I meet and interview a transgendered Anglican lady.
You will be stunned at what I learned.
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
8/28/2009
Dear VOL readers,
LITTLE DID I KNOW what was in store for me when I accepted a lunch invitation from a VOL reader whom I had never met. Soon, I found myself seated at a nearby Chinese restaurant, opposite a lady who proceeded to tell me that she is a transgendered person.
Specifically, she believes she was born with a condition called gender dysphoria, commonly known as transsexualism. I have never had an in-depth, face-to-face conversation with a person who had had a sex change operation, a person who was once a man and is now very much a woman. This may well be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for me.
For the rest of the story, go to:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11098
Monday, August 31, 2009
Methodists Say No to Lutheran Gay Clergy
Via VirtueOnline:
by Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
August 27, 2009
Lutheran ministers who are in same-sex relationships will not be allowed to serve as clergy in United Methodist congregations despite the new full communion agreement between the two denominations.
Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, made clear on Wednesday that UMC's ban on noncelibate gay clergy still stands.
"Our Book of Discipline on that subject did not become null and void when they took that vote," said Palmer, according to the United Methodist News Service. "It still applies to United Methodist clergy."
Palmer was referring to the highly publicized vote last week by the chief legislative body of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to approve a resolution allowing gays and lesbians in "life-long, monogamous, same gender relationships" to be ordained.
The controversial vote took place a day after ELCA delegates overwhelmingly adopted a full communion agreement with The United Methodist Church.
Full communion is not tantamount to a merger, church officials said. Instead, under the pact each church acknowledges the other as a partner in the Christian faith, recognizes the authenticity of each other's baptism and Eucharist, and is committed to working together toward greater unity.
The two denominations also express mutual recognition of ordained ministers for service in either church, according to the agreement. Some UMC leaders have already expressed eagerness to share clergy in underserved areas, as reported by the United Methodist News Service.
Although the agreement recognizes full interchangeability of all ordained ministers, UMC congregations will not be accepting partnered homosexuals from the ELCA.
As Palmer stressed, "the doctrine, polity and standards of ministry of the respective denominations in any full communion agreement are not wiped out when one denomination does something."
Last year, the highest legislative body of The United Methodist Church rejected changes to its constitution and voted to uphold its ban against the ordination of practicing homosexuals. United Methodists continue to hold that homosexual practice is "incompatible with Christian teaching."
Michael Trice, an ecumenical officer of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, noted that if partnered homosexuals in the ELCA want to serve in a United Methodist congregation, The United Methodist Church can say to them "we are sorry but that does not fit our protocols."
"Unity does not require uniformity in all cases," said Trice. "It requires faithfulness to the Gospel, honesty with our Christian partners, and wherever we can share a sense of mission and service in the world."
The agreement with the ELCA is UMC's first full communion relationship outside the Methodist tradition. The ELCA, meanwhile, has full communion pacts with The Episcopal Church, Moravian Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Reformed Church in America and the United Church of Christ.
END
by Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
August 27, 2009
Lutheran ministers who are in same-sex relationships will not be allowed to serve as clergy in United Methodist congregations despite the new full communion agreement between the two denominations.
Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, made clear on Wednesday that UMC's ban on noncelibate gay clergy still stands.
"Our Book of Discipline on that subject did not become null and void when they took that vote," said Palmer, according to the United Methodist News Service. "It still applies to United Methodist clergy."
Palmer was referring to the highly publicized vote last week by the chief legislative body of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to approve a resolution allowing gays and lesbians in "life-long, monogamous, same gender relationships" to be ordained.
The controversial vote took place a day after ELCA delegates overwhelmingly adopted a full communion agreement with The United Methodist Church.
Full communion is not tantamount to a merger, church officials said. Instead, under the pact each church acknowledges the other as a partner in the Christian faith, recognizes the authenticity of each other's baptism and Eucharist, and is committed to working together toward greater unity.
The two denominations also express mutual recognition of ordained ministers for service in either church, according to the agreement. Some UMC leaders have already expressed eagerness to share clergy in underserved areas, as reported by the United Methodist News Service.
Although the agreement recognizes full interchangeability of all ordained ministers, UMC congregations will not be accepting partnered homosexuals from the ELCA.
As Palmer stressed, "the doctrine, polity and standards of ministry of the respective denominations in any full communion agreement are not wiped out when one denomination does something."
Last year, the highest legislative body of The United Methodist Church rejected changes to its constitution and voted to uphold its ban against the ordination of practicing homosexuals. United Methodists continue to hold that homosexual practice is "incompatible with Christian teaching."
Michael Trice, an ecumenical officer of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, noted that if partnered homosexuals in the ELCA want to serve in a United Methodist congregation, The United Methodist Church can say to them "we are sorry but that does not fit our protocols."
"Unity does not require uniformity in all cases," said Trice. "It requires faithfulness to the Gospel, honesty with our Christian partners, and wherever we can share a sense of mission and service in the world."
The agreement with the ELCA is UMC's first full communion relationship outside the Methodist tradition. The ELCA, meanwhile, has full communion pacts with The Episcopal Church, Moravian Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Reformed Church in America and the United Church of Christ.
END
Re-thinking how we do church
From the Anglican Journal via TitusOneNine:
Is it possible to grow the Anglican Church in Canada today? Rev. Gary Nicolosi’s response is an emphatic ‘yes.’
Sep 1, 2009
When it comes to declining enrolment in the Anglican Church of Canada, there is hope. In the first of a series of articles about a paradigm shift taking place across Canada, Rev. Gary Nicolosi, congregational development officer for the diocese of British Columbia, talks to Journal editor Kristin Jenkins about how we got here and what we can do about it.
THE FIRST THING you notice about Rev. Gary Nicolosi is that he speaks in sound bytes. He’s a passionate, articulate man and when he talks, people listen.
“This is the number one issue for the church today,” he tells a roomful of diocesan editors at the recent Anglican Editors Association conference in Victoria. “Yes, the stats are grim but we have to keep hope alive.” Even for this somewhat cynical crew, you can hear a pin drop.
Mr. Nicolosi is talking about the fact that the Anglican Church in Canada has lost more than half of its membership in the past 50 years. People just aren’t coming to church the way they used to. As a result, the number of people in the pews has plummeted by 53 percent, from 1.3 million in 1961 down to 658,000 in 2001. Citing statistics from Reginald Bibby’s Project Canada, The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, Statistics Canada and The Living Church, a U.S. Episcopal Church magazine, Mr. Nicolosi calls the drop in membership “precipitous.” When the census is taken in 2011, he warns, “I think the numbers are going to be under 600,000. I think people are going to be shocked.”
Tell people the truth, Mr. Nicolosi implores us, no matter how painful or humiliating. “God is a new god of transformation and death is not the end of the Christian story. We can move on.”
By the numbers
Canadian membership in an Anglican church
1961: 1.3 million
2001: 658,000
Percentage decrease: 53
Anglicans who attend church at least twice a month
325,000
American membership in the Episcopal church
1965: 3.5 million
2007: 2.2 million
Percentage decrease: 55
Statistics on average worship attendance, a key indicator of how healthy a church is, show that there are even fewer committed Anglicans going to church than we think. Of the 9,200 Anglicans enrolled in the diocese of British Columbia in 2007, for instance, only 4,755 actually made the effort to come to church two or more times a month. “These are the attenders and the givers,” points out Mr. Nicolosi, “and they determine the viability of a church.”
Look through this lens on a national level and declining membership drops to a shocking 325,000. “People are dying and we’re not replenishing the ranks,” says Mr. Nicolosi. “Our baptisms are not keeping up with the funerals.”
A transplanted American now living in Victoria, Mr. Nicolosi holds degrees from Temple University School of Law (J.D.), Trinity College, University of Toronto (M. Div.) and Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (D. Min.).
Working closely with Bishop Jim Cowan and the diocesan congregational development team, Mr. Nicolosi is helping the 54 churches in the diocese grow as vital centers of mission and ministry. He also works with parish clergy and lay leaders to develop leadership skills for growing their congregations.
Work in other dioceses is taking root as well. In the diocese of New Westminster, a major strategic plan to revitalize the dioceses is in the works,” says Mr. Nicolosi. “It’s not fundraising. It’s re-thinking how we do church.”
The dioceses of Niagara, Toronto and Caledonia are also taking the issue of congregational development very seriously, says Mr. Nicolosi. And he points out examples of churches that are bucking the trend and growing their flock, including Christ Church Cathedral in Vancouver and Trinity Church in Streetsville, Ont.
The good news about declining membership is that Anglicans will not have to “reinvent the wheel,” says Mr. Nicolosi. But we have to start talking as a crucial first step. “We talk about international issues over which we have little or no control or we talk about sexuality. We have allowed this to happen.”
There are no simple solutions. Each parish is unique. Still, some basic principles apply. For one, ministry has to be intentional, says Mr. Nicolosi. Being able to meet people where they’re at – not where we want them to be – is an important building block of congregational development.
“We need to get back to how to reach people, to understand them and to connect with them. We can’t just assume that they will come to us,” says Mr. Nicolosi. It also means coming to terms with where the mission culture actually resides. “It’s outside your front door, not in Africa,” he says.
Quantitative benchmarks are crucial. If you don’t measure, you’ll just end up with the status quo, says Mr. Nicolosi. “I think that we need to be sensitive to the intangibles and the pastoral side of the ministry but we also need to recognize that numbers matter. They don’t tell the whole story but they do tell part of it.”
Money is never the problem, he adds. Instead, underlying currents in the parish that affect giving, such as conflict, director style or the death of parishioners, affect the viability of a church.
In developed countries, including the U.S., England and the rest of Europe, membership and average attendance also are down. Fewer than one million attend church regularly in England, where the mother church is officially 28-million strong. “They just go to have the baby christened and never come back,” says Mr. Nicolosi.
In the U.S., the ranks of the Episcopal Church have thinned by 55 percent, dropping from a peak of 3.5 million in 1964 to 2.2 million in 2007.
Still, declining church attendance is not universal. Attendance at the Pentecostal, Baptist and Christian Missionary Alliance churches is growing. “Evangelicals don’t just study the Bible, they study the culture and then connect the two,” says Mr. Nicolosi.
Given the substantial age gap between the average Anglican (upper 60s) and the average Canadian (upper 30s), growing churches where the demographic is different from the outside community will be a challenge. The key is to build on strengths, says Mr. Nicolosi. If the congregation is made up of elderly parishioners, don’t start by building a youth ministry. The effort will suffer for lack of resources and staffing.
Can the Anglican Church of Canada change its approach without compromising its values to attract new members? Ultimately, changing an organization that is used to doing things the same way for so many years is profound.
There is no easy resolution but finding the answers does matter, says Mr. Nicolosi. “Christianity is always one generation away from extinction, so we all have a responsibility. If we are truly conservative,” he points out, “then we are conserving what is essential.”
Is it possible to grow the Anglican Church in Canada today? Rev. Gary Nicolosi’s response is an emphatic ‘yes.’
Sep 1, 2009
When it comes to declining enrolment in the Anglican Church of Canada, there is hope. In the first of a series of articles about a paradigm shift taking place across Canada, Rev. Gary Nicolosi, congregational development officer for the diocese of British Columbia, talks to Journal editor Kristin Jenkins about how we got here and what we can do about it.
THE FIRST THING you notice about Rev. Gary Nicolosi is that he speaks in sound bytes. He’s a passionate, articulate man and when he talks, people listen.
“This is the number one issue for the church today,” he tells a roomful of diocesan editors at the recent Anglican Editors Association conference in Victoria. “Yes, the stats are grim but we have to keep hope alive.” Even for this somewhat cynical crew, you can hear a pin drop.
Mr. Nicolosi is talking about the fact that the Anglican Church in Canada has lost more than half of its membership in the past 50 years. People just aren’t coming to church the way they used to. As a result, the number of people in the pews has plummeted by 53 percent, from 1.3 million in 1961 down to 658,000 in 2001. Citing statistics from Reginald Bibby’s Project Canada, The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, Statistics Canada and The Living Church, a U.S. Episcopal Church magazine, Mr. Nicolosi calls the drop in membership “precipitous.” When the census is taken in 2011, he warns, “I think the numbers are going to be under 600,000. I think people are going to be shocked.”
Tell people the truth, Mr. Nicolosi implores us, no matter how painful or humiliating. “God is a new god of transformation and death is not the end of the Christian story. We can move on.”
By the numbers
Canadian membership in an Anglican church
1961: 1.3 million
2001: 658,000
Percentage decrease: 53
Anglicans who attend church at least twice a month
325,000
American membership in the Episcopal church
1965: 3.5 million
2007: 2.2 million
Percentage decrease: 55
Statistics on average worship attendance, a key indicator of how healthy a church is, show that there are even fewer committed Anglicans going to church than we think. Of the 9,200 Anglicans enrolled in the diocese of British Columbia in 2007, for instance, only 4,755 actually made the effort to come to church two or more times a month. “These are the attenders and the givers,” points out Mr. Nicolosi, “and they determine the viability of a church.”
Look through this lens on a national level and declining membership drops to a shocking 325,000. “People are dying and we’re not replenishing the ranks,” says Mr. Nicolosi. “Our baptisms are not keeping up with the funerals.”
A transplanted American now living in Victoria, Mr. Nicolosi holds degrees from Temple University School of Law (J.D.), Trinity College, University of Toronto (M. Div.) and Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (D. Min.).
Working closely with Bishop Jim Cowan and the diocesan congregational development team, Mr. Nicolosi is helping the 54 churches in the diocese grow as vital centers of mission and ministry. He also works with parish clergy and lay leaders to develop leadership skills for growing their congregations.
Work in other dioceses is taking root as well. In the diocese of New Westminster, a major strategic plan to revitalize the dioceses is in the works,” says Mr. Nicolosi. “It’s not fundraising. It’s re-thinking how we do church.”
The dioceses of Niagara, Toronto and Caledonia are also taking the issue of congregational development very seriously, says Mr. Nicolosi. And he points out examples of churches that are bucking the trend and growing their flock, including Christ Church Cathedral in Vancouver and Trinity Church in Streetsville, Ont.
The good news about declining membership is that Anglicans will not have to “reinvent the wheel,” says Mr. Nicolosi. But we have to start talking as a crucial first step. “We talk about international issues over which we have little or no control or we talk about sexuality. We have allowed this to happen.”
There are no simple solutions. Each parish is unique. Still, some basic principles apply. For one, ministry has to be intentional, says Mr. Nicolosi. Being able to meet people where they’re at – not where we want them to be – is an important building block of congregational development.
“We need to get back to how to reach people, to understand them and to connect with them. We can’t just assume that they will come to us,” says Mr. Nicolosi. It also means coming to terms with where the mission culture actually resides. “It’s outside your front door, not in Africa,” he says.
Quantitative benchmarks are crucial. If you don’t measure, you’ll just end up with the status quo, says Mr. Nicolosi. “I think that we need to be sensitive to the intangibles and the pastoral side of the ministry but we also need to recognize that numbers matter. They don’t tell the whole story but they do tell part of it.”
Money is never the problem, he adds. Instead, underlying currents in the parish that affect giving, such as conflict, director style or the death of parishioners, affect the viability of a church.
In developed countries, including the U.S., England and the rest of Europe, membership and average attendance also are down. Fewer than one million attend church regularly in England, where the mother church is officially 28-million strong. “They just go to have the baby christened and never come back,” says Mr. Nicolosi.
In the U.S., the ranks of the Episcopal Church have thinned by 55 percent, dropping from a peak of 3.5 million in 1964 to 2.2 million in 2007.
Still, declining church attendance is not universal. Attendance at the Pentecostal, Baptist and Christian Missionary Alliance churches is growing. “Evangelicals don’t just study the Bible, they study the culture and then connect the two,” says Mr. Nicolosi.
Given the substantial age gap between the average Anglican (upper 60s) and the average Canadian (upper 30s), growing churches where the demographic is different from the outside community will be a challenge. The key is to build on strengths, says Mr. Nicolosi. If the congregation is made up of elderly parishioners, don’t start by building a youth ministry. The effort will suffer for lack of resources and staffing.
Can the Anglican Church of Canada change its approach without compromising its values to attract new members? Ultimately, changing an organization that is used to doing things the same way for so many years is profound.
There is no easy resolution but finding the answers does matter, says Mr. Nicolosi. “Christianity is always one generation away from extinction, so we all have a responsibility. If we are truly conservative,” he points out, “then we are conserving what is essential.”
Gay bishop attacks 'two-track' Anglican vision as 'abhorrent to Jesus'
I agree with VGR that the two track church is abhorrent to Jesus. Jesus, according to the apostolic tradition, would have pecusa totally removed from any real part of the Church. ed.
From The Scotsman via Stand Firm:
Published Date: 30 August 2009
By Tim Moynihan
THE first openly gay bishop in the Anglican communion yesterday criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury's suggestion of a possible "two-track" church. Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire, said: "I can't imagine anything that would be more abhorrent to Jesus than a two-tier church.
"Either we are children of God and brothers and sisters in Christ, or we aren't. There are not preferred children and second-class children. There are just children of God."
It emerged last month that Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams had spoken of a "two-track" church to deal with divisions over homosexuality within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Dr Williams said such a move was a possibility as Anglicanism struggles to find a new set of rules to deal with issues such as teaching on homosexuality.
A "twofold ecclesial reality" would allow for a global Anglican body that shared certain teachings, he said, with local churches relating to this body but in less formal ways.
Last month, Scotland on Sunday revealed senior Scots clergyman, the Very Reverend Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary's Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow, had called on Holyrood to change the law to allow same-sex partners to marry in church, in the same way as straight couples.
From The Scotsman via Stand Firm:
Published Date: 30 August 2009
By Tim Moynihan
THE first openly gay bishop in the Anglican communion yesterday criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury's suggestion of a possible "two-track" church. Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire, said: "I can't imagine anything that would be more abhorrent to Jesus than a two-tier church.
"Either we are children of God and brothers and sisters in Christ, or we aren't. There are not preferred children and second-class children. There are just children of God."
It emerged last month that Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams had spoken of a "two-track" church to deal with divisions over homosexuality within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Dr Williams said such a move was a possibility as Anglicanism struggles to find a new set of rules to deal with issues such as teaching on homosexuality.
A "twofold ecclesial reality" would allow for a global Anglican body that shared certain teachings, he said, with local churches relating to this body but in less formal ways.
Last month, Scotland on Sunday revealed senior Scots clergyman, the Very Reverend Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary's Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow, had called on Holyrood to change the law to allow same-sex partners to marry in church, in the same way as straight couples.
Interview with Bishop Martyn Minns
Anglican TV has interviewed the missionary bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. It can be found at:
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2009/08/interview-with-bishop-martyn-minns.html
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2009/08/interview-with-bishop-martyn-minns.html
Saturday, August 29, 2009
A New Sexual Ethic: Coming to a Parish Near You
From the American Anglican Council via a DCNY blog reader:
August 28, 2009
By Ralinda B. Gregor
A recent Huffington Post editorial by Unitarian Universalist minister Debra Haffner noted this has been a "stunning year for LGBT equality in the life of the Protestant churches."
However, she lamented that the focus on "lifelong committed relationships" by the Lutheran Church (ELCA) leaves out single adults (including clergy) who choose to have sex outside of marriage.
It is within this framework that she presents her pitch for a "new sexual ethic" proposed by the organization she heads, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, which seeks to "change the way America understands the relationship of sexuality and religion."
Just how they seek to change it is outlined in the organization's Religious Declaration which describes a new sexual ethic based on "personal relationships and social justice rather than particular sexual acts." The declaration states that "All persons have the right and responsibility to lead sexual lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent, and pleasure" and that right "applies to all persons, without regard to sex, gender, color, age, bodily condition, marital status, or sexual orientation." It calls for the ordination of "sexual minorities" and the blessing of same-sex unions. The declaration also calls on faith communities to advocate for "sexual and reproductive rights" including abortion.
The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) developed and released the declaration with 850 signatures in January 2000. Since then, the declaration has gathered more than 3,200 signatures from ordained clergy, professional religious educators, theologians, and staff of religious institutions.
Unfortunately, Haffner's editorial and the Religious Declaration are not just the opinions of extremist liberal clergy who are far removed from the average biblically orthodox Episcopalian or Anglican in the United States. The AAC notes with concern that those endorsers include 263 Episcopal clergy, staff and professors of Episcopal seminaries, including several bishops, executive council members and a former presiding bishop, along with many of the well known advocates for sexual freedom in The Episcopal Church (TEC). By signing this declaration, they are not just advocating LGBT sexual "rights," but the holiness of all consensual sex between lay or clergy people of any age, marital status or sexual orientation. And because this degree of promiscuity may likely result in unwanted pregnancies, they also advocate for-and thereby bless-abortion.
The recent decisions by General Convention to allow "pastoral generosity" in blessing same sex unions and to overturn the moratorium on non-celibate homosexual bishops also suggest that this "new sexual ethic" permeates TEC. Both resolutions (C056 and D025) received overwhelming support by the bishops, clergy and lay deputies.
What is less obvious are the attempts to export this new sexual ethic to the entire Anglican Communion. The Consultation, a group of 13 Episcopal peace and social justice organizations that enjoy the strong support of TEC leadership, hopes to export its vision of "baptismal ecclesiology"-all the sacraments for all the baptized-to the rest of the Anglican Communion. Although it stops short of openly advocating all consensual sex, the Consultation and its member organizations are on record as supporting marriage and ordination for LGBT individuals and abortion rights, and its leaders and members are represented on the list of Religious Declaration endorsers.
There is more here: http://www.americananglican.org/a-new-sexual-ethic-coming-to-a-parish-near-you
You can see who the Episcopalians were who signed on to this here: http://www.americananglican.org/assets/News-and-Commentary-Files/2009/August-2009/Sexuality-Statement-Endorsers.pdf
August 28, 2009
By Ralinda B. Gregor
A recent Huffington Post editorial by Unitarian Universalist minister Debra Haffner noted this has been a "stunning year for LGBT equality in the life of the Protestant churches."
However, she lamented that the focus on "lifelong committed relationships" by the Lutheran Church (ELCA) leaves out single adults (including clergy) who choose to have sex outside of marriage.
It is within this framework that she presents her pitch for a "new sexual ethic" proposed by the organization she heads, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, which seeks to "change the way America understands the relationship of sexuality and religion."
Just how they seek to change it is outlined in the organization's Religious Declaration which describes a new sexual ethic based on "personal relationships and social justice rather than particular sexual acts." The declaration states that "All persons have the right and responsibility to lead sexual lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent, and pleasure" and that right "applies to all persons, without regard to sex, gender, color, age, bodily condition, marital status, or sexual orientation." It calls for the ordination of "sexual minorities" and the blessing of same-sex unions. The declaration also calls on faith communities to advocate for "sexual and reproductive rights" including abortion.
The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) developed and released the declaration with 850 signatures in January 2000. Since then, the declaration has gathered more than 3,200 signatures from ordained clergy, professional religious educators, theologians, and staff of religious institutions.
Unfortunately, Haffner's editorial and the Religious Declaration are not just the opinions of extremist liberal clergy who are far removed from the average biblically orthodox Episcopalian or Anglican in the United States. The AAC notes with concern that those endorsers include 263 Episcopal clergy, staff and professors of Episcopal seminaries, including several bishops, executive council members and a former presiding bishop, along with many of the well known advocates for sexual freedom in The Episcopal Church (TEC). By signing this declaration, they are not just advocating LGBT sexual "rights," but the holiness of all consensual sex between lay or clergy people of any age, marital status or sexual orientation. And because this degree of promiscuity may likely result in unwanted pregnancies, they also advocate for-and thereby bless-abortion.
The recent decisions by General Convention to allow "pastoral generosity" in blessing same sex unions and to overturn the moratorium on non-celibate homosexual bishops also suggest that this "new sexual ethic" permeates TEC. Both resolutions (C056 and D025) received overwhelming support by the bishops, clergy and lay deputies.
