcopal Church has jeopardized its place in the Anglican Communion, the international network of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England. But the conservative bishops concluded in their minority report that they had not been made to feel like they did not belong, and signaled that they, too, did not intend to leave.
“We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the church,” they wrote.
Mr. Hay, the 17-year-old convention deputy, said he knew that other conservative Episcopal parishes in San Diego were “on the fence,” and he hoped they would not depart.
“What it’s about is keeping people at the table,” he said, “pushing more discussion.”
High Anglicans
Via TitusOneNine:
The special relationship between one local parish and the Catholic tradition
By Adam Parker
The Post and Courier
Sunday, July 19, 2009
In religious circles, one often hears the phrase "the authority of Scripture," which carries the implication that Scripture is authoritative not only because of its lessons but because a powerful force is pushing it from behind.
Ever since organized religion has designated Scripture as authoritative, everyone has experienced the tension created between "the word" and "the church," between individual faith and doctrine, between social and religious law.
Tension is part of what defines religious experience, and it is certainly felt by the Church of the Holy Communion, according to its leaders. On July 12, the Charleston congregation celebrated a special service recognizing the 176th anniversary of the Oxford Movement, which was an effort in the first part of the 19th century to uphold the Roman Catholic nature of early Anglicanism. As a consequence, an extra dose of holy pomp was added to a celebration already replete with liturgical smells and bells.
Holy Communion is not a typical Episcopal church. It's part of the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Its leaders fret at the "protestantization" of their fellow Anglicans, a process going back to 1534 when Henry VIII nationalized the Church of England.
It strives to rejoin the Vatican in full communion. It adheres to the Oxford Movement's assertion that the Church of England (and other Anglican Church bodies) has been, and is now, an apostolic church, a direct descendant of St. Peter's church, a true inheritor of the word of Christ.
Protestantism holds that there is no "one true church," that individua
The special relationship between one local parish and the Catholic tradition
By Adam Parker
The Post and Courier
Sunday, July 19, 2009
In religious circles, one often hears the phrase "the authority of Scripture," which carries the implication that Scripture is authoritative not only because of its lessons but because a powerful force is pushing it from behind.
Ever since organized religion has designated Scripture as authoritative, everyone has experienced the tension created between "the word" and "the church," between individual faith and doctrine, between social and religious law.
Tension is part of what defines religious experience, and it is certainly felt by the Church of the Holy Communion, according to its leaders. On July 12, the Charleston congregation celebrated a special service recognizing the 176th anniversary of the Oxford Movement, which was an effort in the first part of the 19th century to uphold the Roman Catholic nature of early Anglicanism. As a consequence, an extra dose of holy pomp was added to a celebration already replete with liturgical smells and bells.
Holy Communion is not a typical Episcopal church. It's part of the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Its leaders fret at the "protestantization" of their fellow Anglicans, a process going back to 1534 when Henry VIII nationalized the Church of England.
It strives to rejoin the Vatican in full communion. It adheres to the Oxford Movement's assertion that the Church of England (and other Anglican Church bodies) has been, and is now, an apostolic church, a direct descendant of St. Peter's church, a true inheritor of the word of Christ.
Protestantism holds that there is no "one true church," that individua