What is less obvious are the attempts to export this new sexual ethic to the entire Anglican Communion. The Consultation, a group of 13 Episcopal peace and social justice organizations that enjoy the strong support of TEC leadership, hopes to export its vision of "baptismal ecclesiology"-all the sacraments for all the baptized-to the rest of the Anglican Communion. Although it stops short of openly advocating all consensual sex, the Consultation and its member organizations are on record as supporting marriage and ordination for LGBT individuals and abortion rights, and its leaders and members are represented on the list of Religious Declaration endorsers.
There is more here: http://www.americananglican.org/a-new-sexual-ethic-coming-to-a-parish-near-you
You can see who the Episcopalians were who signed on to this here: http://www.americananglican.org/assets/News-and-Commentary-Files/2009/August-2009/Sexuality-Statement-Endorsers.pdf
PARTYING PRIEST IS RAIDED
From the New York Post via Kimgrams.org:
Last updated: 3:52 am
August 28, 2009
Posted: 2:59 am
August 28, 2009
Insurance-fraud agents have raided the health-care business of an Episcopal priest from Pennsylvania after his expensive partying in New York City came to light, it was revealed yesterday.
Investigators with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office removed filing cabinets and records from NewLife Home Care Inc. in Pittston, Pa., a private business run by the Rev. Gregory Malia.
Malia, who was ordained in 2001, has been under scrutiny by his church since December, when reports surfaced about him spending thousands of dollars on top-shelf alcohol and leaving five-figure tips at some of the trendiest nightclubs in Big Apple.
The Diocese of Bethlehem Episcopal Church almost immediately suspended Malia from his duties as a priest and vicar of a small church in Susquehanna County and began an investigation.
Diocese spokesman Bill Lewellis said Malia had six months to "make matters completely right" or be defrocked.
Malia has said the reports are exaggerated and defended his bar hopping as integral to entrepreneurial and church fund-raising activities.
8/29/2009 5:48 AM EDT
Last updated: 3:52 am
August 28, 2009
Posted: 2:59 am
August 28, 2009
Insurance-fraud agents have raided the health-care business of an Episcopal priest from Pennsylvania after his expensive partying in New York City came to light, it was revealed yesterday.
Investigators with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office removed filing cabinets and records from NewLife Home Care Inc. in Pittston, Pa., a private business run by the Rev. Gregory Malia.
Malia, who was ordained in 2001, has been under scrutiny by his church since December, when reports surfaced about him spending thousands of dollars on top-shelf alcohol and leaving five-figure tips at some of the trendiest nightclubs in Big Apple.
The Diocese of Bethlehem Episcopal Church almost immediately suspended Malia from his duties as a priest and vicar of a small church in Susquehanna County and began an investigation.
Diocese spokesman Bill Lewellis said Malia had six months to "make matters completely right" or be defrocked.
Malia has said the reports are exaggerated and defended his bar hopping as integral to entrepreneurial and church fund-raising activities.
8/29/2009 5:48 AM EDT
Presiding Bishop Defends ‘Heresy’ Address
From The Living Church:
Posted on: August 27, 2009
Asserting that the task of Christians is “to be in relationship with God and with our neighbors,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori offered a detailed defense of her July 7 opening address to General Convention, in which she called individualism the “great Western heresy.”
Writing for Episcopal Life, Bishop Jefferts Schori said the address had received “varied reactions from people who weren’t there, who heard or read an isolated comment without the context.”
Bishop Jefferts Schori said her definition of individualism is “the understanding that the interests and independence of the individual necessarily trump the interests of others, as well as principles of interdependence.” This she called “basically unbiblical and unchristian.”
“The spiritual journey, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is about holy living in community,” she said. Pointing to Jesus’ summary of the Torah in Matthew 22, Bishop Jefferts Schori suggested that “this means our task is to be in relationship with God and with our neighbors.”
“If salvation is understood only as ‘getting right with God’ without considering ‘getting right with all our neighbors,’ then we've got a heresy on our hands,” she said.
“In my address, I went on to say that sometimes this belief that salvation only depends on getting right with God is reduced to saying a simple formula about Jesus,” the Presiding Bishop continued. “Jesus is quite explicit in his rejection of simple formulas: ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven’.”
“He is repeatedly insistent that right relationship depends on loving neighbors,” Bishop Jefferts Schori said. She also cited examples from the Epistles “that our judgment depends on care for brother and sister and that we eat our own destruction if we take Communion without having regard for the rest of the community.”
Saying that “salvation depends on love of God and our relationship with Jesus,” the Presiding Bishop asserted that “we give evidence of our relationship with God in how we treat our neighbors, nearby and far away.”
“Salvation cannot be complete…until the whole of creation is restored to right relationship,” she said, adding, “we anticipate the restoration of all creation to right relationship, and we proclaim that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection made that possible in a new way.”
“At the same time, salvation in the sense of cosmic reconciliation is a mystery,” Bishop Jefferts Schori said. “It is about healing and wholeness and holiness, the fruit of being more than doing. Just like another image we use to speak about restored relationship, the reign of God, salvation is happening all the time, all around us.”
Episcopal News Service contributed to this report.
Posted on: August 27, 2009
Asserting that the task of Christians is “to be in relationship with God and with our neighbors,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori offered a detailed defense of her July 7 opening address to General Convention, in which she called individualism the “great Western heresy.”
Writing for Episcopal Life, Bishop Jefferts Schori said the address had received “varied reactions from people who weren’t there, who heard or read an isolated comment without the context.”
Bishop Jefferts Schori said her definition of individualism is “the understanding that the interests and independence of the individual necessarily trump the interests of others, as well as principles of interdependence.” This she called “basically unbiblical and unchristian.”
“The spiritual journey, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is about holy living in community,” she said. Pointing to Jesus’ summary of the Torah in Matthew 22, Bishop Jefferts Schori suggested that “this means our task is to be in relationship with God and with our neighbors.”
“If salvation is understood only as ‘getting right with God’ without considering ‘getting right with all our neighbors,’ then we've got a heresy on our hands,” she said.
“In my address, I went on to say that sometimes this belief that salvation only depends on getting right with God is reduced to saying a simple formula about Jesus,” the Presiding Bishop continued. “Jesus is quite explicit in his rejection of simple formulas: ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven’.”
“He is repeatedly insistent that right relationship depends on loving neighbors,” Bishop Jefferts Schori said. She also cited examples from the Epistles “that our judgment depends on care for brother and sister and that we eat our own destruction if we take Communion without having regard for the rest of the community.”
Saying that “salvation depends on love of God and our relationship with Jesus,” the Presiding Bishop asserted that “we give evidence of our relationship with God in how we treat our neighbors, nearby and far away.”
“Salvation cannot be complete…until the whole of creation is restored to right relationship,” she said, adding, “we anticipate the restoration of all creation to right relationship, and we proclaim that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection made that possible in a new way.”
“At the same time, salvation in the sense of cosmic reconciliation is a mystery,” Bishop Jefferts Schori said. “It is about healing and wholeness and holiness, the fruit of being more than doing. Just like another image we use to speak about restored relationship, the reign of God, salvation is happening all the time, all around us.”
Episcopal News Service contributed to this report.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Big Changes at Episcopal Lobby Office
From the Institute of Religion and Democracy via VirtueOnline:
By Jeff H. Walton
August 26, 2009
Last month the General Convention of the Episcopal Church made steep budget cuts for the upcoming triennium. Church leaders were clear that every department at the church center was going to lose personnel. Some of the consequences were realized almost instantly - the wholesale axing of an evangelism program at the national level, for instance.
Other changes are gradually being determined. Recently, the church's Office of Government Relations (OGR) announced that Washington, D.C.-based Episcopal lobbyist Maureen Shea will retire at the end of the month. Similarly, New York-based Director of Advocacy Rev. Canon Brian Grieves will retire in October. The two roles had been set to be combined into a single position, but now the search for that position has been completely suspended.
It's tempting to celebrate the cutting of resources for the OGR. It is a group that has, in the name of Episcopalians, promoted unrestricted abortion-on-demand, backed a litany of pro-homosexuality and anti-family legislation, and enthusiastically supported high taxes and big government.
That being acknowledged, the OGR has also been an advocate for combating human trafficking. It supported the creation of the Commission on International Religious Freedom when the National Council of Churches vocally opposed it. Importantly, OGR staff worked on behalf of persecuted Anglicans in the Sudan long before Darfur entered the vocabulary of Hollywood celebrities. Shea herself joined with Honduras Bishop Lloyd Allen in authoring General Convention's balanced resolution on the political crisis in that Central American nation.
In an e-mail released through the Episcopal Public Policy Network, OGR staff said "we are being asked to do more with less - but with your help, our voice will be stronger than ever as we live into the challenging public policy issues before the country."
Of course, you and I know that when an organization cuts staff, priorities have to be set and more is not done with less. Less is done with less. This is a moment when the priorities of the church are going to come to light: will the Episcopal lobbyists and the advocacy center of which they are a part use their lessened resources to continue prioritizing religious liberty and human rights, or will they spend their time advocating leftist causes? To read a commentary by my colleague, Alan Wisdom, about how these denomination lobby offices function, click here [http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=1138]
Anglican Action will strongly advocate for religious liberty and the promotion of just democracy. We think that the OGR should serve all Episcopalians-not just the liberal activists. Its publications should stress the biblical teachings that Episcopalians hold in common. When the office presents information and arguments on a particular issue, it should fairly represent different positions held by faithful Episcopalians. It should let church members make up their own minds on particular legislation.
The OGR should be truly ecumenical and non-partisan. Our Episcopal office should be cooperating as frequently with Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists as it does with Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ. It should be aligned with the Republicans as often as with the Democrats.
---Jeff H. Walton is IRD Communications Manager/Staffer, Anglican Action for Faith & Freedom.
By Jeff H. Walton
August 26, 2009
Last month the General Convention of the Episcopal Church made steep budget cuts for the upcoming triennium. Church leaders were clear that every department at the church center was going to lose personnel. Some of the consequences were realized almost instantly - the wholesale axing of an evangelism program at the national level, for instance.
Other changes are gradually being determined. Recently, the church's Office of Government Relations (OGR) announced that Washington, D.C.-based Episcopal lobbyist Maureen Shea will retire at the end of the month. Similarly, New York-based Director of Advocacy Rev. Canon Brian Grieves will retire in October. The two roles had been set to be combined into a single position, but now the search for that position has been completely suspended.
It's tempting to celebrate the cutting of resources for the OGR. It is a group that has, in the name of Episcopalians, promoted unrestricted abortion-on-demand, backed a litany of pro-homosexuality and anti-family legislation, and enthusiastically supported high taxes and big government.
That being acknowledged, the OGR has also been an advocate for combating human trafficking. It supported the creation of the Commission on International Religious Freedom when the National Council of Churches vocally opposed it. Importantly, OGR staff worked on behalf of persecuted Anglicans in the Sudan long before Darfur entered the vocabulary of Hollywood celebrities. Shea herself joined with Honduras Bishop Lloyd Allen in authoring General Convention's balanced resolution on the political crisis in that Central American nation.
In an e-mail released through the Episcopal Public Policy Network, OGR staff said "we are being asked to do more with less - but with your help, our voice will be stronger than ever as we live into the challenging public policy issues before the country."
Of course, you and I know that when an organization cuts staff, priorities have to be set and more is not done with less. Less is done with less. This is a moment when the priorities of the church are going to come to light: will the Episcopal lobbyists and the advocacy center of which they are a part use their lessened resources to continue prioritizing religious liberty and human rights, or will they spend their time advocating leftist causes? To read a commentary by my colleague, Alan Wisdom, about how these denomination lobby offices function, click here [http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=1138]
Anglican Action will strongly advocate for religious liberty and the promotion of just democracy. We think that the OGR should serve all Episcopalians-not just the liberal activists. Its publications should stress the biblical teachings that Episcopalians hold in common. When the office presents information and arguments on a particular issue, it should fairly represent different positions held by faithful Episcopalians. It should let church members make up their own minds on particular legislation.
The OGR should be truly ecumenical and non-partisan. Our Episcopal office should be cooperating as frequently with Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists as it does with Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ. It should be aligned with the Republicans as often as with the Democrats.
---Jeff H. Walton is IRD Communications Manager/Staffer, Anglican Action for Faith & Freedom.
A Glimmer of Hope for Diocese of San Joaquin
Via VirtueOnline:
by A.S. Haley
Anglican Curmudgeon
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/08/glimmer-of-hope-for-san-joaquin.html
August 27, 2009
This order, entered by the Fifth District Court of Appeal yesterday, affords a glimmer of hope for Bishop John-David Schofield in the San Joaquin litigation that the Court will agree to review the decision granting summary adjudication by Superior Court Judge Corona, which I discussed in this earlier post. Bishop Schofield had filed a petition for review with the Court on Friday, August 21.
Bishop Lamb and his attorneys now have until September 15 to file an "informal" response to Bishop Schofield's petition, and the latter will then have until Monday, October 5 in which to file a reply. (Monday, October 5 will also be a red-letter day in other Episcopal Church litigation. It is the first Monday in October, when the United States Supreme Court officially returns from its summer recess, and thus is probably the day on which we shall learn whether or not the Court has agreed to review the decision by the California Supreme Court in the litigation between the Parish of St. James in Newport Beach and the Diocese of Los Angeles.)
The reason the Fifth District Court uses the word "informal" in its order is that it simply wants to hear from the other side (and then have a reply to that response) before deciding whether to grant full review of Judge Corona's decision. So nothing is certain yet; we will not know the Court's decision in that regard until sometime after October 5. Most petitions for early review are denied; and most of those which are denied are denied immediately, without even asking for a response from the other side. To have made it to this point is at least to have the case deemed worthy of a full set of briefs before a decision to grant review is made.
If the Court decides to grant review, it will probably calendar a hearing date, and set a schedule for formal briefs to be submitted before the hearing. If the court grants review, it could also enter a stay of the proceedings in Judge Corona's court until it acts on the merits of the petition -- i.e., decides whether to reverse Judge Corona's decision, to modify it in any way, or to let it stand.
I will have further to say about the arguments on both sides after Bishop Lamb and his diocese have filed their informal response.
One way or another, the California Fifth District Court of Appeal might be the first appellate court ever to decide whether or not a diocese has the legal ability to withdraw from the Episcopal Church (USA). No higher court to date has ever been presented with the question.
END
by A.S. Haley
Anglican Curmudgeon
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/08/glimmer-of-hope-for-san-joaquin.html
August 27, 2009
This order, entered by the Fifth District Court of Appeal yesterday, affords a glimmer of hope for Bishop John-David Schofield in the San Joaquin litigation that the Court will agree to review the decision granting summary adjudication by Superior Court Judge Corona, which I discussed in this earlier post. Bishop Schofield had filed a petition for review with the Court on Friday, August 21.
Bishop Lamb and his attorneys now have until September 15 to file an "informal" response to Bishop Schofield's petition, and the latter will then have until Monday, October 5 in which to file a reply. (Monday, October 5 will also be a red-letter day in other Episcopal Church litigation. It is the first Monday in October, when the United States Supreme Court officially returns from its summer recess, and thus is probably the day on which we shall learn whether or not the Court has agreed to review the decision by the California Supreme Court in the litigation between the Parish of St. James in Newport Beach and the Diocese of Los Angeles.)
The reason the Fifth District Court uses the word "informal" in its order is that it simply wants to hear from the other side (and then have a reply to that response) before deciding whether to grant full review of Judge Corona's decision. So nothing is certain yet; we will not know the Court's decision in that regard until sometime after October 5. Most petitions for early review are denied; and most of those which are denied are denied immediately, without even asking for a response from the other side. To have made it to this point is at least to have the case deemed worthy of a full set of briefs before a decision to grant review is made.
If the Court decides to grant review, it will probably calendar a hearing date, and set a schedule for formal briefs to be submitted before the hearing. If the court grants review, it could also enter a stay of the proceedings in Judge Corona's court until it acts on the merits of the petition -- i.e., decides whether to reverse Judge Corona's decision, to modify it in any way, or to let it stand.
I will have further to say about the arguments on both sides after Bishop Lamb and his diocese have filed their informal response.
One way or another, the California Fifth District Court of Appeal might be the first appellate court ever to decide whether or not a diocese has the legal ability to withdraw from the Episcopal Church (USA). No higher court to date has ever been presented with the question.
END
Latest Episcopal church's last rites in Englewood
Via TitusOneNine:
St. George's will dissolve, the latest in Episcopal exodus
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Posted: 08/28/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 08/28/2009 02:55:51 AM MDT
After a farewell service on Sunday, St. George's Episcopal Church will close its doors just short of its 100th anniversary — the latest parish to disintegrate in part because of the ordination of gay and lesbian priests.
The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado will officially deconsecrate the Englewood church, more recently called Holy Apostles, after its short-lived merger with another struggling congregation failed to save it.
"St. George's has been a church in turmoil for decades," said Rosamond Long, a 35-year member of the church. "We managed to get it back on its feet every time. This time, we're not going to be able to do it."
The remaining 30 or so congregants will scatter among other churches.
Even though these traditional, loyal and older Episcopalians did not object to the church's growing acceptance of openly gay clergy, they say, their former priest did.
The Rev. Roger Bower, who came to the church about two years ago along with members of the Church of the Holy Spirit, a startup congregation, left St. George's at the end of June.
By then, most of the new, younger congregants he had brought with him already had drifted away, family by family, alienated by a January announcement by Episcopal Bishop Robert O'Neill that the Colorado diocese would end its moratorium against ordaining partnered gay and lesbian persons.
The older and more staid St. George's members accepted O'Neill's pastoral innovations — but the younger Holy Spirit families, which had a very contemporary worship style, did not.
The shrinking parish could no longer afford a priest.
"We were a theologically conservative church," said Scott Field, who'd belonged to Holy Spirit before the merger. He later was elected senior warden of the combined church.
"Human sexuality is not the only issue of theological orthodoxy, but it seems to be the line in the sand many won't cross," Field said.
St. George's Episcopal Church will close its doors just short of its 100th anniversary — the latest parish to disintegrate in part because of the ordination of gay and lesbian priests. Do you support the ordination of gays and lesbians? Field and his wife, both cradle Episcopalians, are leaving the denomination.
"Change is with us," said St. George's parishioner Long. "I don't agree with everything the bishop says either, but community is more important. We are inclusive."
Left at the end of June with no rector, a combined membership of about 45 and inadequate financial resources, St. George's, which had fought dissolution time and time again, finally surrendered.
The vestry voted July 14 to pull the plug.
"The diocese won't help us," Long said. "They made it very clear."
The Colorado diocese, which had a membership of about 34,000 in 2000, had an estimated roll of just over 30,000 in 2007. In the same period, Sunday attendance fell from 15,000 to 12,000.
It isn't known how many of those losses can be attributed to doctrinal disputes. However, by the end of 2008, more than 25 Colorado parishes had affiliated with The Common Cause Partnership, a federation of conservative Anglicans. Of these parishes, 16 had either left the Episcopal Diocese or were formed outside its authority.
The most publicized and acrimonious church split in Colorado was the battle over Grace Church and St. Stephen's Parish in Colorado Springs, where the former pastor shifted allegiance to an Anglican province because, he said, he was angry over ordination of gays and lesbians and other deviations from orthodoxy.
The diocese countercharged that the Rev. Don Armstrong had stolen from the church. He is currently facing theft charges in El Paso County, and a court returned Grace Church properties to the diocese.
Diocese spokeswoman Beckett Stokes said no decision has been made about the St. George's property near East Hampden Avenue and South Clarkson Street — about 5 acres of church grounds.
"I know this is a loss for all of you personally," the bishop wrote to the parish July 31, "but I want you to know that the loss of your witness collectively as a community leaves a very real void for all of us in the diocese."
Wednesday was the last gathering of the women's sewing circle, which had been meeting in church since 1953.
"My son was married in this church. He's 62 now," said 87-year-old Marjorie Peterson, who came to America as a British war bride.
"It's devastating," said Anne Jansson. "We wanted to be buried in this church."
"Yes, Marjorie and I were looking forward to it," said 85-year-old Betty Jane "B.J." McClaflin, causing the ladies, gathered together to stitch small quilts for nursing homes, to erupt in laughter.
It didn't have to happen, said Tronette Hetts, founding member of the sewing circle.
It was a bad match — St. George's with the archconservative Bower and the other congregation, Long said, "but we were so anxious for it to work."
A few parishioners retrieved a large bas relief of St. George slaying the dragon from a back room — stored there when the church became Holy Apostles. The parishioners restored St. George to his place of honor in the church entryway.
It will be a brief stay.
"No one is ever going to know we were ever here," Jansson said.
St. George's will dissolve, the latest in Episcopal exodus
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Posted: 08/28/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 08/28/2009 02:55:51 AM MDT
After a farewell service on Sunday, St. George's Episcopal Church will close its doors just short of its 100th anniversary — the latest parish to disintegrate in part because of the ordination of gay and lesbian priests.
The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado will officially deconsecrate the Englewood church, more recently called Holy Apostles, after its short-lived merger with another struggling congregation failed to save it.
"St. George's has been a church in turmoil for decades," said Rosamond Long, a 35-year member of the church. "We managed to get it back on its feet every time. This time, we're not going to be able to do it."
The remaining 30 or so congregants will scatter among other churches.
Even though these traditional, loyal and older Episcopalians did not object to the church's growing acceptance of openly gay clergy, they say, their former priest did.
The Rev. Roger Bower, who came to the church about two years ago along with members of the Church of the Holy Spirit, a startup congregation, left St. George's at the end of June.
By then, most of the new, younger congregants he had brought with him already had drifted away, family by family, alienated by a January announcement by Episcopal Bishop Robert O'Neill that the Colorado diocese would end its moratorium against ordaining partnered gay and lesbian persons.
The older and more staid St. George's members accepted O'Neill's pastoral innovations — but the younger Holy Spirit families, which had a very contemporary worship style, did not.
The shrinking parish could no longer afford a priest.
"We were a theologically conservative church," said Scott Field, who'd belonged to Holy Spirit before the merger. He later was elected senior warden of the combined church.
"Human sexuality is not the only issue of theological orthodoxy, but it seems to be the line in the sand many won't cross," Field said.
St. George's Episcopal Church will close its doors just short of its 100th anniversary — the latest parish to disintegrate in part because of the ordination of gay and lesbian priests. Do you support the ordination of gays and lesbians? Field and his wife, both cradle Episcopalians, are leaving the denomination.
"Change is with us," said St. George's parishioner Long. "I don't agree with everything the bishop says either, but community is more important. We are inclusive."
Left at the end of June with no rector, a combined membership of about 45 and inadequate financial resources, St. George's, which had fought dissolution time and time again, finally surrendered.
The vestry voted July 14 to pull the plug.
"The diocese won't help us," Long said. "They made it very clear."
The Colorado diocese, which had a membership of about 34,000 in 2000, had an estimated roll of just over 30,000 in 2007. In the same period, Sunday attendance fell from 15,000 to 12,000.
It isn't known how many of those losses can be attributed to doctrinal disputes. However, by the end of 2008, more than 25 Colorado parishes had affiliated with The Common Cause Partnership, a federation of conservative Anglicans. Of these parishes, 16 had either left the Episcopal Diocese or were formed outside its authority.
The most publicized and acrimonious church split in Colorado was the battle over Grace Church and St. Stephen's Parish in Colorado Springs, where the former pastor shifted allegiance to an Anglican province because, he said, he was angry over ordination of gays and lesbians and other deviations from orthodoxy.
The diocese countercharged that the Rev. Don Armstrong had stolen from the church. He is currently facing theft charges in El Paso County, and a court returned Grace Church properties to the diocese.
Diocese spokeswoman Beckett Stokes said no decision has been made about the St. George's property near East Hampden Avenue and South Clarkson Street — about 5 acres of church grounds.
"I know this is a loss for all of you personally," the bishop wrote to the parish July 31, "but I want you to know that the loss of your witness collectively as a community leaves a very real void for all of us in the diocese."
Wednesday was the last gathering of the women's sewing circle, which had been meeting in church since 1953.
"My son was married in this church. He's 62 now," said 87-year-old Marjorie Peterson, who came to America as a British war bride.
"It's devastating," said Anne Jansson. "We wanted to be buried in this church."
"Yes, Marjorie and I were looking forward to it," said 85-year-old Betty Jane "B.J." McClaflin, causing the ladies, gathered together to stitch small quilts for nursing homes, to erupt in laughter.
It didn't have to happen, said Tronette Hetts, founding member of the sewing circle.
It was a bad match — St. George's with the archconservative Bower and the other congregation, Long said, "but we were so anxious for it to work."
A few parishioners retrieved a large bas relief of St. George slaying the dragon from a back room — stored there when the church became Holy Apostles. The parishioners restored St. George to his place of honor in the church entryway.
It will be a brief stay.
"No one is ever going to know we were ever here," Jansson said.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Evangelicals for Ramadan
From the Institute for Religion and Democracy:
Mark Tooley
August 27, 2009
The following article originally appeared on the FrontPage Magazine website, and is reproduced with permission.
“Emergent Church” guru and Evangelical Left activist Brian McLaren, a regular columnist for Jim Wallis’ Sojourners, is currently engaged in a Ramadan fast in solidarity with Muslim friends.
Maybe that’s nice. But would McLaren organize a similar fast on behalf of persecuted Christians and other victims of radical Islam? Or would that be too culturally confrontational for the post-modern evangelical who has shunned his conservative past and prefers creating common ground that creates alliances for the Left?
McLaren has complained that in America, “xenophobia and bigotry [too often are] passing off for patriotism and piety.” His own personal Ramadan journey is apparently a remedy.
“We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians,” McLaren declared on his blog, lest there be any doubt about the intent of his Ramadan fast. “But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them.”
As McLaren tells it, he’ll be joining Muslims worldwide who are fasting from “food, water, sex, etc., from dawn o dusk.” With a few Christian friends, he will join Muslims in Ramadan as a “God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.”
McLaren noted that among Ramadan’s “core values” are “self control, expressing kindness, and resolving conflicts.” So when or if he and the others are “criticized or misunderstood,” they will avoid self defense or arguments, instead merely offering humble explanations and empathy.
As McLaren has explained, “So many people (sadly, including many Christians) display a prejudice against them [Muslims] that is not unlike the ugly racism and anti-Semitism that have been too common in our past (and remain so, tragically, in our present)? Would Jesus be friends with Muslim people if he were here today? Would he perhaps dare to eat (or in the case of Ramadan, fast) with them?”
Is American and Christian “prejudice” against Muslims the chief issue before the world? Like many formerly conservative Evangelicals, McLaren sometimes portrays his former kindred as now the focus of shame, from which he must endlessly extricate himself. Revealingly, last year McLaren wrote a book called: “Everything Must Change,” which argued that Evangelicals must overcome their former insular preoccupations and instead address truly planetary crises such as “unsustainable prosperity,” the “growing gap between rich and poor,” and confronting “potentially catastrophic weapons” with nonviolence. In other words, American evangelicals must turn Left to be relevant and atone for their past myopia.
Unlike the “attitudes of anger, superiority, hostility, disdain, and perhaps even fear” from critics of his Ramadan fast, McLaren boasts that he plans to “cross bridges, overcome barriers, identify with, and build relationships with people of different backgrounds.” If McLaren references radical Islam as a threat, it is only to equate it with conservative Christianity, or Judaism, which are at least equal threats.
In response to the Iranian theocracy’s suppression of anti-regime protests, McLaren opined in June that there are “two kinds of Christianity, along with two kinds of Islam, Judaism, and every other religion and non-religion too: one of social control and one of social transformation ... one to hold people down, one to lift them up ... one an opiate to pacify people into compliance, the other a stimulant to empower people to imagine a better world, a better future, a better life ... giving them the courage to live in peaceful defiance of violent, corrupt, and greedy powers-that-be.”
Contrasting himself with conservative Christians earlier this month, McLaren cited his own enlightened view of faith as a “catalytic force” and “agent of transformation” that “transcends those static left-right polarities altogether.” Meanwhile, conservatives “wholeheartedly supported the war in Iraq, the use of torture, Guantanamo, anti-gay laws, etc.” Citing John Esposito’s Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, McLaren asserted that Americans are proportionately more willing to kill innocent civilians than are Iranians are Saudis. He also bemoaned a poll purportedly showing that most white evangelical Protestants in the U.S. support “torture.”
Of course, McLaren believes that Evangelical support for Israel is an obstacle to interfaith harmony. While largely unwilling to criticize radical Islam by name, he has condemned the “terrible, deadly, distorted, yet popular theologies associated with Christian Zionism” that “create bigotry and prejudice against Muslims.” He urged Christian Zionists bravely to abandon their prejudice, just as white segregationists had to shed theirs 50 years ago, even if the result was rejection from morally blind church friends.
For a further peak at McLaren’s worldview, watch him sing and strum his folk song: “When We Gonna Wake Up?” “How we gonna fight terror with terror?” he throatily warbles. “How we gonna fight lies with lies.” Seemingly there is no great moral distinction between jihadists and the police and military forces that attempt to suppress them.
We can hope that McLaren’s Ramadan fast generates good will and inter-religious understanding. But more likely, McLaren’s interfaith ritual just further evinces the Left’s chronic misunderstanding that all cultural and international conflict can be remedied through apologies, folk songs, Western guilt, and flamboyant sentimentality.
Mark Tooley
August 27, 2009
The following article originally appeared on the FrontPage Magazine website, and is reproduced with permission.
“Emergent Church” guru and Evangelical Left activist Brian McLaren, a regular columnist for Jim Wallis’ Sojourners, is currently engaged in a Ramadan fast in solidarity with Muslim friends.
Maybe that’s nice. But would McLaren organize a similar fast on behalf of persecuted Christians and other victims of radical Islam? Or would that be too culturally confrontational for the post-modern evangelical who has shunned his conservative past and prefers creating common ground that creates alliances for the Left?
McLaren has complained that in America, “xenophobia and bigotry [too often are] passing off for patriotism and piety.” His own personal Ramadan journey is apparently a remedy.
“We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians,” McLaren declared on his blog, lest there be any doubt about the intent of his Ramadan fast. “But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them.”
As McLaren tells it, he’ll be joining Muslims worldwide who are fasting from “food, water, sex, etc., from dawn o dusk.” With a few Christian friends, he will join Muslims in Ramadan as a “God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.”
McLaren noted that among Ramadan’s “core values” are “self control, expressing kindness, and resolving conflicts.” So when or if he and the others are “criticized or misunderstood,” they will avoid self defense or arguments, instead merely offering humble explanations and empathy.
As McLaren has explained, “So many people (sadly, including many Christians) display a prejudice against them [Muslims] that is not unlike the ugly racism and anti-Semitism that have been too common in our past (and remain so, tragically, in our present)? Would Jesus be friends with Muslim people if he were here today? Would he perhaps dare to eat (or in the case of Ramadan, fast) with them?”
Is American and Christian “prejudice” against Muslims the chief issue before the world? Like many formerly conservative Evangelicals, McLaren sometimes portrays his former kindred as now the focus of shame, from which he must endlessly extricate himself. Revealingly, last year McLaren wrote a book called: “Everything Must Change,” which argued that Evangelicals must overcome their former insular preoccupations and instead address truly planetary crises such as “unsustainable prosperity,” the “growing gap between rich and poor,” and confronting “potentially catastrophic weapons” with nonviolence. In other words, American evangelicals must turn Left to be relevant and atone for their past myopia.
Unlike the “attitudes of anger, superiority, hostility, disdain, and perhaps even fear” from critics of his Ramadan fast, McLaren boasts that he plans to “cross bridges, overcome barriers, identify with, and build relationships with people of different backgrounds.” If McLaren references radical Islam as a threat, it is only to equate it with conservative Christianity, or Judaism, which are at least equal threats.
In response to the Iranian theocracy’s suppression of anti-regime protests, McLaren opined in June that there are “two kinds of Christianity, along with two kinds of Islam, Judaism, and every other religion and non-religion too: one of social control and one of social transformation ... one to hold people down, one to lift them up ... one an opiate to pacify people into compliance, the other a stimulant to empower people to imagine a better world, a better future, a better life ... giving them the courage to live in peaceful defiance of violent, corrupt, and greedy powers-that-be.”
Contrasting himself with conservative Christians earlier this month, McLaren cited his own enlightened view of faith as a “catalytic force” and “agent of transformation” that “transcends those static left-right polarities altogether.” Meanwhile, conservatives “wholeheartedly supported the war in Iraq, the use of torture, Guantanamo, anti-gay laws, etc.” Citing John Esposito’s Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, McLaren asserted that Americans are proportionately more willing to kill innocent civilians than are Iranians are Saudis. He also bemoaned a poll purportedly showing that most white evangelical Protestants in the U.S. support “torture.”
Of course, McLaren believes that Evangelical support for Israel is an obstacle to interfaith harmony. While largely unwilling to criticize radical Islam by name, he has condemned the “terrible, deadly, distorted, yet popular theologies associated with Christian Zionism” that “create bigotry and prejudice against Muslims.” He urged Christian Zionists bravely to abandon their prejudice, just as white segregationists had to shed theirs 50 years ago, even if the result was rejection from morally blind church friends.
For a further peak at McLaren’s worldview, watch him sing and strum his folk song: “When We Gonna Wake Up?” “How we gonna fight terror with terror?” he throatily warbles. “How we gonna fight lies with lies.” Seemingly there is no great moral distinction between jihadists and the police and military forces that attempt to suppress them.
We can hope that McLaren’s Ramadan fast generates good will and inter-religious understanding. But more likely, McLaren’s interfaith ritual just further evinces the Left’s chronic misunderstanding that all cultural and international conflict can be remedied through apologies, folk songs, Western guilt, and flamboyant sentimentality.
A bit off the usual DCNY blog path
From Late Night with David Letterman: Dave's Weasel Farm and Theology Camp
http://www.k-statecats.com/dl29_Dave_Weasel_Farm_7-23-92.mov
http://www.k-statecats.com/dl29_Dave_Weasel_Farm_7-23-92.mov
COMMUNION, FELLOWSHIP, COVENANT
By Ashley Dewell
Special to Virtueonline
www.virtueonline.org
August 26, 2009
I INTRODUCTION
The Anglican theological position has been summarised as: "in essentials - unity, in non-essentials - liberty, in all things - charity",2 however the Anglican Communion ("Communion") is currently suffering from disunity. Despite the publicity over human sexuality, the real issue is "a crisis over biblical authority and its clarity"3 created by increasing divergence of theological belief in essential matters, and in what constitutes an essential matter of the Christian faith.4
One proposed response to this crisis has been for the provinces of the Communion to adopt a formal covenantal relationship ("Covenant"),5 however its development has also been hindered by theological divergence. Despite discussions at the Lambeth Conference in 2008,6 and at the Anglican Consultative Council in 2009, there has been little progress towards the adoption of a Covenant capable of meeting the crisis facing the Communion. But while the wider Communion remains hamstrung by theological divergence, some Anglicans have demonstrated sufficient unity of theological belief in both essential matters and in what constitutes an essential matter of the Christian faith7 to form the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans ("Fellowship").
This paper will demonstrate that the Communion is no longer capable of adopting a Covenant capable of addressing the crisis facing the Communion, but that a Covenant between Fellowship members is both possible and necessary. This paper will also identify some of the challenges to the implementation of a Fellowship Covenant, and source methods of meeting those challenges from the principles of common law.
II THE COMMUNION, THE FELLOWSHIP AND COVENANT
A. The Communion requires a Covenant
Fundamentals of Union
Within in any group of people there will be agreement upon some matters and disagreement upon other matters. The extent to which a group can remain united depends upon two characteristics of the members of that group. The first is the extent to which the members hold consistent beliefs, and the second is the extent to which the members accept divergent beliefs of other members of the group. Where there is no divergence of belief there will be no disagreement and thus no threat of division, but such complete consistency is unrealistic. Groups avoid division where there is sufficient consistency of belief in relation to matters essential to the group, and sufficient acceptance of divergent beliefs in relation to matters deemed by the group to be non-essential.
2. The Communion requires a Covenant
Theological divergence in the Church of England was initially limited because it was created within the British culture and that cultural expression of Christianity was exported throughout the world.
Theological divergence increased as Anglican churches in the colonies developed into distinct provinces, however there remained theological consistency in relation to matters such as the authority of the Bible, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer.
Any theological divergence that existed was generally acceptable to the Communion as a whole. Theological divergence within the Communion increased during the twentieth century over the role of women in church leadership, and the actions taken by some dioceses were unacceptable to other parts of the Communion. Consequently, some Anglicans joined the Roman Catholic Church or formed splinter groups,9 but again this theological divergence remained acceptable to the majority of the Communion.10
In and around 2003, the Episcopal Church ("TEC") consecrated a non-celibate homosexual man as a bishop and some dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada ("ACOC") began to bless homosexual unions. These actions were condemned by several Anglican provinces, and the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) severed its relationship with both TEC,11 and those Canadian dioceses.12 TEC has subsequently passed resolutions at its General Convention in 2009 affirming the blessing of homosexual unions and that there is no barrier to the ordination of homosexual people.13 These actions represent a theological divergence unacceptable to large parts of the Communion.
The theological divergence within the Communion is now so great that it must be regulated or diminished in order to avoid some form of division. Therefore a Communion Covenant capable of meeting the crisis in the Communion must facilitate firstly the identification of essential beliefs, and secondly the discipline of those who breach them.
B. The Communion cannot adopt a Covenant
1. Theological Consistency is required for Covenant
A Christian group can only remain united when its members exhibit sufficient theological consistency and sufficient acceptance of any theological divergence. Those conditions must also be satisfied by prospective members for entry into a Covenant, for entering into a meaningful covenantal relationship is an act of unity. Therefore in order to adopt a Covenant, all of the provinces of the Communion must exhibit sufficient theological consistency in essential matters and sufficient acceptance of any theological divergence in non-essential matters.
2. Sufficient Theological Consistency no longer exists within the Communion
The crisis in the Communion has seen some provinces sever relations with other provinces, and the Anglican Church in North America has been created by those who cannot accept the theological positions of TEC and ACOC. This example alone demonstrates there is no longer sufficient theological consistency within the Communion for the adoption of a Communion Covenant.
Further or in the alternative, the provinces which have joined the Fellowship are unlikely to adopt a Communion Covenant unless it allows for the discipline of those provinces holding theological positions considered by Fellowship members to be sinful ("sinful theology"). TEC and ACOC are unlikely to enter a Communion Covenant unless their freedom from foreign interference is guaranteed.
There is now such theological divergence between two sections of the Communion that neither will accept the position of the other. Therefore there is no longer sufficient theological consistency, or sufficient acceptance of theological divergence, for the adoption of a Communion Covenant. Therefore the Communion is no longer capable of adopting a Covenant.
C. Fellowship and Covenant
1. Sufficient Theological Consistency does exist within the Fellowship
The formation of the Fellowship demonstrates significant theological consistency and acceptance of theological divergence among its members. Those characteristics exist despite the traditional tension between the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical wings of the Anglican Church, both of which have contributed members to the Fellowship. Those Fellowship members have joined specifically to identify particular matters as essentials of the Christian faith and to reject theological divergence in those matters.
Furthermore, the acceptance of the Fellowship members of the Jerusalem Declaration as a requirement for Fellowship membership establishes that the Fellowship is currently capable of adopting some form of covenant. However as the Jerusalem Declaration is a statement of principles and does not allow for cross-provincial discipline, it is not the type of Covenant discussed in this paper. Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Declaration still demonstrates the mutual concern of Fellowship members with theological divergence in essential matters.
2. The Fellowship needs a Covenant
The theological consistency of the Fellowship enables it to adopt a Covenant, but the existence of such consistency might also support the argument that the Fellowship does not require a Covenant. However the Fellowship may not always exhibit such theological consistency. The theological divergence which created the crisis in the Communion did not suddenly appear, but rather developed in provinces where the prevailing theology gradually drifted away from orthodox doctrine.14 By the time the consequences of that theological divergence became obvious, the majority of the decision makers in some provinces no longer subscribed to orthodox doctrine.
The Fellowship should therefore be concerned that it, like the Communion, currently lacks the capacity to subject members of one province to the discipline of the Fellowship as a whole. Therefore a risk remains that, in the future, one Fellowship province might become a safe-haven for those advocating theological divergence in essential matters. Should this occur, the Fellowship could sponsor the creation of a new province, as has been done in North America, but that is costly in terms of both human and financial resources. A Fellowship Covenant allowing for cross-provincial discipline would deal with any theological divergence and reserve those human and financial resources for evangelism and mission.
The Fellowship requires a Covenant not because of any current theological divergence but to ensure it has the capacity to regulate or discipline any future theological divergence. A Fellowship Covenant would represent a mutual commitment of Fellowship members which can be relied upon in the event of a crisis. The Fellowship must adopt a Covenant in the short term, while it retains the capacity to do so.
D. Challenges to a Fellowship Covenant
There are many challenges to a Fellowship Covenant, such as the traditional tension between the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical wings of the Anglican Church. Other examples include differing views within the Fellowship on the ordination of women, and the relationship between Fellowship and non-Fellowship members of the Communion. The latter challenge is of particular importance as the Fellowship must continue to relate in a Christian manner with faithful Anglicans who have not joined the Fellowship. Many Anglican organisational units also resent outside interference in their activities.
Despite the many challenges facing the Fellowship, it has already united the strictest Anglo-Catholics and the greatest Evangelicals in an association. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, despite the many challenges to a Fellowship Covenant, the solutions to these challenges may be found in another of the great English traditions: the common law.
III COMMON LAW AND A FELLOWSHIP COVENANT
A. Norman England and Common Law
1. Historical Background
Between the withdrawal of the Roman legions and the Norman invasion, England was repeatedly invaded by ethnic groups who introduced their own laws and customs which varied from shire to shire.15 Although there had been several compilations of national laws,16 the central government was relatively weak and law was usually applied in a relatively informal manner by a local assembly.17
Duke William of Normandy conquered England in 1066 and declared that existing local laws would be maintained, but he also established a strong central government.18 The power of that central government was exercised by representatives who travelled among the shires to, among other duties, administer justice.19 A person with a complaint could therefore petition either the local lords or a royal judge. The royal judges became more popular because their judgments were enforceable throughout the kingdom and as visitors they were less likely to be subject to local prejudice.20 In time the royal judges replaced the local courts.21
The original judges were usually untrained in law and so relied upon decisions made by other judges.22 As these decisions were enforceable throughout England, they overrode any local custom and so became known as "common law".23
2. Development of Common Law Principles
Although statutes passed by parliament overrode common law decisions, there were relatively few statutes enacted by parliament until the reign of Henry VIII,24 leaving the common law to develop under the guidance of the judges. Speaking of the breadth of common law, Blackstone stated:
Thus, for example, that there shall be four superior courts of record; the chancery, the king's bench, the common pleas, and the exchequer .... that the eldest son alone is heir to his ancestor .... that property may be acquired and transferred by writing .... that a deed is of no validity unless sealed and delivered .... that wills shall be construed more favourably, and deeds more strictly .... that money lent upon bond is recoverable by action of debt .... that breaking the public peace is an offence, and punishable by fine and imprisonment .... all these are doctrines that are not set down in any written statute or ordinance, but depend merely upon immemorial usage, that is, upon common law, for their support.25
Many of these principles were later incorporated into legislation, but they were law in England long before that incorporation. In addition to particular laws, the common law also developed legal doctrines such as stare decisis and reception.
(a) Doctrine of Stare Decisis
The common law doctrine of stare decisis ("let the decision stand") requires judges to make decisions according to the manner in which they have been made previously. Lower courts are bound to follow the precedents set by higher courts, and the highest courts are expected to abide by their own decisions unless some compelling reason arises for the departure from precedent.26
Four advantages to stare decisis identified in Telstra Corporation v Treloar27 included firstly the certainty that comes from being able to rely upon the guidance of past decisions and secondly the equality that comes from treating all cases alike.28
Thirdly, subsequent courts need not re-examine issues which have been examined previously, and fourthly the appearance of justice is supported when the law is applied in a manner which does not depend on the personal views of a particular judge.29
Notwithstanding the doctrine, lower courts should follow the decisions of higher courts because if they depart from precedential decisions, the higher courts can simply overrule them on appeal.30 In this manner, stare decisis ensures an orderly and incremental development of legal principles.31
(b) Doctrine of Reception
As the legal system of the Empire of Great Britain, the common law also interacted with the foreign legal systems already operating in territory acquired by Britain. The doctrine of reception provided that when Britain acquired new land by conquest or secession by a foreign power, the existing laws of the foreign land remained valid except for those laws which were repugnant to the law of England.32
Blackstone described the doctrine as: But in conquered or ceded countries, that have already laws of their own, the king may indeed alter and change those laws; but, till he does actually change them, the ancient laws of the country remain, unless such as are against the law of God, as in the case of an infidel country.33 Section 4.
In this context, laws considered against the law of God included practices such as cannibalism, and would also have included any requirement to observe non-Christian religious practices.
B. Application of Common Law Principles to a Fellowship Covenant
This section identifies four challenges to the adoption of a Fellowship Covenant and demonstrates how a Fellowship Covenant based upon common law principles could meet each of those challenges.
There will be more than four challenges, but the common law principles are sufficiently adaptive to meet any challenge that might arise.
1. Discipline
(a) Challenge
The current crisis within the Communion has been brought about by theological divergence resulting in the propagation of sinful theology. Each instance of sinful theology is a theological divergence in a matter the Fellowship deems to be an essential matter of the Christian faith. The current structure of the Communion facilitated this crisis by ensuring that if the province in which a person is propagating sinful theology will not discipline them, they cannot be disciplined. The simple solution is to create a central body with the power to investigate and adjudicate accusations of sinful theology, and then to institute discipline which overrides any contrary decision of the local province.
However there remains significant divergence of theological belief in non-essential matters within the Fellowship, and its continued existence relies upon accepting that there are non-essential matters in which liberty is the proper response. Therefore the simple solution is impractical for two reasons. The first is that a central prosecuting body could be dominated by one segment of the Fellowship which insists upon a definition of essential matters which does not represent the views of the Fellowship. The second reason is that Anglican organisational units traditionally dislike external interference and would be unwilling to accept an arrangement which gave such overreaching power to an unaccountable central body.
The challenge is to facilitate the accountability of each Fellowship member to the whole Fellowship, while avoiding excessive centralisation. The simple solution fails to meet this challenge.
(b) Common Law Solution
Instead of replacing the local courts, the Norman kings offered an alternative. A petitioner could make an accusation before either the local court or before a royal judge. In the same manner, the Primates' Council could be empowered to judge accusations of sinful theology as an alternative to the judicial processes of local provinces. Thereafter a person wishing to make an accusation of sinful theology would have a choice, but like the Norman royal judges, the decisions of the Primates' Council would be binding throughout the Fellowship. This mechanism would allow the Fellowship to implement a unified judicial process, however this mechanism also immediately clashes with local autonomy.
The same unified judicial process could be established within the Fellowship without so great a clash with local autonomy by requiring any accusation of sinful theology to be made first through the judicial processes of the local province. The Primates' Council would only be empowered to act when local judicial processes were exhausted, and by way of appeal from the final decision of a province's highest internal court.34
The common law solution is therefore to empower the Primates' Council to act as a final court of appeal for the Fellowship. Either approach set out above facilitates the common law solution, however given the Anglican dislike of external interference the second is more practical. Nevertheless, either of those options would empower the Primates' Council to deliver decisions which were binding upon the parties in the case before them, but would then also serve as a precedent for the rest of the Fellowship. The Primates' Council would become, as the ecclesiastical representatives of the Fellowship, responsible for determining the standard which must be observed by the entire Fellowship.
(c) General Considerations
(i) Power of the Primates' Council
This solution would empower the relatively small Primates' Council to make decisions binding upon the Fellowship, but it is important to note that such judicial decisions would not be a directive or edict to the Fellowship. Those decisions would rather be an indication that if a similar dispute were brought before the Primates' Council in the future, they would make the same decision.
Accountability to such a small body may be difficult for independently minded Anglicans to accept, however mutual accountability is the only way for the Fellowship to avoid the crisis afflicting the Communion. Both mutual accountability and the satisfaction of concerns over the power of the Primates Council can be satisfied by making decisions of the Primates' Council appealable to the body of all Fellowship bishops.35 Given the practicalities of organising all Fellowship bishops to hear an appeal, such an appeal should only be heard if a sufficient number of Fellowship bishops consent to hear the appeal.36 Authoritative decisions which deliver precedent binding upon the entire Fellowship would therefore be made by the ecclesiastical representatives of the entire Fellowship.
This approach is consistent with the practice of the early church as recorded in chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles. When a theological dispute arose in Antioch, and it could not be settled locally, St Paul and St Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to obtain the judgment of the apostles, and the bishops are the successors to the apostles.37
(ii) The Limited Power of Decision
Making A decision of the Primates' Council would require the parties involved to abide by that decision, and the relevant province to facilitate that decision, but the influence of the same decision over the Fellowship would be by way of precedent. Accordingly, if a similar accusation of sinful theology arose, the authorities in the local judicial process would be expected to apply the precedent set by the Primates' Council. While local authorities could make a different decision, perhaps by distinguishing the case before them from the precedent, the Primates' Council would also be able to overrule the local authorities if the matter were brought before them on appeal.
(iii) Limited Power
As a method of decision making based upon common law, this approach would be driven by complaints. The Primates' Council could only issue a binding decision when a claim of sinful theology is brought before them. The Primates' Council would not have the power to arbitrarily and voluntarily issue a decree which is binding upon the Fellowship. This limited power to issue binding decisions does not exist in the Communion, which has chosen provincial autonomy over mutual accountability. This power will provide for mutual accountability, but its limitations will also ensure that any loss of local autonomy is minimal. The Fellowship members will therefore only be subject to minimal interference while they learn to live in a mutually accountable relationship.
(iv) Inundation of Complaints
There is a risk that the Primates' Council would find their time monopolised by hearing appeals. While the Primates' Council would include a judicial role, the primary role of the Primates' Council would still be to lead the Fellowship, and each Primate would still have duties within his own province.
In order to fulfil their judicial role without compromising their other duties, the Primates' Council should appoint an advisory committee. That committee would review appeals and provide the Primates' Council with a summary of the issues and a recommendation. That recommendation might be that the Primates' Council refuse to hear the appeal,38 or that the appeal should be heard and determined in a particular manner.
As an advisory committee, the Primates' Council would always be free to disregard that advice, for it would be the Primates' Council which is empowered to make decisions. However an advisory committee would filter the appeals to ensure that any time spent by the Primates' Council exercising their judicial role is not wasted.
(v) Application to Modern Issues
Either implementation of the common law principles set out above in a Fellowship Covenant would effectively deal with the issues facing the Communion if they were to occur in the Fellowship. For example, if a province attempted to consecrate a homosexual bishop, the decision to do so could be appealed to the Primates' Council as sinful theology and the Primates' Council would have the power to forbid that appointment. An appeal from the Primates' Council would be determined by all Fellowship bishops, making the single province or diocese subject to the ecclesiastical representatives of the entire Fellowship.
However if the Fellowship adopts a Covenant in this form, that situation is unlikely to arise for the issue has only arisen within the Communion through decades of gradual drift from orthodox doctrine resulting in significant theological divergence. Either implementation would allow each increment of theological drift to be challenged and arrested through mutual accountability.
Therefore the consecration of homosexual bishops would not arise because the ordination of homosexual priests or deacons could be prevented. The ordination of homosexuals could be prevented because any claim that homosexuality is not sinful could be authoritatively dismissed within the Fellowship. Theological divergence would not arise in the Fellowship as has arisen in the Communion because the theological drift away from orthodox doctrine could be arrested.
2. Autonomy and Control
(a) Challenge
Anglican organisational units have traditionally prized autonomy and disliked outside interference, especially where the alternative involves submission by Anglo-Catholics to Evangelicals, or vice versa. However any covenantal relationship, from a marriage to a commercial contract, involves a surrender of some autonomy to become accountable to another. That surrender mirrors the journey of the Christian who surrenders their own autonomy to become accountable to Christ. Whatever the advantages of local autonomy, total autonomy has also created liberal safe-havens with no accountability to the wider church.
While a central authority displacing all local autonomy would settle this issue, the Communion has also traditionally rejected excessive centralisation. The challenge is to establish mutual accountability in such a manner that while disunity in essentials is prevented, liberty in non-essentials is maintained.
(b) Common Law Solution
(i) Theory
While the judicial decisions of the Primates' Council would be binding upon all Fellowship members, judicial power is limited. The Primates' Council could forbid an Anglican organisational unit from teaching or implementing sinful theology, but could not require a province to implement any particular agenda. In secular courts the power is described as 'judicial review' and permits the courts to invalidate certain legislative acts but does not permit the judiciary to require that any particular legislation be enacted. This power does not create a centralised legislative system with the power to replace local autonomy.
Furthermore, the Primates' Council would be expected to limit their decisions to prohibiting divergence of theological belief in essential matters. A person accused of sinful theology would be able to claim their practice relates to a 'non-essential' matter where liberty, rather than unity, should be enforced. The Primates' Council might refuse to hear such a petition on that basis, or hear the petition and determine that the matter should be determined locally rather than across the entire Fellowship.39
Therefore while a Fellowship province is free to make any decision they wish, as they are currently able to, those decisions would be ultimately subject to a veto by the ecclesiastical representatives of the rest of the Fellowship. That veto should however only be exercised if those representatives determine that such a decision does not represent an authentic expression of Christianity. While this approach involves submission to an external authority that authority is the body of the Fellowship, so what affects the Fellowship is decided by the Fellowship.40 It is a legal expression of the Scriptural exhortation: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21, NIV).
(ii) Practical Example – Worship Style
A dispute may well arise within the Fellowship due to the wide variety of worship styles within both the Communion and the Fellowship. Confusion over the significance of cultural meaning, a diocesan attempt to institute a compulsory order of service or a proper query regarding the validity of a particular worship practice might result in an appeal before the Primates' Council. But the Primates' Council is the best body to hear such a dispute.
Each Primate is leader of a province incorporating a variety of worship styles and practices so the Primates' Council will consist of leaders who represent a variety of theological positions on non-essential matters. An appeal from a decision of the Primates' Council would be heard by all Fellowship bishops, which is even more representative of divergent theological positions which are nevertheless accepted within the Fellowship. Determination by these bodies, which must reach a significant level of agreement before a worship style is deemed an expression of sinful theology, is the best protection for continued liberty in non-essential matters, without sacrificing mutual accountability.
Although the usual Anglican desire for autonomy stands opposed to the power of the Primates' Council to declare a theological position to be sinful, it is this power which will distinguish the Fellowship from the Communion. It is this power which will allow the Fellowship to avoid the crisis afflicting the Communion.
3. Membership of the Fellowship
(a) Challenge
The entry of a new organisational unit into the Fellowship will be meaningless unless it is subject to the same mutual accountability as the rest of the Fellowship. However entry of a new member ensures there will be an immediate clash between the rules, canons or procedures of the new member and those of the Fellowship. The challenge is to immediately subject new members to the mutual accountability necessary to make membership meaningful, while also protecting their autonomy and allowing them to learn to live as part of the Fellowship.
(b) Common Law Solution
According to the doctrine of reception, the laws applicable in a territory acquired by Britain through conquest or secession by a foreign power remained in force until specifically modified, save for those repugnant to the law of England. Those laws repugnant to the law of England were immediately invalidated. Any dispute was determined by the judiciary.
In the same manner, all canons, rules, statutes or other regulations governing a new Fellowship member would remain in force upon becoming a member of the Fellowship. However where a canon or other regulation of the new Fellowship member is in conflict with a precedent set by the Primates' Council, the new member could reasonably expect to find that canon or regulation challenged and overruled.
The Primates' Council would be responsible for settling any dispute regarding the existence of a conflict between the new member's canons or regulations and the Primates' Council's decisions. However a prospective Fellowship member will seek membership because they want to be subject to the discipline of the Fellowship, which means there should be little dispute in practice. 4.
Development of Fellowship Canon Law
(a) Challenge
The Articles of Religion state that "General Councils ... may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God."41 Yet while rejecting any claim to the infallible authority attributed to the Pope by the Roman Catholic Church, the Fellowship has also rejected the assertion that humanity cannot be sure of anything.42 But to require theological consistency of Fellowship members, the Fellowship must also be able to define the essential matters of the Christian faith. The challenge is to develop a method of making binding decisions which recognises the inherent sinbased limitations of humanity while accepting that humans do have the capacity recognise divine revelation.
(b) Common Law Solution
The common law doctrine of stare decisis required similar cases to be decided in a similar manner. On this basis, the common law became reliable, but never entirely settled, because the higher courts were still able to depart from precedent.
The incorporation of stare decisis would provide the same reliability to a developing Fellowship canon law because Fellowship members would be expected to abide by decisions of the Primates' Council. Failure to do so could lead to an appeal to the Primates' Council which would be able to invalidate any contrary decision made by local authorities.
Stare decisis would make it a characteristic of Fellowship canon law that a theological position becomes stronger each time it is affirmed, while reserving to the Primates' Council the power to revise prior decisions if it were deemed necessary. Therefore, without claiming infallibility, the Primates' Council would have the capacity to both define matters essential to the Christian faith and to re-address those decisions to express the eternal truths of Christianity anew to each generation.
IV CONCLUSION
A church seeking unity in essentials and liberty in non-essentials requires a Covenant to remain united, but the Communion is already too theologically divergent to adopt a Covenant. At the time of writing the Fellowship retains sufficient theological consistency to adopt a Fellowship Covenant and should do so without delay in order to avoid the theological divergence afflicting the Communion.
A Fellowship Covenant incorporating the principles set out above will introduce discipline while protecting local autonomy, and create a binding Fellowship canon law without the creation of a new papacy. In speaking of a Communion Covenant the Archbishop of Canterbury perfectly described the value of the principles set out above, the relevant parts of which the author sets out below.
[they]...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, ...). 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.43
A Fellowship Covenant will be a formal covenantal relationship allowing the Anglo- Catholic and Evangelical wings of the Fellowship to unite with the other halves of themselves to produce one orthodox Anglican Church. These principles represent a modern and practical via media found not in the rejection of Roman Catholic or Protestant but in the balance of problematic extremes. The author commends these principles to the readers' consideration.
Bibliography
Books Crawford, James and Brian Opeskin. Australian Courts of Law (4th ed, 2004)
Allen, W H. Law Made Simple (5th ed, 1978)
Cook, Catriona et al. Laying Down the Law (6th ed, 2005)
Enright, Christopher. Studying Law (4th ed, 1991)
Speeches
Driver, Archbishop Jeffrey 'Anglicanism, Popes and three-legged stools' (Speech delivered at St Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide, 14 September 2008)
Jensen, Archbishop Peter (Speech delivered at 2006 Synod of Sydney Diocese, Sydney, 2006)
Articles
Lambeth Commission on Communion. The Windsor Report (2004).
Akinola, Archbishop Peter. A Most Agonising Journey towards Lambeth 2008 (2008) Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) < http://www.anglicannig. org/main.php?k_j=12&d=88&p_t=index.php?> at 29 July 2009
de Santis, Solange. 'Canada sees first sanctioned blessing', Anglican Journal (Canada) 1 September 2003
Venables, Archbishop Greg. 'The Danger of Drift (2009) Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
Orombi, Archbishop Henry. 'What is Anglicanism?' (2007) August/September First Things, at 27 July 2009.
Letter from the Most Reverend Rowan Williams to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion.
Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention. 27 July 2009.
Website
General Convention 2009 Legislation (2009) The Episcopal Church
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (first published 1765-69) General Telstra Corporation v Treloar (2000) 102 FCR 595
Articles of Religion 1562, Art XXI.
2 Most Reverend Jeffrey Driver, 'Anglicanism, Popes and three-legged stools' (Speech delivered at St Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide, 14 September 2008).
3 Most Reverend Peter Jensen, (Speech delivered at 2006 Synod of Sydney Diocese, Sydney, 2006).
4 Hereafter referred to as "theological divergence".
5 Lambeth Commission on Communion, The Windsor Report (2004), para 118.
6 Where the author was privileged to serve as a Steward.
7 Hereafter referred to as "theological consistency". Members of political parties in liberal democracies, such as Australia, demonstrate this principle as they are generally united in the principles expressed in the party platform, or are at least willing to accept those principles. However if the party introduces principles into the party platform which some members cannot accept, those members will leave the party.
8 In those circumstances some members might argue they should remain members of the party in order to change the party platform from within, however any continued membership represents some form of acceptance.
9 Eg Anglican Catholic Church in Australia.
10 Although in this case acceptance for many Anglicans was conditional upon being insulated from the ministry of ordained women.
11 Most Reverend Peter Akinola, A Most Agonising Journey towards Lambeth 2008 (2008) Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) < http://www.anglicannig. org/main.php?k_j=12&d=88&p_t=index.php?> at 29 July 2009.
12 Ibid; Solange de Santis, 'Canada sees first sanctioned blessing', Anglican Journal (Canada) 1 September 2003.
13 See eg: TEC General Convention 2009 Resolutions C056 and D025; General Convention 2009 Legislation (2009) The Episcopal Church
14 This is the theological 'drift' referred to by the Archbishop of the South Cone - Most Reverend Greg Venables, 'The Danger of Drift (2009) Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
15 C F Padfield, Law Made Simple (5th ed, 1978) 9.
16 Ibid 10.
17 James Crawford and Brian Opeskin, Australian Courts of Law (4th Ed, 2004) 6.
18 Catriona Cook, Robin Creyke, Robert Geddes and Ian Holloway, Laying Down the Law (6th ed, 2005) 11.
19 Padfield, above n 15, 10-11.
20 Cook, above n 18, 13.
21 Christopher Enright, Studying Law (4th ed, 1991), 125.
22 Cook, above n 18, 13.
23 Ibid 13.
24 Ibid 25.
25 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (first published 1765-69) Introduction, Section III.
26 Cook, above n 18, 75.
27 (2000) 102 FCR 595 at 602.
28 Telstra Corporation v Treloar (2000) 102 FCR 595 at 602, per Branson and Finkelstein JJ.
29 Ibid.
30 Cook, above n 18, 76.
31 Ibid 76.
32 Ibid 32.
33 Ibid Introduction,
34 This process is common in countries with a federal system of government, which includes common law nations such as Australia, Canada and the United States of America. However it also includes federal nations which do not have a common law system.
35 Any reference in this paper to a decision that can be made by the Primates' Council includes the capacity for that decision to be appealed to the body of all Fellowship Bishops, provided that a sufficient number of Fellowship bishops have consented to hear the appeal. 36 This process is similar to the political process of 'voter's veto' whereby voters can overturn the implementation of specific legislation by way of majority decision in a referendum on the issue. However the referendum can only be put to the voters if a significant percentage of voters request the referendum.
37 Most Reverend Henry Orombi, 'What is Anglicanism?' (2007) August/September First Things, at 27 July 2009.
38 Perhaps because it is a matter which in the opinion of the committee should be decided locally.
39 The author notes a variety of attitudes towards the ordination of women to the priesthood within the Fellowship. This may be the first example of a matter which, for the time being at least, is held to be one for local determination.
40 Letter from the Most Reverend Rowan Williams to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion, Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention, 27 July 2009, para 13, (Note that Archbishop Williams was speaking in relation to the Communion).
41 Articles of Religion 1562, Art XXI.
42 Venables, above n 14.
43 Williams, above n 40, para 20.
----Ashley Dewell is a solicitor based in Alice Springs in the Diocese of the Northern Territory of the Anglican Church of Australia. He is a life-long Anglican who was baptized at St Richard's Parndana and confirmed at St Mark's Golden Grove, both in the Diocese of Adelaide of the Anglican Church of Australia. Dewell holds a degree in Computer Science; Bachelor of Laws (Honours); Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice; Master of Laws; and Master of Theological Studies (graduand only)
Special to Virtueonline
www.virtueonline.org
August 26, 2009
I INTRODUCTION
The Anglican theological position has been summarised as: "in essentials - unity, in non-essentials - liberty, in all things - charity",2 however the Anglican Communion ("Communion") is currently suffering from disunity. Despite the publicity over human sexuality, the real issue is "a crisis over biblical authority and its clarity"3 created by increasing divergence of theological belief in essential matters, and in what constitutes an essential matter of the Christian faith.4
One proposed response to this crisis has been for the provinces of the Communion to adopt a formal covenantal relationship ("Covenant"),5 however its development has also been hindered by theological divergence. Despite discussions at the Lambeth Conference in 2008,6 and at the Anglican Consultative Council in 2009, there has been little progress towards the adoption of a Covenant capable of meeting the crisis facing the Communion. But while the wider Communion remains hamstrung by theological divergence, some Anglicans have demonstrated sufficient unity of theological belief in both essential matters and in what constitutes an essential matter of the Christian faith7 to form the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans ("Fellowship").
This paper will demonstrate that the Communion is no longer capable of adopting a Covenant capable of addressing the crisis facing the Communion, but that a Covenant between Fellowship members is both possible and necessary. This paper will also identify some of the challenges to the implementation of a Fellowship Covenant, and source methods of meeting those challenges from the principles of common law.
II THE COMMUNION, THE FELLOWSHIP AND COVENANT
A. The Communion requires a Covenant
Fundamentals of Union
Within in any group of people there will be agreement upon some matters and disagreement upon other matters. The extent to which a group can remain united depends upon two characteristics of the members of that group. The first is the extent to which the members hold consistent beliefs, and the second is the extent to which the members accept divergent beliefs of other members of the group. Where there is no divergence of belief there will be no disagreement and thus no threat of division, but such complete consistency is unrealistic. Groups avoid division where there is sufficient consistency of belief in relation to matters essential to the group, and sufficient acceptance of divergent beliefs in relation to matters deemed by the group to be non-essential.
2. The Communion requires a Covenant
Theological divergence in the Church of England was initially limited because it was created within the British culture and that cultural expression of Christianity was exported throughout the world.
Theological divergence increased as Anglican churches in the colonies developed into distinct provinces, however there remained theological consistency in relation to matters such as the authority of the Bible, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer.
Any theological divergence that existed was generally acceptable to the Communion as a whole. Theological divergence within the Communion increased during the twentieth century over the role of women in church leadership, and the actions taken by some dioceses were unacceptable to other parts of the Communion. Consequently, some Anglicans joined the Roman Catholic Church or formed splinter groups,9 but again this theological divergence remained acceptable to the majority of the Communion.10
In and around 2003, the Episcopal Church ("TEC") consecrated a non-celibate homosexual man as a bishop and some dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada ("ACOC") began to bless homosexual unions. These actions were condemned by several Anglican provinces, and the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) severed its relationship with both TEC,11 and those Canadian dioceses.12 TEC has subsequently passed resolutions at its General Convention in 2009 affirming the blessing of homosexual unions and that there is no barrier to the ordination of homosexual people.13 These actions represent a theological divergence unacceptable to large parts of the Communion.
The theological divergence within the Communion is now so great that it must be regulated or diminished in order to avoid some form of division. Therefore a Communion Covenant capable of meeting the crisis in the Communion must facilitate firstly the identification of essential beliefs, and secondly the discipline of those who breach them.
B. The Communion cannot adopt a Covenant
1. Theological Consistency is required for Covenant
A Christian group can only remain united when its members exhibit sufficient theological consistency and sufficient acceptance of any theological divergence. Those conditions must also be satisfied by prospective members for entry into a Covenant, for entering into a meaningful covenantal relationship is an act of unity. Therefore in order to adopt a Covenant, all of the provinces of the Communion must exhibit sufficient theological consistency in essential matters and sufficient acceptance of any theological divergence in non-essential matters.
2. Sufficient Theological Consistency no longer exists within the Communion
The crisis in the Communion has seen some provinces sever relations with other provinces, and the Anglican Church in North America has been created by those who cannot accept the theological positions of TEC and ACOC. This example alone demonstrates there is no longer sufficient theological consistency within the Communion for the adoption of a Communion Covenant.
Further or in the alternative, the provinces which have joined the Fellowship are unlikely to adopt a Communion Covenant unless it allows for the discipline of those provinces holding theological positions considered by Fellowship members to be sinful ("sinful theology"). TEC and ACOC are unlikely to enter a Communion Covenant unless their freedom from foreign interference is guaranteed.
There is now such theological divergence between two sections of the Communion that neither will accept the position of the other. Therefore there is no longer sufficient theological consistency, or sufficient acceptance of theological divergence, for the adoption of a Communion Covenant. Therefore the Communion is no longer capable of adopting a Covenant.
C. Fellowship and Covenant
1. Sufficient Theological Consistency does exist within the Fellowship
The formation of the Fellowship demonstrates significant theological consistency and acceptance of theological divergence among its members. Those characteristics exist despite the traditional tension between the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical wings of the Anglican Church, both of which have contributed members to the Fellowship. Those Fellowship members have joined specifically to identify particular matters as essentials of the Christian faith and to reject theological divergence in those matters.
Furthermore, the acceptance of the Fellowship members of the Jerusalem Declaration as a requirement for Fellowship membership establishes that the Fellowship is currently capable of adopting some form of covenant. However as the Jerusalem Declaration is a statement of principles and does not allow for cross-provincial discipline, it is not the type of Covenant discussed in this paper. Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Declaration still demonstrates the mutual concern of Fellowship members with theological divergence in essential matters.
2. The Fellowship needs a Covenant
The theological consistency of the Fellowship enables it to adopt a Covenant, but the existence of such consistency might also support the argument that the Fellowship does not require a Covenant. However the Fellowship may not always exhibit such theological consistency. The theological divergence which created the crisis in the Communion did not suddenly appear, but rather developed in provinces where the prevailing theology gradually drifted away from orthodox doctrine.14 By the time the consequences of that theological divergence became obvious, the majority of the decision makers in some provinces no longer subscribed to orthodox doctrine.
The Fellowship should therefore be concerned that it, like the Communion, currently lacks the capacity to subject members of one province to the discipline of the Fellowship as a whole. Therefore a risk remains that, in the future, one Fellowship province might become a safe-haven for those advocating theological divergence in essential matters. Should this occur, the Fellowship could sponsor the creation of a new province, as has been done in North America, but that is costly in terms of both human and financial resources. A Fellowship Covenant allowing for cross-provincial discipline would deal with any theological divergence and reserve those human and financial resources for evangelism and mission.
The Fellowship requires a Covenant not because of any current theological divergence but to ensure it has the capacity to regulate or discipline any future theological divergence. A Fellowship Covenant would represent a mutual commitment of Fellowship members which can be relied upon in the event of a crisis. The Fellowship must adopt a Covenant in the short term, while it retains the capacity to do so.
D. Challenges to a Fellowship Covenant
There are many challenges to a Fellowship Covenant, such as the traditional tension between the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical wings of the Anglican Church. Other examples include differing views within the Fellowship on the ordination of women, and the relationship between Fellowship and non-Fellowship members of the Communion. The latter challenge is of particular importance as the Fellowship must continue to relate in a Christian manner with faithful Anglicans who have not joined the Fellowship. Many Anglican organisational units also resent outside interference in their activities.
Despite the many challenges facing the Fellowship, it has already united the strictest Anglo-Catholics and the greatest Evangelicals in an association. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, despite the many challenges to a Fellowship Covenant, the solutions to these challenges may be found in another of the great English traditions: the common law.
III COMMON LAW AND A FELLOWSHIP COVENANT
A. Norman England and Common Law
1. Historical Background
Between the withdrawal of the Roman legions and the Norman invasion, England was repeatedly invaded by ethnic groups who introduced their own laws and customs which varied from shire to shire.15 Although there had been several compilations of national laws,16 the central government was relatively weak and law was usually applied in a relatively informal manner by a local assembly.17
Duke William of Normandy conquered England in 1066 and declared that existing local laws would be maintained, but he also established a strong central government.18 The power of that central government was exercised by representatives who travelled among the shires to, among other duties, administer justice.19 A person with a complaint could therefore petition either the local lords or a royal judge. The royal judges became more popular because their judgments were enforceable throughout the kingdom and as visitors they were less likely to be subject to local prejudice.20 In time the royal judges replaced the local courts.21
The original judges were usually untrained in law and so relied upon decisions made by other judges.22 As these decisions were enforceable throughout England, they overrode any local custom and so became known as "common law".23
2. Development of Common Law Principles
Although statutes passed by parliament overrode common law decisions, there were relatively few statutes enacted by parliament until the reign of Henry VIII,24 leaving the common law to develop under the guidance of the judges. Speaking of the breadth of common law, Blackstone stated:
Thus, for example, that there shall be four superior courts of record; the chancery, the king's bench, the common pleas, and the exchequer .... that the eldest son alone is heir to his ancestor .... that property may be acquired and transferred by writing .... that a deed is of no validity unless sealed and delivered .... that wills shall be construed more favourably, and deeds more strictly .... that money lent upon bond is recoverable by action of debt .... that breaking the public peace is an offence, and punishable by fine and imprisonment .... all these are doctrines that are not set down in any written statute or ordinance, but depend merely upon immemorial usage, that is, upon common law, for their support.25
Many of these principles were later incorporated into legislation, but they were law in England long before that incorporation. In addition to particular laws, the common law also developed legal doctrines such as stare decisis and reception.
(a) Doctrine of Stare Decisis
The common law doctrine of stare decisis ("let the decision stand") requires judges to make decisions according to the manner in which they have been made previously. Lower courts are bound to follow the precedents set by higher courts, and the highest courts are expected to abide by their own decisions unless some compelling reason arises for the departure from precedent.26
Four advantages to stare decisis identified in Telstra Corporation v Treloar27 included firstly the certainty that comes from being able to rely upon the guidance of past decisions and secondly the equality that comes from treating all cases alike.28
Thirdly, subsequent courts need not re-examine issues which have been examined previously, and fourthly the appearance of justice is supported when the law is applied in a manner which does not depend on the personal views of a particular judge.29
Notwithstanding the doctrine, lower courts should follow the decisions of higher courts because if they depart from precedential decisions, the higher courts can simply overrule them on appeal.30 In this manner, stare decisis ensures an orderly and incremental development of legal principles.31
(b) Doctrine of Reception
As the legal system of the Empire of Great Britain, the common law also interacted with the foreign legal systems already operating in territory acquired by Britain. The doctrine of reception provided that when Britain acquired new land by conquest or secession by a foreign power, the existing laws of the foreign land remained valid except for those laws which were repugnant to the law of England.32
Blackstone described the doctrine as: But in conquered or ceded countries, that have already laws of their own, the king may indeed alter and change those laws; but, till he does actually change them, the ancient laws of the country remain, unless such as are against the law of God, as in the case of an infidel country.33 Section 4.
In this context, laws considered against the law of God included practices such as cannibalism, and would also have included any requirement to observe non-Christian religious practices.
B. Application of Common Law Principles to a Fellowship Covenant
This section identifies four challenges to the adoption of a Fellowship Covenant and demonstrates how a Fellowship Covenant based upon common law principles could meet each of those challenges.
There will be more than four challenges, but the common law principles are sufficiently adaptive to meet any challenge that might arise.
1. Discipline
(a) Challenge
The current crisis within the Communion has been brought about by theological divergence resulting in the propagation of sinful theology. Each instance of sinful theology is a theological divergence in a matter the Fellowship deems to be an essential matter of the Christian faith. The current structure of the Communion facilitated this crisis by ensuring that if the province in which a person is propagating sinful theology will not discipline them, they cannot be disciplined. The simple solution is to create a central body with the power to investigate and adjudicate accusations of sinful theology, and then to institute discipline which overrides any contrary decision of the local province.
However there remains significant divergence of theological belief in non-essential matters within the Fellowship, and its continued existence relies upon accepting that there are non-essential matters in which liberty is the proper response. Therefore the simple solution is impractical for two reasons. The first is that a central prosecuting body could be dominated by one segment of the Fellowship which insists upon a definition of essential matters which does not represent the views of the Fellowship. The second reason is that Anglican organisational units traditionally dislike external interference and would be unwilling to accept an arrangement which gave such overreaching power to an unaccountable central body.
The challenge is to facilitate the accountability of each Fellowship member to the whole Fellowship, while avoiding excessive centralisation. The simple solution fails to meet this challenge.
(b) Common Law Solution
Instead of replacing the local courts, the Norman kings offered an alternative. A petitioner could make an accusation before either the local court or before a royal judge. In the same manner, the Primates' Council could be empowered to judge accusations of sinful theology as an alternative to the judicial processes of local provinces. Thereafter a person wishing to make an accusation of sinful theology would have a choice, but like the Norman royal judges, the decisions of the Primates' Council would be binding throughout the Fellowship. This mechanism would allow the Fellowship to implement a unified judicial process, however this mechanism also immediately clashes with local autonomy.
The same unified judicial process could be established within the Fellowship without so great a clash with local autonomy by requiring any accusation of sinful theology to be made first through the judicial processes of the local province. The Primates' Council would only be empowered to act when local judicial processes were exhausted, and by way of appeal from the final decision of a province's highest internal court.34
The common law solution is therefore to empower the Primates' Council to act as a final court of appeal for the Fellowship. Either approach set out above facilitates the common law solution, however given the Anglican dislike of external interference the second is more practical. Nevertheless, either of those options would empower the Primates' Council to deliver decisions which were binding upon the parties in the case before them, but would then also serve as a precedent for the rest of the Fellowship. The Primates' Council would become, as the ecclesiastical representatives of the Fellowship, responsible for determining the standard which must be observed by the entire Fellowship.
(c) General Considerations
(i) Power of the Primates' Council
This solution would empower the relatively small Primates' Council to make decisions binding upon the Fellowship, but it is important to note that such judicial decisions would not be a directive or edict to the Fellowship. Those decisions would rather be an indication that if a similar dispute were brought before the Primates' Council in the future, they would make the same decision.
Accountability to such a small body may be difficult for independently minded Anglicans to accept, however mutual accountability is the only way for the Fellowship to avoid the crisis afflicting the Communion. Both mutual accountability and the satisfaction of concerns over the power of the Primates Council can be satisfied by making decisions of the Primates' Council appealable to the body of all Fellowship bishops.35 Given the practicalities of organising all Fellowship bishops to hear an appeal, such an appeal should only be heard if a sufficient number of Fellowship bishops consent to hear the appeal.36 Authoritative decisions which deliver precedent binding upon the entire Fellowship would therefore be made by the ecclesiastical representatives of the entire Fellowship.
This approach is consistent with the practice of the early church as recorded in chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles. When a theological dispute arose in Antioch, and it could not be settled locally, St Paul and St Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to obtain the judgment of the apostles, and the bishops are the successors to the apostles.37
(ii) The Limited Power of Decision
Making A decision of the Primates' Council would require the parties involved to abide by that decision, and the relevant province to facilitate that decision, but the influence of the same decision over the Fellowship would be by way of precedent. Accordingly, if a similar accusation of sinful theology arose, the authorities in the local judicial process would be expected to apply the precedent set by the Primates' Council. While local authorities could make a different decision, perhaps by distinguishing the case before them from the precedent, the Primates' Council would also be able to overrule the local authorities if the matter were brought before them on appeal.
(iii) Limited Power
As a method of decision making based upon common law, this approach would be driven by complaints. The Primates' Council could only issue a binding decision when a claim of sinful theology is brought before them. The Primates' Council would not have the power to arbitrarily and voluntarily issue a decree which is binding upon the Fellowship. This limited power to issue binding decisions does not exist in the Communion, which has chosen provincial autonomy over mutual accountability. This power will provide for mutual accountability, but its limitations will also ensure that any loss of local autonomy is minimal. The Fellowship members will therefore only be subject to minimal interference while they learn to live in a mutually accountable relationship.
(iv) Inundation of Complaints
There is a risk that the Primates' Council would find their time monopolised by hearing appeals. While the Primates' Council would include a judicial role, the primary role of the Primates' Council would still be to lead the Fellowship, and each Primate would still have duties within his own province.
In order to fulfil their judicial role without compromising their other duties, the Primates' Council should appoint an advisory committee. That committee would review appeals and provide the Primates' Council with a summary of the issues and a recommendation. That recommendation might be that the Primates' Council refuse to hear the appeal,38 or that the appeal should be heard and determined in a particular manner.
As an advisory committee, the Primates' Council would always be free to disregard that advice, for it would be the Primates' Council which is empowered to make decisions. However an advisory committee would filter the appeals to ensure that any time spent by the Primates' Council exercising their judicial role is not wasted.
(v) Application to Modern Issues
Either implementation of the common law principles set out above in a Fellowship Covenant would effectively deal with the issues facing the Communion if they were to occur in the Fellowship. For example, if a province attempted to consecrate a homosexual bishop, the decision to do so could be appealed to the Primates' Council as sinful theology and the Primates' Council would have the power to forbid that appointment. An appeal from the Primates' Council would be determined by all Fellowship bishops, making the single province or diocese subject to the ecclesiastical representatives of the entire Fellowship.
However if the Fellowship adopts a Covenant in this form, that situation is unlikely to arise for the issue has only arisen within the Communion through decades of gradual drift from orthodox doctrine resulting in significant theological divergence. Either implementation would allow each increment of theological drift to be challenged and arrested through mutual accountability.
Therefore the consecration of homosexual bishops would not arise because the ordination of homosexual priests or deacons could be prevented. The ordination of homosexuals could be prevented because any claim that homosexuality is not sinful could be authoritatively dismissed within the Fellowship. Theological divergence would not arise in the Fellowship as has arisen in the Communion because the theological drift away from orthodox doctrine could be arrested.
2. Autonomy and Control
(a) Challenge
Anglican organisational units have traditionally prized autonomy and disliked outside interference, especially where the alternative involves submission by Anglo-Catholics to Evangelicals, or vice versa. However any covenantal relationship, from a marriage to a commercial contract, involves a surrender of some autonomy to become accountable to another. That surrender mirrors the journey of the Christian who surrenders their own autonomy to become accountable to Christ. Whatever the advantages of local autonomy, total autonomy has also created liberal safe-havens with no accountability to the wider church.
While a central authority displacing all local autonomy would settle this issue, the Communion has also traditionally rejected excessive centralisation. The challenge is to establish mutual accountability in such a manner that while disunity in essentials is prevented, liberty in non-essentials is maintained.
(b) Common Law Solution
(i) Theory
While the judicial decisions of the Primates' Council would be binding upon all Fellowship members, judicial power is limited. The Primates' Council could forbid an Anglican organisational unit from teaching or implementing sinful theology, but could not require a province to implement any particular agenda. In secular courts the power is described as 'judicial review' and permits the courts to invalidate certain legislative acts but does not permit the judiciary to require that any particular legislation be enacted. This power does not create a centralised legislative system with the power to replace local autonomy.
Furthermore, the Primates' Council would be expected to limit their decisions to prohibiting divergence of theological belief in essential matters. A person accused of sinful theology would be able to claim their practice relates to a 'non-essential' matter where liberty, rather than unity, should be enforced. The Primates' Council might refuse to hear such a petition on that basis, or hear the petition and determine that the matter should be determined locally rather than across the entire Fellowship.39
Therefore while a Fellowship province is free to make any decision they wish, as they are currently able to, those decisions would be ultimately subject to a veto by the ecclesiastical representatives of the rest of the Fellowship. That veto should however only be exercised if those representatives determine that such a decision does not represent an authentic expression of Christianity. While this approach involves submission to an external authority that authority is the body of the Fellowship, so what affects the Fellowship is decided by the Fellowship.40 It is a legal expression of the Scriptural exhortation: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21, NIV).
(ii) Practical Example – Worship Style
A dispute may well arise within the Fellowship due to the wide variety of worship styles within both the Communion and the Fellowship. Confusion over the significance of cultural meaning, a diocesan attempt to institute a compulsory order of service or a proper query regarding the validity of a particular worship practice might result in an appeal before the Primates' Council. But the Primates' Council is the best body to hear such a dispute.
Each Primate is leader of a province incorporating a variety of worship styles and practices so the Primates' Council will consist of leaders who represent a variety of theological positions on non-essential matters. An appeal from a decision of the Primates' Council would be heard by all Fellowship bishops, which is even more representative of divergent theological positions which are nevertheless accepted within the Fellowship. Determination by these bodies, which must reach a significant level of agreement before a worship style is deemed an expression of sinful theology, is the best protection for continued liberty in non-essential matters, without sacrificing mutual accountability.
Although the usual Anglican desire for autonomy stands opposed to the power of the Primates' Council to declare a theological position to be sinful, it is this power which will distinguish the Fellowship from the Communion. It is this power which will allow the Fellowship to avoid the crisis afflicting the Communion.
3. Membership of the Fellowship
(a) Challenge
The entry of a new organisational unit into the Fellowship will be meaningless unless it is subject to the same mutual accountability as the rest of the Fellowship. However entry of a new member ensures there will be an immediate clash between the rules, canons or procedures of the new member and those of the Fellowship. The challenge is to immediately subject new members to the mutual accountability necessary to make membership meaningful, while also protecting their autonomy and allowing them to learn to live as part of the Fellowship.
(b) Common Law Solution
According to the doctrine of reception, the laws applicable in a territory acquired by Britain through conquest or secession by a foreign power remained in force until specifically modified, save for those repugnant to the law of England. Those laws repugnant to the law of England were immediately invalidated. Any dispute was determined by the judiciary.
In the same manner, all canons, rules, statutes or other regulations governing a new Fellowship member would remain in force upon becoming a member of the Fellowship. However where a canon or other regulation of the new Fellowship member is in conflict with a precedent set by the Primates' Council, the new member could reasonably expect to find that canon or regulation challenged and overruled.
The Primates' Council would be responsible for settling any dispute regarding the existence of a conflict between the new member's canons or regulations and the Primates' Council's decisions. However a prospective Fellowship member will seek membership because they want to be subject to the discipline of the Fellowship, which means there should be little dispute in practice. 4.
Development of Fellowship Canon Law
(a) Challenge
The Articles of Religion state that "General Councils ... may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God."41 Yet while rejecting any claim to the infallible authority attributed to the Pope by the Roman Catholic Church, the Fellowship has also rejected the assertion that humanity cannot be sure of anything.42 But to require theological consistency of Fellowship members, the Fellowship must also be able to define the essential matters of the Christian faith. The challenge is to develop a method of making binding decisions which recognises the inherent sinbased limitations of humanity while accepting that humans do have the capacity recognise divine revelation.
(b) Common Law Solution
The common law doctrine of stare decisis required similar cases to be decided in a similar manner. On this basis, the common law became reliable, but never entirely settled, because the higher courts were still able to depart from precedent.
The incorporation of stare decisis would provide the same reliability to a developing Fellowship canon law because Fellowship members would be expected to abide by decisions of the Primates' Council. Failure to do so could lead to an appeal to the Primates' Council which would be able to invalidate any contrary decision made by local authorities.
Stare decisis would make it a characteristic of Fellowship canon law that a theological position becomes stronger each time it is affirmed, while reserving to the Primates' Council the power to revise prior decisions if it were deemed necessary. Therefore, without claiming infallibility, the Primates' Council would have the capacity to both define matters essential to the Christian faith and to re-address those decisions to express the eternal truths of Christianity anew to each generation.
IV CONCLUSION
A church seeking unity in essentials and liberty in non-essentials requires a Covenant to remain united, but the Communion is already too theologically divergent to adopt a Covenant. At the time of writing the Fellowship retains sufficient theological consistency to adopt a Fellowship Covenant and should do so without delay in order to avoid the theological divergence afflicting the Communion.
A Fellowship Covenant incorporating the principles set out above will introduce discipline while protecting local autonomy, and create a binding Fellowship canon law without the creation of a new papacy. In speaking of a Communion Covenant the Archbishop of Canterbury perfectly described the value of the principles set out above, the relevant parts of which the author sets out below.
[they]...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, ...). 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.43
A Fellowship Covenant will be a formal covenantal relationship allowing the Anglo- Catholic and Evangelical wings of the Fellowship to unite with the other halves of themselves to produce one orthodox Anglican Church. These principles represent a modern and practical via media found not in the rejection of Roman Catholic or Protestant but in the balance of problematic extremes. The author commends these principles to the readers' consideration.
Bibliography
Books Crawford, James and Brian Opeskin. Australian Courts of Law (4th ed, 2004)
Allen, W H. Law Made Simple (5th ed, 1978)
Cook, Catriona et al. Laying Down the Law (6th ed, 2005)
Enright, Christopher. Studying Law (4th ed, 1991)
Speeches
Driver, Archbishop Jeffrey 'Anglicanism, Popes and three-legged stools' (Speech delivered at St Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide, 14 September 2008)
Jensen, Archbishop Peter (Speech delivered at 2006 Synod of Sydney Diocese, Sydney, 2006)
Articles
Lambeth Commission on Communion. The Windsor Report (2004).
Akinola, Archbishop Peter. A Most Agonising Journey towards Lambeth 2008 (2008) Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) < http://www.anglicannig. org/main.php?k_j=12&d=88&p_t=index.php?> at 29 July 2009
de Santis, Solange. 'Canada sees first sanctioned blessing', Anglican Journal (Canada) 1 September 2003
Venables, Archbishop Greg. 'The Danger of Drift (2009) Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
Orombi, Archbishop Henry. 'What is Anglicanism?' (2007) August/September First Things,
Letter from the Most Reverend Rowan Williams to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion.
Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention. 27 July 2009.
Website
General Convention 2009 Legislation (2009) The Episcopal Church
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (first published 1765-69) General Telstra Corporation v Treloar (2000) 102 FCR 595
Articles of Religion 1562, Art XXI.
2 Most Reverend Jeffrey Driver, 'Anglicanism, Popes and three-legged stools' (Speech delivered at St Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide, 14 September 2008).
3 Most Reverend Peter Jensen, (Speech delivered at 2006 Synod of Sydney Diocese, Sydney, 2006).
4 Hereafter referred to as "theological divergence".
5 Lambeth Commission on Communion, The Windsor Report (2004), para 118.
6 Where the author was privileged to serve as a Steward.
7 Hereafter referred to as "theological consistency". Members of political parties in liberal democracies, such as Australia, demonstrate this principle as they are generally united in the principles expressed in the party platform, or are at least willing to accept those principles. However if the party introduces principles into the party platform which some members cannot accept, those members will leave the party.
8 In those circumstances some members might argue they should remain members of the party in order to change the party platform from within, however any continued membership represents some form of acceptance.
9 Eg Anglican Catholic Church in Australia.
10 Although in this case acceptance for many Anglicans was conditional upon being insulated from the ministry of ordained women.
11 Most Reverend Peter Akinola, A Most Agonising Journey towards Lambeth 2008 (2008) Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) < http://www.anglicannig. org/main.php?k_j=12&d=88&p_t=index.php?> at 29 July 2009.
12 Ibid; Solange de Santis, 'Canada sees first sanctioned blessing', Anglican Journal (Canada) 1 September 2003.
13 See eg: TEC General Convention 2009 Resolutions C056 and D025; General Convention 2009 Legislation (2009) The Episcopal Church
14 This is the theological 'drift' referred to by the Archbishop of the South Cone - Most Reverend Greg Venables, 'The Danger of Drift (2009) Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
15 C F Padfield, Law Made Simple (5th ed, 1978) 9.
16 Ibid 10.
17 James Crawford and Brian Opeskin, Australian Courts of Law (4th Ed, 2004) 6.
18 Catriona Cook, Robin Creyke, Robert Geddes and Ian Holloway, Laying Down the Law (6th ed, 2005) 11.
19 Padfield, above n 15, 10-11.
20 Cook, above n 18, 13.
21 Christopher Enright, Studying Law (4th ed, 1991), 125.
22 Cook, above n 18, 13.
23 Ibid 13.
24 Ibid 25.
25 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (first published 1765-69) Introduction, Section III.
26 Cook, above n 18, 75.
27 (2000) 102 FCR 595 at 602.
28 Telstra Corporation v Treloar (2000) 102 FCR 595 at 602, per Branson and Finkelstein JJ.
29 Ibid.
30 Cook, above n 18, 76.
31 Ibid 76.
32 Ibid 32.
33 Ibid Introduction,
34 This process is common in countries with a federal system of government, which includes common law nations such as Australia, Canada and the United States of America. However it also includes federal nations which do not have a common law system.
35 Any reference in this paper to a decision that can be made by the Primates' Council includes the capacity for that decision to be appealed to the body of all Fellowship Bishops, provided that a sufficient number of Fellowship bishops have consented to hear the appeal. 36 This process is similar to the political process of 'voter's veto' whereby voters can overturn the implementation of specific legislation by way of majority decision in a referendum on the issue. However the referendum can only be put to the voters if a significant percentage of voters request the referendum.
37 Most Reverend Henry Orombi, 'What is Anglicanism?' (2007) August/September First Things,
38 Perhaps because it is a matter which in the opinion of the committee should be decided locally.
39 The author notes a variety of attitudes towards the ordination of women to the priesthood within the Fellowship. This may be the first example of a matter which, for the time being at least, is held to be one for local determination.
40 Letter from the Most Reverend Rowan Williams to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion, Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention, 27 July 2009, para 13, (Note that Archbishop Williams was speaking in relation to the Communion).
41 Articles of Religion 1562, Art XXI.
42 Venables, above n 14.
43 Williams, above n 40, para 20.
----Ashley Dewell is a solicitor based in Alice Springs in the Diocese of the Northern Territory of the Anglican Church of Australia. He is a life-long Anglican who was baptized at St Richard's Parndana and confirmed at St Mark's Golden Grove, both in the Diocese of Adelaide of the Anglican Church of Australia. Dewell holds a degree in Computer Science; Bachelor of Laws (Honours); Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice; Master of Laws; and Master of Theological Studies (graduand only)
A Summary of the State of the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 26, 2009
A number of clergy and laity have written to VOL requesting a summary of the state of the Anglican Church in the U.S. and Canada for distribution to their parishes and friends. The following, we hope, is a useful compilation, albeit brief, of the situation as it is presently found in North America. This may be printed out and used for information purposes and discussion.
* The Episcopal Church USA has approximately 100 dioceses in the U.S. Most are liberal in ethos and theology. A handful, including the dioceses of Albany, Central Florida, South Carolina, Springfield, Western Kansas, Western Louisiana, North Dakota, Northern Indiana and Dallas, are considered orthodox. (While the bishops may be orthodox, it does not follow that their diocesan priests and laity reflect those views.)
* Four orthodox dioceses have left The Episcopal Church and are in legal battles for their properties. They are San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy and Ft. Worth. Each diocese has a faux diocese, set up by The Episcopal Church, alongside the original diocese. These faux dioceses are challenging the right of the orthodox dioceses to be recognized as authentic Anglican dioceses. Each diocese has its own bishop, in effect creating eight bishops in the four locations.
* The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) was established to bring together under one umbrella some 28 orthodox Anglican jurisdictions. This follows communion threatening actions by the Episcopal Church concerning the Uniqueness and Universality of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of all, and whether we in fact believe, per Acts 4:12 and Article 18, that there is no salvation apart from him. Other communion threatening issues include the consecration of a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopacy and Women's Ordination. ACNA's archbishop is the Most Rev. Robert Duncan.
The following are the lead jurisdictions in ACNA. Many hold dual citizenship with their respective overseas provinces.
* AMIA - The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) is the largest of the jurisdictions. It is based in Pawleys Island, SC. It is a missionary outreach of the Anglican Province of Rwanda. It has 10 active missionary bishops (including 3 being consecrated on September 9, 2009) with 131 congregations in the US and another 16 in Canada, the Anglican Mission has a total of 147 congregations with 328 active clergy in the US and 31 in Canada.
* CANA –The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA currently consists of more than 85 congregations and 179 clergy in 25 states. At its recent council meeting, CANA ordained three chaplains for the armed forces. Bishop Martyn Minns provides Episcopal oversight for CANA. Its linking jurisdiction is the Anglican Province of Nigeria.
* Uganda - The Rt. John Guernsey is Bishop for the Diocese of the Holy Spirit in the AC-NA, a transitional diocese of formerly Church of Uganda churches in the USA and now fully released by the Ugandan HOB into AC-NA.
* The Anglican Church of Kenya consecrated the Rev. Canon Bill Atwood and Rev. Bill Murdoch as Suffragan Bishops of All Saints Cathedral Diocese, Nairobi, to serve there international interest in the USA.
* The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC). Founded in 1870. It is now a constituent member of the ACNA.
* Forward in Faith NA. The Rt. Rev. William Ilgenfritz is their bishop. They are a member of ACNA
* The Anglican Relief and Development Fund (ARDF) is the relief arm of the ACNA
Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions
There are approximately 58 Continuing Anglican branches in North America. The following are the six largest.
* Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) --. Its Metropolitan and Archbishop is The Most Reverend Mark Haverland, Ph.D. He is based in Athens, Georgia.
* Anglican Province of America (APA) --The Most Rev. Walter H. Grundorf, DD is Presiding Bishop. He is also Bishop Ordinary, Diocese of the Eastern United States. He is based in Oviedo, Florida.
* Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) -- The Most Rev. James E. Provence is the Presiding bishop based in California.
* Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) --. The Archbishop is the Most. Rev. John Hepworth. They have two jurisdictions in North America: The Anglican Church in America and The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada
* United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA) -- The Most Reverend Stephen C. Reber is archbishop. He is based in Charlotte, NC.
* Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC) -- The Rt. Rev. William Millsaps is archbishop. He is based in Monteagle, Tennessee.
In Canada there are three Anglican jurisdictions.
* The first is the Anglican Church of Canada. Like its counterpart, The Episcopal Church USA, it is comprised mainly of moderates and liberals. Approximately 25% of the 33 dioceses would consider themselves orthodox in faith and morals.
* Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC) comprises some 15 parishes. The Rev. Silas TAK Yin Ng, Rector of Richmond Emmanuel, British Columbia, will be consecrated bishop in September 2009. They are based mostly in Western Canada. The Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC) is also a member of AMiA.
* The Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) is a founding partner of the Anglican Church in North America, a "province in formation" in the Anglican Communion, and part of the global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans which affirms the Jerusalem Declaration. There are 30 parishes in the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), some small, some large. They have three bishops, 68 priests and 12 deacons licensed by ANiC under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. ANiC emerged out of the "Essentials" movement in the Anglican Church of Canada and remains affiliated with Anglican Essentials Network, Anglican Essentials Canada and Anglican Essentials Federation. Their Moderator is The Rt. Rev. Donald Harvey. He is based in St John's, Newfoundland.
Other movements of note include:
GAFCON - Global Anglican Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans comprises two-thirds of the world's orthodox Anglicans FCA -
FCA - Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans - UK, Ireland, South Africa and the US.
END
www.virtueonline.org
August 26, 2009
A number of clergy and laity have written to VOL requesting a summary of the state of the Anglican Church in the U.S. and Canada for distribution to their parishes and friends. The following, we hope, is a useful compilation, albeit brief, of the situation as it is presently found in North America. This may be printed out and used for information purposes and discussion.
* The Episcopal Church USA has approximately 100 dioceses in the U.S. Most are liberal in ethos and theology. A handful, including the dioceses of Albany, Central Florida, South Carolina, Springfield, Western Kansas, Western Louisiana, North Dakota, Northern Indiana and Dallas, are considered orthodox. (While the bishops may be orthodox, it does not follow that their diocesan priests and laity reflect those views.)
* Four orthodox dioceses have left The Episcopal Church and are in legal battles for their properties. They are San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy and Ft. Worth. Each diocese has a faux diocese, set up by The Episcopal Church, alongside the original diocese. These faux dioceses are challenging the right of the orthodox dioceses to be recognized as authentic Anglican dioceses. Each diocese has its own bishop, in effect creating eight bishops in the four locations.
* The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) was established to bring together under one umbrella some 28 orthodox Anglican jurisdictions. This follows communion threatening actions by the Episcopal Church concerning the Uniqueness and Universality of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of all, and whether we in fact believe, per Acts 4:12 and Article 18, that there is no salvation apart from him. Other communion threatening issues include the consecration of a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopacy and Women's Ordination. ACNA's archbishop is the Most Rev. Robert Duncan.
The following are the lead jurisdictions in ACNA. Many hold dual citizenship with their respective overseas provinces.
* AMIA - The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) is the largest of the jurisdictions. It is based in Pawleys Island, SC. It is a missionary outreach of the Anglican Province of Rwanda. It has 10 active missionary bishops (including 3 being consecrated on September 9, 2009) with 131 congregations in the US and another 16 in Canada, the Anglican Mission has a total of 147 congregations with 328 active clergy in the US and 31 in Canada.
* CANA –The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA currently consists of more than 85 congregations and 179 clergy in 25 states. At its recent council meeting, CANA ordained three chaplains for the armed forces. Bishop Martyn Minns provides Episcopal oversight for CANA. Its linking jurisdiction is the Anglican Province of Nigeria.
* Uganda - The Rt. John Guernsey is Bishop for the Diocese of the Holy Spirit in the AC-NA, a transitional diocese of formerly Church of Uganda churches in the USA and now fully released by the Ugandan HOB into AC-NA.
* The Anglican Church of Kenya consecrated the Rev. Canon Bill Atwood and Rev. Bill Murdoch as Suffragan Bishops of All Saints Cathedral Diocese, Nairobi, to serve there international interest in the USA.
* The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC). Founded in 1870. It is now a constituent member of the ACNA.
* Forward in Faith NA. The Rt. Rev. William Ilgenfritz is their bishop. They are a member of ACNA
* The Anglican Relief and Development Fund (ARDF) is the relief arm of the ACNA
Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions
There are approximately 58 Continuing Anglican branches in North America. The following are the six largest.
* Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) --. Its Metropolitan and Archbishop is The Most Reverend Mark Haverland, Ph.D. He is based in Athens, Georgia.
* Anglican Province of America (APA) --The Most Rev. Walter H. Grundorf, DD is Presiding Bishop. He is also Bishop Ordinary, Diocese of the Eastern United States. He is based in Oviedo, Florida.
* Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) -- The Most Rev. James E. Provence is the Presiding bishop based in California.
* Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) --. The Archbishop is the Most. Rev. John Hepworth. They have two jurisdictions in North America: The Anglican Church in America and The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada
* United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA) -- The Most Reverend Stephen C. Reber is archbishop. He is based in Charlotte, NC.
* Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC) -- The Rt. Rev. William Millsaps is archbishop. He is based in Monteagle, Tennessee.
In Canada there are three Anglican jurisdictions.
* The first is the Anglican Church of Canada. Like its counterpart, The Episcopal Church USA, it is comprised mainly of moderates and liberals. Approximately 25% of the 33 dioceses would consider themselves orthodox in faith and morals.
* Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC) comprises some 15 parishes. The Rev. Silas TAK Yin Ng, Rector of Richmond Emmanuel, British Columbia, will be consecrated bishop in September 2009. They are based mostly in Western Canada. The Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC) is also a member of AMiA.
* The Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) is a founding partner of the Anglican Church in North America, a "province in formation" in the Anglican Communion, and part of the global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans which affirms the Jerusalem Declaration. There are 30 parishes in the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), some small, some large. They have three bishops, 68 priests and 12 deacons licensed by ANiC under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. ANiC emerged out of the "Essentials" movement in the Anglican Church of Canada and remains affiliated with Anglican Essentials Network, Anglican Essentials Canada and Anglican Essentials Federation. Their Moderator is The Rt. Rev. Donald Harvey. He is based in St John's, Newfoundland.
Other movements of note include:
GAFCON - Global Anglican Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans comprises two-thirds of the world's orthodox Anglicans FCA -
FCA - Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans - UK, Ireland, South Africa and the US.
END
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
FiF North America Consecrates First Bishop for Anglican Church in North America
by Bishop Jack Leo Iker
from VirtueOnline:
It was my joy and privilege on Saturday, Aug. 22, to share in the consecration of the Rt. Rev. William H. Ilgenfritz, the first new bishop for the Anglican Church in North America. Archbishop Robert W. Duncan was the chief consecrator, and the other co-consecrators were Bishop Keith Ackerman, Bishop Edward MacBurney, and Bishop William Wantland, who also preached at the service. Thirteen bishops participated in the apostolic laying on of hands in the historic ceremony. Bishop Ilgenfritz continues to serve as Rector of St. Mary's Anglican Church in Charleroi, Pa., in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The service took place at the local Roman Catholic parish a few blocks away, called Mary, Mother of the Church. The new bishop previously served here in the Diocese of Fort Worth as Rector of St. John's Church in Brownwood from 1990 to 1994.
It is important to recognize that this first consecration was of a Forward in Faith Bishop and that it creates a new diocese for FIF congregations across the country. This new Missionary Diocese of All Saints begins with about 13 congregations and is charged with planting new churches for traditional anglo-catholics in the United States and Canada. Bishop Ilgenfritz continues to serve as Vice-president of Forward in Faith, North America.
This consecration fulfills the vision of the Episcopal Synod of America, formed in 1989 here in Fort Worth, to create a non-geographic diocese or province for congregations upholding the faith and practice of the historic catholic church, including the tradition of an all-male priesthood. It secures a continuing line of apostolic succession for traditional anglo-catholics, which is no longer possible in The Episcopal Church in the United States.
Please continue to pray for Bishop Ilgenfritz and this new missionary diocese.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
Aug. 25, 2009
from VirtueOnline:
It was my joy and privilege on Saturday, Aug. 22, to share in the consecration of the Rt. Rev. William H. Ilgenfritz, the first new bishop for the Anglican Church in North America. Archbishop Robert W. Duncan was the chief consecrator, and the other co-consecrators were Bishop Keith Ackerman, Bishop Edward MacBurney, and Bishop William Wantland, who also preached at the service. Thirteen bishops participated in the apostolic laying on of hands in the historic ceremony. Bishop Ilgenfritz continues to serve as Rector of St. Mary's Anglican Church in Charleroi, Pa., in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The service took place at the local Roman Catholic parish a few blocks away, called Mary, Mother of the Church. The new bishop previously served here in the Diocese of Fort Worth as Rector of St. John's Church in Brownwood from 1990 to 1994.
It is important to recognize that this first consecration was of a Forward in Faith Bishop and that it creates a new diocese for FIF congregations across the country. This new Missionary Diocese of All Saints begins with about 13 congregations and is charged with planting new churches for traditional anglo-catholics in the United States and Canada. Bishop Ilgenfritz continues to serve as Vice-president of Forward in Faith, North America.
This consecration fulfills the vision of the Episcopal Synod of America, formed in 1989 here in Fort Worth, to create a non-geographic diocese or province for congregations upholding the faith and practice of the historic catholic church, including the tradition of an all-male priesthood. It secures a continuing line of apostolic succession for traditional anglo-catholics, which is no longer possible in The Episcopal Church in the United States.
Please continue to pray for Bishop Ilgenfritz and this new missionary diocese.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
Aug. 25, 2009
Lutherans learned little from Episcopalians
From The Washington Times via TitusOneNine:
Lutheran schism feared after votes on gays
Traditionalist members threaten to defect
By Julia Duin (Contact) | Monday, August 24, 2009
MINNEAPOLIS | Last Friday, as members of the nation's largest Lutheran denomination were casting four historic votes recasting the role of homosexuals in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a mop-up operation had begun a few blocks away.
In a hospitality suite on the 12th floor of the Doubletree Hotel, Bill Sullivan's cell phone was ringing and ringing.
Mr. Sullivan, a former ELCA pastor, is national coordinator for the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), a collection of 226 congregations founded in March 2001 with 25 charter member churches dissatisfied with the denomination's liberal drift.
Now the trickle has turned into a flood.
"It's been going nonstop," he said of his phone.
On Friday alone, he scheduled three visits to ELCA churches in Buffalo, N.Y. Sioux City, Iowa and Jacksonville, Fla., for later this fall. They are thinking of leaving, as were the 15 people who had stopped by the hotel suite that day. Twenty-five inquiries had come in that week alone, and that was before all the vote tallies were in down the street at the Minneapolis Convention Center.
He glanced at his e-mail.
"The train wreck is just about over," he said, reading from a post sent by a delegate on the convention floor. "The first responders need to be ready."
He looked up.
"People have been calling all morning," he said. "They want this to be over. It's been going on for days. A small minority of people are changing 2,000 years of church teaching."
However, the "small minority" includes personages such as former ELCA Presiding Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom, who posted an open letter July 27 in response to traditionalists' concerns about the upcoming convention. In it, he explained that church teachings have changed over the millennia.
"I knew that our decisions to ordain women and retain some divorced pastors on our rosters were not decided exclusively on the basis of a few biblical texts or our long-standing tradition in either area," he wrote. "We believed there were deeper streams in the Holy Scriptures that we needed to listen to. When I came to sexuality issues, I knew I could not employ a method that differed from what I had used to deal with those two issues."
The majority of delegates at the churchwide assembly were apparently using similar logic: It was the final day for the most important votes and the traditionalists were losing every one.
For the one-third of ELCA delegates who decisively voted against ordaining homosexual clergy and other gay-friendly ballot measures, Mr. Sullivan's group is a possible lifeboat in a sea of heresy.
The group calls itself "post-denominational," meaning churches can associate with it while retaining membership in other bodies. The only requirement is an agreement with the LCMC's statement of faith and constitution. The loose confederation of churches does not have bishops, but it does have an annual conference, set this year for early October in Fargo, N.D.
Into the suite walked a young man dressed in a clerical suit who identifies himself as a pastor of a 450-member church in Nebraska.
"Here's an ELCA refugee," chortled a member of the LCMC's board of trustees sitting in the suite. The pastor said he's there to "look at options" for his church.
"I've a congregation with a significant number of members who will leave," he said. "The theology of the social statement bothered us," referring to a 34-page document the denomination approved Aug. 19 that sought to establish a theological framework for differing views on homosexuality.
Church liberals said the document was long overdue; conservatives said sexual practices forbidden in the Bible should not be given equal moral status.
Until now, conservative Lutheran churches that have wanted to leave have generally been allowed to take their property with them, unlike in the Episcopal Church, where the denomination has sued nearly every departing congregation.
Lutheran clergy and bishops interviewed last week said that situation could change if there is a substantial exodus or if the local synod - which is like a diocese - holds the title to the property.
There are several Lutheran denominations in the United States. They include the 390,000-member Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), which posted a statement on its Web site Friday condemning the ELCA's decisions.
"It's unfortunate that many headlines have referred to the recent decisions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as something 'Lutherans' have decided," WELS President Mark Schroeder said. "We are saddened that a group with the name Lutheran would take another decisive step away from the clear teaching of the Bible, which was the foundation of the Lutheran Reformation."
After the ELCA, the largest Lutheran denomination is the 2.4-million-member Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Spokeswoman Vicki Biggs said Friday that her denomination has gotten inquiries from individual ELCA members.
"People are saying, 'If the ELCA goes this route, I might be looking at another church,' " she said.
However, neither the Wisconsin nor Missouri Synod churches ordain women, while the LCMC does - a factor important to many wishing to leave the ELCA.
The specter of departing congregations was one Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson addressed Friday as he begged conservative and liberal Lutherans to bear with one another.
"Those deeply disappointed today will have the expectation to continue to admonish and teach," he said. "Those who've experienced reconciliation today - you are called to humility. You are called to love."
Yet, Lutherans who testified and quoted the Bible during the lengthy legislative sessions repeatedly brought up the possibility of leaving.
"I believe what we are about to do in the social statement will split the church," John Seng, a member from the Northeastern Ohio Synod, told the crowd. "It saddens me that we are going this way."
Terri Stagner-Collier, a member of Southeastern Synod, tearfully told the delegates her family will leave the ELCA.
"I urge you not to do this to all those people in the pews and my family," she said before one of the votes.
In his final press conference Friday, the presiding bishop said gay Lutherans had stuck with the ELCA during the long years they were not accepted and he urged traditionalists, who felt the tables had been turned, to exercise similar patience.
"My appeal tonight is to those who feel they can't support the decisions this church has made," he said. "We need you in the conversation about the shape of our life together. ... It'd be tragic if we walked away from one another. Then the story I hoped to tell will not be the one told this week."
He repeated a few minutes later, "We must welcome to the table those who feel we have not been faithful Lutherans today ... I am pleading with people to stay with us in that conversation."
Lutheran schism feared after votes on gays
Traditionalist members threaten to defect
By Julia Duin (Contact) | Monday, August 24, 2009
MINNEAPOLIS | Last Friday, as members of the nation's largest Lutheran denomination were casting four historic votes recasting the role of homosexuals in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a mop-up operation had begun a few blocks away.
In a hospitality suite on the 12th floor of the Doubletree Hotel, Bill Sullivan's cell phone was ringing and ringing.
Mr. Sullivan, a former ELCA pastor, is national coordinator for the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), a collection of 226 congregations founded in March 2001 with 25 charter member churches dissatisfied with the denomination's liberal drift.
Now the trickle has turned into a flood.
"It's been going nonstop," he said of his phone.
On Friday alone, he scheduled three visits to ELCA churches in Buffalo, N.Y. Sioux City, Iowa and Jacksonville, Fla., for later this fall. They are thinking of leaving, as were the 15 people who had stopped by the hotel suite that day. Twenty-five inquiries had come in that week alone, and that was before all the vote tallies were in down the street at the Minneapolis Convention Center.
He glanced at his e-mail.
"The train wreck is just about over," he said, reading from a post sent by a delegate on the convention floor. "The first responders need to be ready."
He looked up.
"People have been calling all morning," he said. "They want this to be over. It's been going on for days. A small minority of people are changing 2,000 years of church teaching."
However, the "small minority" includes personages such as former ELCA Presiding Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom, who posted an open letter July 27 in response to traditionalists' concerns about the upcoming convention. In it, he explained that church teachings have changed over the millennia.
"I knew that our decisions to ordain women and retain some divorced pastors on our rosters were not decided exclusively on the basis of a few biblical texts or our long-standing tradition in either area," he wrote. "We believed there were deeper streams in the Holy Scriptures that we needed to listen to. When I came to sexuality issues, I knew I could not employ a method that differed from what I had used to deal with those two issues."
The majority of delegates at the churchwide assembly were apparently using similar logic: It was the final day for the most important votes and the traditionalists were losing every one.
For the one-third of ELCA delegates who decisively voted against ordaining homosexual clergy and other gay-friendly ballot measures, Mr. Sullivan's group is a possible lifeboat in a sea of heresy.
The group calls itself "post-denominational," meaning churches can associate with it while retaining membership in other bodies. The only requirement is an agreement with the LCMC's statement of faith and constitution. The loose confederation of churches does not have bishops, but it does have an annual conference, set this year for early October in Fargo, N.D.
Into the suite walked a young man dressed in a clerical suit who identifies himself as a pastor of a 450-member church in Nebraska.
"Here's an ELCA refugee," chortled a member of the LCMC's board of trustees sitting in the suite. The pastor said he's there to "look at options" for his church.
"I've a congregation with a significant number of members who will leave," he said. "The theology of the social statement bothered us," referring to a 34-page document the denomination approved Aug. 19 that sought to establish a theological framework for differing views on homosexuality.
Church liberals said the document was long overdue; conservatives said sexual practices forbidden in the Bible should not be given equal moral status.
Until now, conservative Lutheran churches that have wanted to leave have generally been allowed to take their property with them, unlike in the Episcopal Church, where the denomination has sued nearly every departing congregation.
Lutheran clergy and bishops interviewed last week said that situation could change if there is a substantial exodus or if the local synod - which is like a diocese - holds the title to the property.
There are several Lutheran denominations in the United States. They include the 390,000-member Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), which posted a statement on its Web site Friday condemning the ELCA's decisions.
"It's unfortunate that many headlines have referred to the recent decisions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as something 'Lutherans' have decided," WELS President Mark Schroeder said. "We are saddened that a group with the name Lutheran would take another decisive step away from the clear teaching of the Bible, which was the foundation of the Lutheran Reformation."
After the ELCA, the largest Lutheran denomination is the 2.4-million-member Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Spokeswoman Vicki Biggs said Friday that her denomination has gotten inquiries from individual ELCA members.
"People are saying, 'If the ELCA goes this route, I might be looking at another church,' " she said.
However, neither the Wisconsin nor Missouri Synod churches ordain women, while the LCMC does - a factor important to many wishing to leave the ELCA.
The specter of departing congregations was one Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson addressed Friday as he begged conservative and liberal Lutherans to bear with one another.
"Those deeply disappointed today will have the expectation to continue to admonish and teach," he said. "Those who've experienced reconciliation today - you are called to humility. You are called to love."
Yet, Lutherans who testified and quoted the Bible during the lengthy legislative sessions repeatedly brought up the possibility of leaving.
"I believe what we are about to do in the social statement will split the church," John Seng, a member from the Northeastern Ohio Synod, told the crowd. "It saddens me that we are going this way."
Terri Stagner-Collier, a member of Southeastern Synod, tearfully told the delegates her family will leave the ELCA.
"I urge you not to do this to all those people in the pews and my family," she said before one of the votes.
In his final press conference Friday, the presiding bishop said gay Lutherans had stuck with the ELCA during the long years they were not accepted and he urged traditionalists, who felt the tables had been turned, to exercise similar patience.
"My appeal tonight is to those who feel they can't support the decisions this church has made," he said. "We need you in the conversation about the shape of our life together. ... It'd be tragic if we walked away from one another. Then the story I hoped to tell will not be the one told this week."
He repeated a few minutes later, "We must welcome to the table those who feel we have not been faithful Lutherans today ... I am pleading with people to stay with us in that conversation."
Rowan Williams and the Anglican Future
From First Things via Stand Firm:
Jul 28, 2009
Jordan Hylden
Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, has issued his much-awaited response to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church: “Communion, Covenant, and our Anglican Future.” Although it’s not as lengthy as Pope Benedict’s recent encyclical, it’s sure to be parsed almost as carefully and debated nearly with the same intensity by Anglicans throughout the world. The letter is worthy of such scrutiny: As he has done so often in the past, Archbishop Williams has given us both a substantively theological read of the present moment and a sound and hopeful way forward for the Anglican Communion.
For those keeping score, the leadership of the Episcopal Church—including the Presiding Bishop, the president of the House of Deputies, and the church’s chief ecumenical officer—had attempted to argue that the actions of their General Convention didn’t go against the repeated requests of the wider Anglican Communion to stop progress on same-sex blessings and partnered gay bishops. Williams was not convinced: “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 favor,” he wrote. In short: The communion’s request for moratoria has been answered, and the answer is “No.”
In fact, as Williams argues, to change the received Anglican position on sexual ethics would require a quite sharp re-thinking of biblical teaching, something that even if possible would require a level of consensus among Anglicans and ecumenical partners that simply has not been reached. “In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years,” says Williams, “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.” There is therefore no warrant for moving forward on this issue as a province, diocese, or parish.
As a result, Williams contends that “it is hard to see how [a person in a same-sex relationship] can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires. . . . 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.” In a similar way, it is difficult to see “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.” Here, the logic of Williams’s argument is that the Episcopal Church’s consecration of Gene Robinson and its expressed openness to further such bishops, as well as its practice of offering same-sex blessings, must affect its ability to serve in representative roles both for and within Anglicanism.
This is so, Williams explains, because of the venerable catholic principle that “what affects the communion of all should be decided by all.” Without the difficult process of consulting the wider body of Christ when a local church seeks either to respond to a new question or to answer an old question in a new way, that church runs the risk of “becoming unrecognizable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.” The end result is a cacophony of churches all preaching different gospels, with none of them sure anymore if they are indeed proclaiming one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.
This does not mean—as Williams is quick to point out—that everything we do and preach must be precisely the same. On some issues, Anglicans may indeed agree to disagree, and there are no absolutely clear rules for determining when this will be permissible. But it does mean that developments in matters of faith and morals cannot be done independently, without the consultation of both the wider Anglican Communion and our ecumenical partners. “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,” Williams argues. “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’.”
Although this is clearly not how Williams envisions the Anglican Communion, he admits that not all Anglicans agree with him on this point. Some view Anglican fellowship instead “as best expressed in a more federalist and pluralist way,” he concedes. “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 centralization and authoritarianism are the most worrying.” But although this is the self-understanding of many Episcopalians (such as Bishop Stacy Sauls, who has publicly stated that even the word “federation” is for him a bridge too far), Williams insists that this is not how Anglicanism has commonly understood itself, particularly in recent years with the advent of Lambeth conferences, instruments of unity and governance such as the Anglican Consultative Council, and ecumenical dialogues.
It is precisely this emerging ecclesial reality, he argues, that the Anglican Covenant proposal has sought to secure—namely, “to do justice to that aspect of Anglican history that has resisted mere federation.” Proponents of the covenant, Williams explains, are not out to exclude people or grasp power, but instead simply “seek structures that will express the need for mutual reconcilability, mutual consultation and some shared processes of decision-making. They are emphatically not about centralization but about mutual responsibility.” As such the proposed covenant is the best hope Anglicans have for strengthening the bonds of relationship that tie them together and avoiding the path of local isolation and fragmentation.
No one, Williams emphasizes, will be forced into this, and no one who chooses a different path need fear being “cast into the outer darkness.” Relationships of affinity and partnership in mission will no doubt continue in any case. But those who decline the opportunity to walk together with other Anglicans in mutual responsibility and discernment, electing instead to place a higher value on local and provincial autonomy, will have chosen a path that will inevitably lead to a degree of differentiation from their covenanted Anglican brothers and sisters. This is to be regretted, but such is a path that can be chosen in good faith and need not lead to acrimony. Williams strongly urges that such decisions be made peaceably and with respect for the conscience of all, particularly those who seek to covenant with the larger Communion but find themselves within provinces that choose not to. The treatment of such Anglicans—and here, Williams has both the Communion Partners within the Episcopal Church and others elsewhere in mind—is, he asserts, an “important” question that requires a “clear answer.”
Notably, Williams still expresses his “strong hope that all the provinces will respond favorably to the invitation to Covenant” with each other, even while acknowledging that the Episcopal Church had not kept to the moratoria the larger Communion had requested of them. This may lead some to wonder: Is there here a hint of Pollyanna, or perhaps Charlie Brown falling for Lucy’s football one more time? But there is much more going on here. The covenant has simply not been placed before the Communion in its final form, and it is not for him to say what the future decision of any province will be. That said, of course, the context for Williams’s reflections should not be missed—it is precisely following the actions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church that he saw fit to lay out, once again, his understanding of the two paths that lie ahead for Anglicans to choose, one covenanted and one federated.
Clearly, it is his read of the present moment that the Episcopal Church, in its actions this summer, has moved further down the federated path. And it is his hope for the future that as many Anglicans as possible, both within the Episcopal Church and around the globe, will move ever further toward the covenanted reality that holds such great promise. This, quite plainly, will have to do with both respecting the threefold moratoria (border crossing, same-sex blessings, and partnered gay bishops) as well as with signaling clear support—at the provincial, diocesan, and parish level—for the Ridley-Cambridge draft of the Anglican covenant. While the all-important Section 4 of the draft covenant, which deals with relational structure and discipline, is now being looked at again after the Anglican Consultative Council—thanks largely to Episcopal Church delegates—forced its delay, the entire logic of Williams’s letter points toward its adoption in full without change. And the more dioceses and parishes that show their support, the likelier that will be.
Actions, as Williams concludes, are “bound to have consequences.” But while Williams’s letter strongly points to the need for consequences following the actions of the actions of General Convention, there is now further need for Williams to show that his words have consequences. Whether rightly or wrongly, too many Anglicans around the world view Williams as inclined too much toward talk, unwilling to take action when action is called for. As such, there are too many Anglicans who will perhaps not be convinced by the weight of his words alone. At present, two members of the Joint Standing Committee—which will make the crucial decision, at the end of this year, whether or not to pass along the final draft of the Anglican covenant to the provinces for ratification—are members also of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori and Dr. Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Divinity School. It may be both right and prudent to ask them to step down—for if the Episcopal Church has decided not to abide by Communion decisions, then what right have they to make decisions for the Communion? Their participation will only deepen Communion-wide distrust of international Anglican bodies, and by taking action Williams will help renew the trust of many in his own office.
What, after all of this, is the future for ordinary faithful Anglicans in the United States, whether in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) or the Episcopal Church? The strong implication of Williams’s argument is that for both groups, the best and brightest future is with the Anglican Covenant. Both ACNA itself and the Communion Partners within the Episcopal Church have expressed their desire to sign on to the covenant, and while difficulties no doubt exist in both situations there is no reason to think that forward progress cannot be made by both parties. Where more serious difficulty exists, at present, is with those elements within ACNA that do not share an interest in the proposed covenant, as well as those places within the Episcopal Church that do not have the oversight of a Communion Partners bishop. Those who do have one or the other, however, can and should be confident in their ability to work from where they are for the good future of the covenanted Anglican Communion.
In my recent article, “Brave New Church,” I expressed a lack of confidence in the direction of the Episcopal Church’s leadership. But I do have confidence in the Communion Partners dioceses, both in where we stand and in where we're going. In my case, that means the diocese of Dallas, where I'm just now finishing up a summer internship, and my home diocese of North Dakota, where I'm a candidate for holy orders. I have good friends in ACNA too, many of whom recognize just as I do the need to work for the common covenanted future of the Anglican Communion.
We recognize that now is not the time for animosity and division; now is the time to work for the good of the entire Communion, wherever we may stand on the issues. That, I think, is where Rowan Williams is pointing us, and it’s my hope and belief that he’ll be in our corner as we work together for the Anglican future.
Jordan Hylden, a former junior fellow at First Things, is a graduate student at Duke Divinity School.
Jul 28, 2009
Jordan Hylden
Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, has issued his much-awaited response to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church: “Communion, Covenant, and our Anglican Future.” Although it’s not as lengthy as Pope Benedict’s recent encyclical, it’s sure to be parsed almost as carefully and debated nearly with the same intensity by Anglicans throughout the world. The letter is worthy of such scrutiny: As he has done so often in the past, Archbishop Williams has given us both a substantively theological read of the present moment and a sound and hopeful way forward for the Anglican Communion.
For those keeping score, the leadership of the Episcopal Church—including the Presiding Bishop, the president of the House of Deputies, and the church’s chief ecumenical officer—had attempted to argue that the actions of their General Convention didn’t go against the repeated requests of the wider Anglican Communion to stop progress on same-sex blessings and partnered gay bishops. Williams was not convinced: “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 favor,” he wrote. In short: The communion’s request for moratoria has been answered, and the answer is “No.”
In fact, as Williams argues, to change the received Anglican position on sexual ethics would require a quite sharp re-thinking of biblical teaching, something that even if possible would require a level of consensus among Anglicans and ecumenical partners that simply has not been reached. “In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years,” says Williams, “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.” There is therefore no warrant for moving forward on this issue as a province, diocese, or parish.
As a result, Williams contends that “it is hard to see how [a person in a same-sex relationship] can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires. . . . 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.” In a similar way, it is difficult to see “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.” Here, the logic of Williams’s argument is that the Episcopal Church’s consecration of Gene Robinson and its expressed openness to further such bishops, as well as its practice of offering same-sex blessings, must affect its ability to serve in representative roles both for and within Anglicanism.
This is so, Williams explains, because of the venerable catholic principle that “what affects the communion of all should be decided by all.” Without the difficult process of consulting the wider body of Christ when a local church seeks either to respond to a new question or to answer an old question in a new way, that church runs the risk of “becoming unrecognizable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.” The end result is a cacophony of churches all preaching different gospels, with none of them sure anymore if they are indeed proclaiming one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.
This does not mean—as Williams is quick to point out—that everything we do and preach must be precisely the same. On some issues, Anglicans may indeed agree to disagree, and there are no absolutely clear rules for determining when this will be permissible. But it does mean that developments in matters of faith and morals cannot be done independently, without the consultation of both the wider Anglican Communion and our ecumenical partners. “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,” Williams argues. “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’.”
Although this is clearly not how Williams envisions the Anglican Communion, he admits that not all Anglicans agree with him on this point. Some view Anglican fellowship instead “as best expressed in a more federalist and pluralist way,” he concedes. “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 centralization and authoritarianism are the most worrying.” But although this is the self-understanding of many Episcopalians (such as Bishop Stacy Sauls, who has publicly stated that even the word “federation” is for him a bridge too far), Williams insists that this is not how Anglicanism has commonly understood itself, particularly in recent years with the advent of Lambeth conferences, instruments of unity and governance such as the Anglican Consultative Council, and ecumenical dialogues.
It is precisely this emerging ecclesial reality, he argues, that the Anglican Covenant proposal has sought to secure—namely, “to do justice to that aspect of Anglican history that has resisted mere federation.” Proponents of the covenant, Williams explains, are not out to exclude people or grasp power, but instead simply “seek structures that will express the need for mutual reconcilability, mutual consultation and some shared processes of decision-making. They are emphatically not about centralization but about mutual responsibility.” As such the proposed covenant is the best hope Anglicans have for strengthening the bonds of relationship that tie them together and avoiding the path of local isolation and fragmentation.
No one, Williams emphasizes, will be forced into this, and no one who chooses a different path need fear being “cast into the outer darkness.” Relationships of affinity and partnership in mission will no doubt continue in any case. But those who decline the opportunity to walk together with other Anglicans in mutual responsibility and discernment, electing instead to place a higher value on local and provincial autonomy, will have chosen a path that will inevitably lead to a degree of differentiation from their covenanted Anglican brothers and sisters. This is to be regretted, but such is a path that can be chosen in good faith and need not lead to acrimony. Williams strongly urges that such decisions be made peaceably and with respect for the conscience of all, particularly those who seek to covenant with the larger Communion but find themselves within provinces that choose not to. The treatment of such Anglicans—and here, Williams has both the Communion Partners within the Episcopal Church and others elsewhere in mind—is, he asserts, an “important” question that requires a “clear answer.”
Notably, Williams still expresses his “strong hope that all the provinces will respond favorably to the invitation to Covenant” with each other, even while acknowledging that the Episcopal Church had not kept to the moratoria the larger Communion had requested of them. This may lead some to wonder: Is there here a hint of Pollyanna, or perhaps Charlie Brown falling for Lucy’s football one more time? But there is much more going on here. The covenant has simply not been placed before the Communion in its final form, and it is not for him to say what the future decision of any province will be. That said, of course, the context for Williams’s reflections should not be missed—it is precisely following the actions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church that he saw fit to lay out, once again, his understanding of the two paths that lie ahead for Anglicans to choose, one covenanted and one federated.
Clearly, it is his read of the present moment that the Episcopal Church, in its actions this summer, has moved further down the federated path. And it is his hope for the future that as many Anglicans as possible, both within the Episcopal Church and around the globe, will move ever further toward the covenanted reality that holds such great promise. This, quite plainly, will have to do with both respecting the threefold moratoria (border crossing, same-sex blessings, and partnered gay bishops) as well as with signaling clear support—at the provincial, diocesan, and parish level—for the Ridley-Cambridge draft of the Anglican covenant. While the all-important Section 4 of the draft covenant, which deals with relational structure and discipline, is now being looked at again after the Anglican Consultative Council—thanks largely to Episcopal Church delegates—forced its delay, the entire logic of Williams’s letter points toward its adoption in full without change. And the more dioceses and parishes that show their support, the likelier that will be.
Actions, as Williams concludes, are “bound to have consequences.” But while Williams’s letter strongly points to the need for consequences following the actions of the actions of General Convention, there is now further need for Williams to show that his words have consequences. Whether rightly or wrongly, too many Anglicans around the world view Williams as inclined too much toward talk, unwilling to take action when action is called for. As such, there are too many Anglicans who will perhaps not be convinced by the weight of his words alone. At present, two members of the Joint Standing Committee—which will make the crucial decision, at the end of this year, whether or not to pass along the final draft of the Anglican covenant to the provinces for ratification—are members also of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori and Dr. Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Divinity School. It may be both right and prudent to ask them to step down—for if the Episcopal Church has decided not to abide by Communion decisions, then what right have they to make decisions for the Communion? Their participation will only deepen Communion-wide distrust of international Anglican bodies, and by taking action Williams will help renew the trust of many in his own office.
What, after all of this, is the future for ordinary faithful Anglicans in the United States, whether in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) or the Episcopal Church? The strong implication of Williams’s argument is that for both groups, the best and brightest future is with the Anglican Covenant. Both ACNA itself and the Communion Partners within the Episcopal Church have expressed their desire to sign on to the covenant, and while difficulties no doubt exist in both situations there is no reason to think that forward progress cannot be made by both parties. Where more serious difficulty exists, at present, is with those elements within ACNA that do not share an interest in the proposed covenant, as well as those places within the Episcopal Church that do not have the oversight of a Communion Partners bishop. Those who do have one or the other, however, can and should be confident in their ability to work from where they are for the good future of the covenanted Anglican Communion.
In my recent article, “Brave New Church,” I expressed a lack of confidence in the direction of the Episcopal Church’s leadership. But I do have confidence in the Communion Partners dioceses, both in where we stand and in where we're going. In my case, that means the diocese of Dallas, where I'm just now finishing up a summer internship, and my home diocese of North Dakota, where I'm a candidate for holy orders. I have good friends in ACNA too, many of whom recognize just as I do the need to work for the common covenanted future of the Anglican Communion.
We recognize that now is not the time for animosity and division; now is the time to work for the good of the entire Communion, wherever we may stand on the issues. That, I think, is where Rowan Williams is pointing us, and it’s my hope and belief that he’ll be in our corner as we work together for the Anglican future.
Jordan Hylden, a former junior fellow at First Things, is a graduate student at Duke Divinity School.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Could the Pope Aid an Anglican Split?
From Time Magazine via TitusOneNine:
Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2008
By David Van Biema / New York and Jeff Israely / Rome
The scene on Monday at the Synod of the Church of England was wild. The Archbishop of Canterbury cradled his head in his hands; his presumptive successor, the Archbishop of York, appeared to be tearing at his head; and a lower-ranking prelate was reduced to public tears.
The cause of this drama was a series of votes, over the vehement objections of traditionalists, allowing the church to name female bishops. To rub it in further, the Synod of the Church of England slapped down a counterproposal that would have allowed conservative parishes to avoid answering to female bishops and submit to an independent authority of special (that is, male) "superbishops" instead. Faced with this crushing denial, a sizable chunk of traditionalist priests and bishops could well leave their church. On Wednesday, one bishop announced his intent to take his flock with him.
Does this sound familiar? A non-English spectator might be tempted to think that the agony was another chapter in the battle between theological conservatives and liberals that currently threatens the unity of both the global Anglican Communion and the U.S. Episcopal Church. (The Church of England is the flagship of the Communion and the Episcopal Church is a member.) In fact, on its face, the Church of England's crisis is only distantly related to the global or American scene. However, it might draw in a very powerful observer from outside the Communion who could make things very interesting: Pope Benedict XVI.
Both the special nature of the English crisis and the Pope's possible involvement hinge on the fact that most of the English dissidents this week are not the evangelical, Bible-thumping members of the Communion whose fury at the American ordination of an openly gay bishop has led to talks of schism this summer. Rather they are members of a faction, heavy on liturgy and ritual, that abhors evangelicalism but considers itself very close to the Catholicism from which the Anglican Church originally sprang. Many "Anglo-Catholics" share Rome's opposition to female ordination. They have also historically hoped for a reunion with Catholicism, and correctly assume that female bishops would be a deal-breaker in any negotiation with Rome. So the move to ordain women bishops is more than some of them can stand. In a petition last week, some 1,300 Anglican priests and bishops stated that if the Synod voted along the lines that it eventually did on Monday, that "we will inevitably be asking whether we can... continue [with] the Church of England which has been our home."
Would they actually leave? This is where the Pope comes in. For an ordained clergyman to depart his cradle faith is a lonely endeavor, done individually. But that is probably not how things will roll out in this case. A Catholic Church official explained to TIME that the last time a situation like this arose (when the Church of England voted to allow women to become priests), "some 400 [dissidents] became Catholic priests or bishops." The issue, he says, is "whether there is some way for [the current crop] to come into the Catholic Church in a corporate way, [with] their [congregations]." Along those lines, he notes, there are so-called "Anglican Rite" groups in the U.S. that maintain Anglican ritual, but recognize the Pope's authority and count as Catholics.
In fact, in a letter to the newspaper The Catholic Herald on Wednesday, the Rt. Rev. Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Eversfleet, announced his intention of converting to Catholicism — along with his diocese. According to the Herald, Burnham and another traditionalist Bishop have been discussing the migration of Anglo-Catholics with Cardinals William Levada and Walter Kasper, two of the Vatican's most powerful prelates. Burnham's letter requests "magnanimous gestures by our Catholic friends, especially the Holy Father, who well understands our longing for unity." According to the Herald, Burnham has been requesting a dispensation whereby Anglicans could remain in their parishes guided by Catholic bishops.
Terry Mattingly, for years an acute observer of the Anglican scene as founder of the popular religion blog Getreligion.org, and a religion columnist for Scripps Howard says, "I expect some of the old-school Anglo-Catholics to pack up and go to Rome, period." But if Benedict were to sweeten the pot by allowing an Anglican Rite Church in England, "that's gotta be huge." And when Mattingly says "huge," he doesn't just mean for the Anglo-Catholics. Rather, he believes that an exodus of that size could affect the worldwide Communion after all, by giving other dissidents, with entirely different grievances, a model with which to unravel the fabric of Anglicanism.
Mattingly points out that more so than in other religious groupings, one of the things that holds the Anglican Communion together is the simple belief that the Anglican Communion must hold together. The case can be made that a dutiful sense of global unity, represented by four "instruments" — including the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams — is stronger than any Anglican doctrinal agreement. Mattingly suggests that the departure of 1,300 priests and bishops from the English mother church could act as a kind of spell-breaking moment, the first time during the Communion's current round of troubles when a significant number of Anglicans "are saying, 'I'm no longer in communion with Canterbury.'"
Such a defection, as it played out in terms of theology, finances and British law, would be a kind of seminar for all possible schismatics on how to break with the Communion, without the world ending. Other dissidents might then feel freer to go their own way.
And it could happen a good deal sooner than almost any other version of schism, primarily because it would take the key decision out of the hands of the Anglicans, who, as Mattingly puts it, "have a special knack for not making decisions." Rome, he notes, "doesn't usually act fast, either. But Rome — and especially, it seems to me, Benedict — has a knack for acting with clarity more than Anglicanism."
Mattingly's argument — which he would admit is only a possibility, not a prediction — may underestimate Anglican desire to stay Anglicans; or overestimate the willingness of the Roman Catholic Pope to play spoiler in the disintegration of another centuries-old international Christian body, even if he has his differences with it. But in this sour Anglican year, it is difficult to guarantee that the head-cradling, hair-pulling and weeping of the mother church might not become a worldwide epidemic.
Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2008
By David Van Biema / New York and Jeff Israely / Rome
The scene on Monday at the Synod of the Church of England was wild. The Archbishop of Canterbury cradled his head in his hands; his presumptive successor, the Archbishop of York, appeared to be tearing at his head; and a lower-ranking prelate was reduced to public tears.
The cause of this drama was a series of votes, over the vehement objections of traditionalists, allowing the church to name female bishops. To rub it in further, the Synod of the Church of England slapped down a counterproposal that would have allowed conservative parishes to avoid answering to female bishops and submit to an independent authority of special (that is, male) "superbishops" instead. Faced with this crushing denial, a sizable chunk of traditionalist priests and bishops could well leave their church. On Wednesday, one bishop announced his intent to take his flock with him.
Does this sound familiar? A non-English spectator might be tempted to think that the agony was another chapter in the battle between theological conservatives and liberals that currently threatens the unity of both the global Anglican Communion and the U.S. Episcopal Church. (The Church of England is the flagship of the Communion and the Episcopal Church is a member.) In fact, on its face, the Church of England's crisis is only distantly related to the global or American scene. However, it might draw in a very powerful observer from outside the Communion who could make things very interesting: Pope Benedict XVI.
Both the special nature of the English crisis and the Pope's possible involvement hinge on the fact that most of the English dissidents this week are not the evangelical, Bible-thumping members of the Communion whose fury at the American ordination of an openly gay bishop has led to talks of schism this summer. Rather they are members of a faction, heavy on liturgy and ritual, that abhors evangelicalism but considers itself very close to the Catholicism from which the Anglican Church originally sprang. Many "Anglo-Catholics" share Rome's opposition to female ordination. They have also historically hoped for a reunion with Catholicism, and correctly assume that female bishops would be a deal-breaker in any negotiation with Rome. So the move to ordain women bishops is more than some of them can stand. In a petition last week, some 1,300 Anglican priests and bishops stated that if the Synod voted along the lines that it eventually did on Monday, that "we will inevitably be asking whether we can... continue [with] the Church of England which has been our home."
Would they actually leave? This is where the Pope comes in. For an ordained clergyman to depart his cradle faith is a lonely endeavor, done individually. But that is probably not how things will roll out in this case. A Catholic Church official explained to TIME that the last time a situation like this arose (when the Church of England voted to allow women to become priests), "some 400 [dissidents] became Catholic priests or bishops." The issue, he says, is "whether there is some way for [the current crop] to come into the Catholic Church in a corporate way, [with] their [congregations]." Along those lines, he notes, there are so-called "Anglican Rite" groups in the U.S. that maintain Anglican ritual, but recognize the Pope's authority and count as Catholics.
In fact, in a letter to the newspaper The Catholic Herald on Wednesday, the Rt. Rev. Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Eversfleet, announced his intention of converting to Catholicism — along with his diocese. According to the Herald, Burnham and another traditionalist Bishop have been discussing the migration of Anglo-Catholics with Cardinals William Levada and Walter Kasper, two of the Vatican's most powerful prelates. Burnham's letter requests "magnanimous gestures by our Catholic friends, especially the Holy Father, who well understands our longing for unity." According to the Herald, Burnham has been requesting a dispensation whereby Anglicans could remain in their parishes guided by Catholic bishops.
Terry Mattingly, for years an acute observer of the Anglican scene as founder of the popular religion blog Getreligion.org, and a religion columnist for Scripps Howard says, "I expect some of the old-school Anglo-Catholics to pack up and go to Rome, period." But if Benedict were to sweeten the pot by allowing an Anglican Rite Church in England, "that's gotta be huge." And when Mattingly says "huge," he doesn't just mean for the Anglo-Catholics. Rather, he believes that an exodus of that size could affect the worldwide Communion after all, by giving other dissidents, with entirely different grievances, a model with which to unravel the fabric of Anglicanism.
Mattingly points out that more so than in other religious groupings, one of the things that holds the Anglican Communion together is the simple belief that the Anglican Communion must hold together. The case can be made that a dutiful sense of global unity, represented by four "instruments" — including the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams — is stronger than any Anglican doctrinal agreement. Mattingly suggests that the departure of 1,300 priests and bishops from the English mother church could act as a kind of spell-breaking moment, the first time during the Communion's current round of troubles when a significant number of Anglicans "are saying, 'I'm no longer in communion with Canterbury.'"
Such a defection, as it played out in terms of theology, finances and British law, would be a kind of seminar for all possible schismatics on how to break with the Communion, without the world ending. Other dissidents might then feel freer to go their own way.
And it could happen a good deal sooner than almost any other version of schism, primarily because it would take the key decision out of the hands of the Anglicans, who, as Mattingly puts it, "have a special knack for not making decisions." Rome, he notes, "doesn't usually act fast, either. But Rome — and especially, it seems to me, Benedict — has a knack for acting with clarity more than Anglicanism."
Mattingly's argument — which he would admit is only a possibility, not a prediction — may underestimate Anglican desire to stay Anglicans; or overestimate the willingness of the Roman Catholic Pope to play spoiler in the disintegration of another centuries-old international Christian body, even if he has his differences with it. But in this sour Anglican year, it is difficult to guarantee that the head-cradling, hair-pulling and weeping of the mother church might not become a worldwide epidemic.
Monday, August 24, 2009
The Fictional World of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 23, 2009
New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson told a large audience at St. Mark's Cathedral, Salt Lake City, Utah, recently that at the end of the day the Anglican Communion will be fine. During the address he gave an upbeat report about the Anglican Communion's future citing, among other things, Desmond Tutu, his own sexual proclivities and why the wider Anglican Communion will ultimately hold together.
Bishop Robinson's ability at fiction writing and story-telling was apparently evident in the book -signing of his latest book, "In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God", once priced in hardcover for $25.00 and now available for $5.63 at Amazon.com. Many, however, believe he was "swept to the center" not by God, but by votes of the HOB and Standing Committees of a theologically brain scrambled denomination who long ago ditched their Bibles in favor of a cultural zeitgeist more amenable and malleable to pansexuality than biblical revelation.
"These last few years have been another chapter in God's people trying to find out how broad and merciful is God and God's love. We can be proud of our response," said Robinson.
Really. If "breadth" and "merciful" are the indicators, Robinson needs to explain the continuing withering of The Episcopal Church along with an horrendous fall off in members since he was consecrated bishop in 2003. How does he explain the advent of The Anglican Church in North America with more than 100,000 members, most of whom he is indirectly responsible for because of his sexual behavior. Or what of the "merciful" actions of PB Katharine Jefferts Schori who has adopted a Berlin Wall approach to fleeing Episcopalians?
Robinson told the New York Times that his diocese had grown by three per cent last year. That is flat out untrue. Every diocese in TEC, with one exception, - the Diocese of South Carolina - has lost membership, some great (splitting dioceses), some smaller through attrition, death, and moved membership.
Noting that the Episcopal Church struggled with questions of race in the 1960s and gender in the 1970s, Robinson said, "There will be another and another brouhaha until there is no more us vs. them, until there is just us. By then we'll be in heaven."
Robinson is being highly presumptuous to suggest that "we'll be (all) in heaven". How does he know that? These "brouhahas" have come about largely because of him and his actions. It has cost orthodox laity, clergy and bishops millions of dollars in lost properties, with millions more in lost pensions, salaries, bad health, firings, split churches, agonizing soul-searching and unmentionable pain. Robinson has not suffered, but caused all this, because he demands that his sodomite behavior be accepted by hundreds of thousands of Episcopalians and millions of Anglicans around the world. He has single-handedly done more damage than any Borgia Pope could possibly have achieved, all in the name of his selfish, self-absorbed, narcissistic behavior.
Robinson said that recent attempts to redefine the Anglican Communion as a centralized body are the product "of a small minority that have lost votes here and are now turning to the Anglican Communion, trying to reassert their power elsewhere."
No one has "centralized" the Anglican Communion more than the Archbishop of Canterbury. Dr. Rowan Williams single-handedly ran The Lambeth Conference. Many believe he is acting alone in an almost papal-like manner over the breakup of the Anglican Communion. For his "sins", he is being vilified by the theological left, a variety of British pansexual organizations, with the majority of his support coming, ironically, from liberal evangelicals like Fulcrum (a blog) and Durham Bishop Tom Wright.
Robinson has stated, "We absolutely need our partners. They are the ones that have been the victims of poverty, racism, and American hegemony. We desperately need the Anglican Communion more than they need us. We need their truth told in love, and I work day and night for that."
Reality check. 22 of the 38 Anglican Communion primates and their provinces have declared they are in "broken communion" with TEC, largely because of Robinson. What about the word "broken" does Robinson not understand? Furthermore, they have rejected money from TEC to fight problems of "poverty and racism" because the money comes at too high a price - the souls of their people. Biblically speaking, they believe that Robison and his fellow Episcopal pansexualists are risking their eternal souls by their behavior and want no part of it. He is right about one thing, however; TEC needs the Anglican Communion more than the Anglican Communion needs TEC.
However, Jefferts Schori is making noises that she is prepared to step up to the plate and develop links between liberal parishes in the UK and establish a TEC outpost in London.
Furthermore, the Lesbian and Gay Christian groups in the UK have rejected the Archbishop's proposal of a two- track communion, which now seems dead on arrival.
The New Hampshire church leader said that the proposed Anglican covenant is the work of those who "long for a mechanism so that any church can be kept from going too far. Those people call themselves traditionalists, but I would argue they are trying to take us to a place we have never been before."
So a proposed Covenant is seemingly dead killed off not by conservatives, but by liberals who don't want anyone telling them what to do or how to live their lives. God forbid anyone should do that.
"I don't think it's going to happen," Robinson said of the covenant. "We are not alone in resisting this idea." He is right. It isn't going to happen regardless of how many drafts are written.
"At the end of the day, the Anglican Communion is going to be fine," he said. "It's going to be messy. There are some churches that are not messy, but there is great value and treasure in our messiness, once you just get used to it."
That "messiness" has cost clergy and laity millions of dollars, personal vilification by Robinson himself and many of his fellow liberal bishops like John Chane (Washington) and Jon Bruno (Los Angelse); repeated bashings of Global South Primates as homophobic and fundamentalist and much more. The Anglican Communion is not fine. It is falling apart with the vain hope that the ABC's two tracks or two tier solution will somehow rescue it.
Referring to the pending election of bishops in the dioceses of Minneapolis and Los Angeles, both of which have nominated gay or lesbian candidates, Robinson said, "Maybe I will have a special friend in the House of Bishops. It would be nice to have someone like me who has had these experiences as a special friend. It will happen -- it is a question of when."
Mrs. Jefferts Schori is publicly on record saying that she knows of other "partnered" bishops in the HOB. So, why have they not stepped up to the plate and come out, publicly supporting Robinson? Why have they left him to carry the gay ball all these years? It is the height of hypocrisy for them to hide behind closeted doors while Gene takes all the heat.
And what if a gay or lesbian is elected? Will the ABC be able to schmooze it away when Jefferts Schori is a co-consecrator? Will he try to draw yet another line in the sand giving TEC another pass? Will the Primates play dumb and roll over. They have seen this before and they won't play dumb. Is Williams prepared for the fall out? Will he trot out his two-track solution to the Primates in order to keep the Communion together?
Perhaps Robinson should reflect on this. With the advent of GAFCON, ACNA and FCA, a shadow Anglican Communion is slowly being built alongside the dying structure that is currently in place.
Orthodox Anglicans have said repeatedly that they are staying because they are not the ones who have moved from the faith once delivered, but the liberals who have departed the faith. Canon Chris Sugden put it succinctly when he wrote:
The GAFCON conference in Jerusalem and the launch of FCA was part of the plan to affirm the nature of orthodox Anglican identity and to provide support for those being pressured by the aggressive liberal agenda. That planning culminated in the birth the Anglican Church in North America.
The launch of the Anglican Church in North America and FCA (UK and Ireland) showed that the GAFCON movement was not just in Africa, but that it was firmly located in the North Atlantic, as well and was committed to promoting biblically faithful, authentically Anglican mission. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans will be launched in South Africa in the first week of September and in North America in the fall, embracing those within and outside of TEC."
Sugden concluded by saying that the understanding of the church that underlies the Jerusalem Statement (GAFCON) is not separatist. The movement has said it is "standing (for the truth) and staying (Anglican)".
If Robinson thinks that all is well that all manner of things will be well, and that everything, at the end of the day is going to be fine, then he is in complete denial, deluding not only himself but his fellow liberal and revisionist travelers.
Bishop Mark Lawrence, when he was rector of St Paul's Episcopal parish in Bakersfield, CA, in the Diocese of San Joaquin, put it succinctly when he wrote in 2006, "The Episcopal Church in the United States of America is dying -- a comatose patient on life support. The insufficient apparatus of aging communicants, and the evaporating wealth of prior generations will not sustain the patient indefinitely. Keeping vigil at its bedside, Episcopalianism, by which I mean the ethos of that body of Anglicans in the U.S., waits, gripped by a culture of denial, which includes its inability to look at either the declining health or the ecclesiology of the dying institution to which its constitution and canons tie it. Moreover, it has lost its Anglican identity, even while it has failed to reach its own American culture in any significant way. The average Episcopalian, parish church and mission, bishop and priest, seem to prefer to sleep at the bedside of the patient, thoughtless of the impending trauma, than to prepare for the inevitable or take swift action to avert it."
It is Bishop Robinson who is on the wrong side of history, faith and the future. And he will be answerable "in that day" for the damage he has done.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 23, 2009
New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson told a large audience at St. Mark's Cathedral, Salt Lake City, Utah, recently that at the end of the day the Anglican Communion will be fine. During the address he gave an upbeat report about the Anglican Communion's future citing, among other things, Desmond Tutu, his own sexual proclivities and why the wider Anglican Communion will ultimately hold together.
Bishop Robinson's ability at fiction writing and story-telling was apparently evident in the book -signing of his latest book, "In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God", once priced in hardcover for $25.00 and now available for $5.63 at Amazon.com. Many, however, believe he was "swept to the center" not by God, but by votes of the HOB and Standing Committees of a theologically brain scrambled denomination who long ago ditched their Bibles in favor of a cultural zeitgeist more amenable and malleable to pansexuality than biblical revelation.
"These last few years have been another chapter in God's people trying to find out how broad and merciful is God and God's love. We can be proud of our response," said Robinson.
Really. If "breadth" and "merciful" are the indicators, Robinson needs to explain the continuing withering of The Episcopal Church along with an horrendous fall off in members since he was consecrated bishop in 2003. How does he explain the advent of The Anglican Church in North America with more than 100,000 members, most of whom he is indirectly responsible for because of his sexual behavior. Or what of the "merciful" actions of PB Katharine Jefferts Schori who has adopted a Berlin Wall approach to fleeing Episcopalians?
Robinson told the New York Times that his diocese had grown by three per cent last year. That is flat out untrue. Every diocese in TEC, with one exception, - the Diocese of South Carolina - has lost membership, some great (splitting dioceses), some smaller through attrition, death, and moved membership.
Noting that the Episcopal Church struggled with questions of race in the 1960s and gender in the 1970s, Robinson said, "There will be another and another brouhaha until there is no more us vs. them, until there is just us. By then we'll be in heaven."
Robinson is being highly presumptuous to suggest that "we'll be (all) in heaven". How does he know that? These "brouhahas" have come about largely because of him and his actions. It has cost orthodox laity, clergy and bishops millions of dollars in lost properties, with millions more in lost pensions, salaries, bad health, firings, split churches, agonizing soul-searching and unmentionable pain. Robinson has not suffered, but caused all this, because he demands that his sodomite behavior be accepted by hundreds of thousands of Episcopalians and millions of Anglicans around the world. He has single-handedly done more damage than any Borgia Pope could possibly have achieved, all in the name of his selfish, self-absorbed, narcissistic behavior.
Robinson said that recent attempts to redefine the Anglican Communion as a centralized body are the product "of a small minority that have lost votes here and are now turning to the Anglican Communion, trying to reassert their power elsewhere."
No one has "centralized" the Anglican Communion more than the Archbishop of Canterbury. Dr. Rowan Williams single-handedly ran The Lambeth Conference. Many believe he is acting alone in an almost papal-like manner over the breakup of the Anglican Communion. For his "sins", he is being vilified by the theological left, a variety of British pansexual organizations, with the majority of his support coming, ironically, from liberal evangelicals like Fulcrum (a blog) and Durham Bishop Tom Wright.
Robinson has stated, "We absolutely need our partners. They are the ones that have been the victims of poverty, racism, and American hegemony. We desperately need the Anglican Communion more than they need us. We need their truth told in love, and I work day and night for that."
Reality check. 22 of the 38 Anglican Communion primates and their provinces have declared they are in "broken communion" with TEC, largely because of Robinson. What about the word "broken" does Robinson not understand? Furthermore, they have rejected money from TEC to fight problems of "poverty and racism" because the money comes at too high a price - the souls of their people. Biblically speaking, they believe that Robison and his fellow Episcopal pansexualists are risking their eternal souls by their behavior and want no part of it. He is right about one thing, however; TEC needs the Anglican Communion more than the Anglican Communion needs TEC.
However, Jefferts Schori is making noises that she is prepared to step up to the plate and develop links between liberal parishes in the UK and establish a TEC outpost in London.
Furthermore, the Lesbian and Gay Christian groups in the UK have rejected the Archbishop's proposal of a two- track communion, which now seems dead on arrival.
The New Hampshire church leader said that the proposed Anglican covenant is the work of those who "long for a mechanism so that any church can be kept from going too far. Those people call themselves traditionalists, but I would argue they are trying to take us to a place we have never been before."
So a proposed Covenant is seemingly dead killed off not by conservatives, but by liberals who don't want anyone telling them what to do or how to live their lives. God forbid anyone should do that.
"I don't think it's going to happen," Robinson said of the covenant. "We are not alone in resisting this idea." He is right. It isn't going to happen regardless of how many drafts are written.
"At the end of the day, the Anglican Communion is going to be fine," he said. "It's going to be messy. There are some churches that are not messy, but there is great value and treasure in our messiness, once you just get used to it."
That "messiness" has cost clergy and laity millions of dollars, personal vilification by Robinson himself and many of his fellow liberal bishops like John Chane (Washington) and Jon Bruno (Los Angelse); repeated bashings of Global South Primates as homophobic and fundamentalist and much more. The Anglican Communion is not fine. It is falling apart with the vain hope that the ABC's two tracks or two tier solution will somehow rescue it.
Referring to the pending election of bishops in the dioceses of Minneapolis and Los Angeles, both of which have nominated gay or lesbian candidates, Robinson said, "Maybe I will have a special friend in the House of Bishops. It would be nice to have someone like me who has had these experiences as a special friend. It will happen -- it is a question of when."
Mrs. Jefferts Schori is publicly on record saying that she knows of other "partnered" bishops in the HOB. So, why have they not stepped up to the plate and come out, publicly supporting Robinson? Why have they left him to carry the gay ball all these years? It is the height of hypocrisy for them to hide behind closeted doors while Gene takes all the heat.
And what if a gay or lesbian is elected? Will the ABC be able to schmooze it away when Jefferts Schori is a co-consecrator? Will he try to draw yet another line in the sand giving TEC another pass? Will the Primates play dumb and roll over. They have seen this before and they won't play dumb. Is Williams prepared for the fall out? Will he trot out his two-track solution to the Primates in order to keep the Communion together?
Perhaps Robinson should reflect on this. With the advent of GAFCON, ACNA and FCA, a shadow Anglican Communion is slowly being built alongside the dying structure that is currently in place.
Orthodox Anglicans have said repeatedly that they are staying because they are not the ones who have moved from the faith once delivered, but the liberals who have departed the faith. Canon Chris Sugden put it succinctly when he wrote:
The GAFCON conference in Jerusalem and the launch of FCA was part of the plan to affirm the nature of orthodox Anglican identity and to provide support for those being pressured by the aggressive liberal agenda. That planning culminated in the birth the Anglican Church in North America.
The launch of the Anglican Church in North America and FCA (UK and Ireland) showed that the GAFCON movement was not just in Africa, but that it was firmly located in the North Atlantic, as well and was committed to promoting biblically faithful, authentically Anglican mission. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans will be launched in South Africa in the first week of September and in North America in the fall, embracing those within and outside of TEC."
Sugden concluded by saying that the understanding of the church that underlies the Jerusalem Statement (GAFCON) is not separatist. The movement has said it is "standing (for the truth) and staying (Anglican)".
If Robinson thinks that all is well that all manner of things will be well, and that everything, at the end of the day is going to be fine, then he is in complete denial, deluding not only himself but his fellow liberal and revisionist travelers.
Bishop Mark Lawrence, when he was rector of St Paul's Episcopal parish in Bakersfield, CA, in the Diocese of San Joaquin, put it succinctly when he wrote in 2006, "The Episcopal Church in the United States of America is dying -- a comatose patient on life support. The insufficient apparatus of aging communicants, and the evaporating wealth of prior generations will not sustain the patient indefinitely. Keeping vigil at its bedside, Episcopalianism, by which I mean the ethos of that body of Anglicans in the U.S., waits, gripped by a culture of denial, which includes its inability to look at either the declining health or the ecclesiology of the dying institution to which its constitution and canons tie it. Moreover, it has lost its Anglican identity, even while it has failed to reach its own American culture in any significant way. The average Episcopalian, parish church and mission, bishop and priest, seem to prefer to sleep at the bedside of the patient, thoughtless of the impending trauma, than to prepare for the inevitable or take swift action to avert it."
It is Bishop Robinson who is on the wrong side of history, faith and the future. And he will be answerable "in that day" for the damage he has done.
END
Brave New Church
From First Things via Stand Firm:
Jul 21, 2009
by Jordan Hylden
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, 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.
Jordan Hylden, a former junior fellow at First Things, is a graduate student at Duke Divinity School.
Jul 21, 2009
by Jordan Hylden
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, 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.
Jordan Hylden, a former junior fellow at First Things, is a graduate student at Duke Divinity School.
NPR religion reporter dusts off fingerprints of God
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 08/21/2009 02:23:31 PM MDT
Journalist Barbara Bradley Hagerty came to the study of the God gene, monk's brains, peyote-induced visions and healing prayers by an unlikely path: her own mystical experience.
During a June 1995 interview with a cancer survivor and born-again Christian, Hagerty felt engulfed by a presence she could feel but not touch. After a minute or so, the presence dissipated but left Hagerty with a mixture of terror and exhilaration and an ineffable experience she could neither fully grasp nor completely dismiss.
Was God real, she wondered, or just some brain blip?
So Hagerty, religion reporter for National Public Radio, did what comes naturally -- she posed the question to believers, practitioners, psychologists, experts and scientists, then sifted their answers and analyzed the data. The result of her yearlong research is the just published Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality , which she recently previewed for Utah audiences.
Not surprisingly, Hagerty concluded that science cannot prove God -- but science is consistent with God. She sees a nascent "paradigm shift" among scientists toward increasing acceptance of something beyond the five senses.
"Many scientists suspect that the days are numbered for a purely materialistic paradigm," she writes in Fingerprints . "They believe that the evidence challenging the matter-only model is building, bolstered by research on meditation, the
Advertisement
mechanisms for prayer, and more radical studies on the neurology of near-death experiences."
For Hagerty, the research only buttressed her belief in God.
"Spirituality is in a class by itself; it's not like a beautiful walk in the woods, a transcendent opera or a once-in-a-lifetime baseball game," Hagerty said in an interview. "After an experience with the divine, it changes everything about you in ways opera, nature or baseball just don't."
Asking questions » Science no longer questions the notion that thoughts and emotions affect physical health, Hagerty writes, but one researcher has taken it a step further, concluding that spirituality can halt the progress of diseases such as HIV.
"Turning to God rather than rejecting God appears to boost your immune system and stave off the disease nearly five times as effectively," physician Gail Ironson at the University of Miami told her.
Next Hagerty explored the genetics of belief. Is a predisposition to believe in God in a person's DNA?
After interviews with Dean Hamer, researcher at the National Institute of Health's National Cancer Institute and author of The God Gene , Francis Collins, former head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Pat McNamara of Boston University as well as several skeptics, Hagerty concludes that genes do seem to play a role as a "sort of tipping point for spiritual experience."
"It's a little bit like automatic air-conditioning," she writes. "For some people, a relatively modest rise in temperature ... can flip on the cooler system. Those people are genetically inclined to be spiritual. Others may sweat it out to 90, 95, 100 degrees; only then will their God switch flip on. And some would rather die of heat than turn to 'God.' "
Hagerty wondered if spiritual experience could be induced by chemicals, so she participated in an American Indian peyote ceremony (without ingesting). She later went to Johns Hopkins University's Medical Center, where Roland Griffiths studies the effect of psilocybin (mushrooms) on spirituality.
None of it convinced her that mystical experience is nothing but brain activity.
"If there were an Other who wanted to commune with us, of course He or She or It would use the brain to do so, as opposed to say, the left big toe. Of course God would use the chemistry in our brains to create visions," Hagerty writes. "He would also use electricity."
From there, she examined the neuroscience research on the brains of mystics, monks and nuns -- all of which clearly shows activity in the temporal lobe of those who are meditating deeply. Later, she looked at so-called prayer studies in which people pray for unknown patients, and she talked with people who reported out-of-body experiences.
Hagerty's book is a "wonderful review for the nonspecialist reader of a whole lot of new neuroscience work, showing that the physical brain is not all there is," said Richard Sherlock, a philosophy professor at Utah State University. "She presents both sides, but clearly thinks that the new studies are valuable and cannot be explained away."
The Jesus question » What is unique in Hagerty's book is her willingness to offer candid responses to scientific findings, infusing the narrative with her own soul-searching experiences.
She describes, for example, moving away from the Christian Science faith of her childhood, then realizing founder Mary Baker Eddy may have had some important mind-body insights that modern seekers are just now discovering. She shares a frightening experience of being lost and panicked on a dark mountain in Tennessee and of discovering that her grandmother had what can be described only as a near-death experience.
It was tough for the award-winning reporter for The Christian Science Monitor and NPR to be so self-revealing. But she wanted readers to know these weren't just academic questions to her. They mattered.
"Journalists often treat religious people as if they're anthropologists, as in 'look at those funny little people with their funny little beliefs,' " she said. "I wanted [believers] to know I wasn't looking down my nose at them. I was saying, I have the same questions you have. Come along with me."
As a Christian, the hardest issue she faced was Christianity's claim that Jesus is the only way.
"I interviewed 80 people for the chapter on mystical experiences who had all sorts of religious backgrounds or none," Hagerty said. "What was clear to me is that they were just as transformed after that experience as any Christian I have ever met. I couldn't deny their experience."
In the end, she decided people of all faiths or none can follow Jesus' edicts about "feeding the poor, helping those who cannot benefit you, loving your enemies, sacrificing rather than promoting yourself, living as if every moment on Earth counts for eternity."
The scientific studies did not rob Hagerty of her faith in the "young man on the cross," she writes, "although the old man with a beard can no longer encompass the grandeur and genius of the God I embrace today."
She ends her book where she began, answering the question: Is there more than this?
"Yes, I believe there is, and the new science of spirituality buttresses my instinct. ... The language of our genes, the chemistry of our bodies, and the wiring of our brains -- these are the handiwork of One who longs to be known."
We have all about us, she says, "the fingerprints of God."
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 08/21/2009 02:23:31 PM MDT
Journalist Barbara Bradley Hagerty came to the study of the God gene, monk's brains, peyote-induced visions and healing prayers by an unlikely path: her own mystical experience.
During a June 1995 interview with a cancer survivor and born-again Christian, Hagerty felt engulfed by a presence she could feel but not touch. After a minute or so, the presence dissipated but left Hagerty with a mixture of terror and exhilaration and an ineffable experience she could neither fully grasp nor completely dismiss.
Was God real, she wondered, or just some brain blip?
So Hagerty, religion reporter for National Public Radio, did what comes naturally -- she posed the question to believers, practitioners, psychologists, experts and scientists, then sifted their answers and analyzed the data. The result of her yearlong research is the just published Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality , which she recently previewed for Utah audiences.
Not surprisingly, Hagerty concluded that science cannot prove God -- but science is consistent with God. She sees a nascent "paradigm shift" among scientists toward increasing acceptance of something beyond the five senses.
"Many scientists suspect that the days are numbered for a purely materialistic paradigm," she writes in Fingerprints . "They believe that the evidence challenging the matter-only model is building, bolstered by research on meditation, the
Advertisement
mechanisms for prayer, and more radical studies on the neurology of near-death experiences."
For Hagerty, the research only buttressed her belief in God.
"Spirituality is in a class by itself; it's not like a beautiful walk in the woods, a transcendent opera or a once-in-a-lifetime baseball game," Hagerty said in an interview. "After an experience with the divine, it changes everything about you in ways opera, nature or baseball just don't."
Asking questions » Science no longer questions the notion that thoughts and emotions affect physical health, Hagerty writes, but one researcher has taken it a step further, concluding that spirituality can halt the progress of diseases such as HIV.
"Turning to God rather than rejecting God appears to boost your immune system and stave off the disease nearly five times as effectively," physician Gail Ironson at the University of Miami told her.
Next Hagerty explored the genetics of belief. Is a predisposition to believe in God in a person's DNA?
After interviews with Dean Hamer, researcher at the National Institute of Health's National Cancer Institute and author of The God Gene , Francis Collins, former head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Pat McNamara of Boston University as well as several skeptics, Hagerty concludes that genes do seem to play a role as a "sort of tipping point for spiritual experience."
"It's a little bit like automatic air-conditioning," she writes. "For some people, a relatively modest rise in temperature ... can flip on the cooler system. Those people are genetically inclined to be spiritual. Others may sweat it out to 90, 95, 100 degrees; only then will their God switch flip on. And some would rather die of heat than turn to 'God.' "
Hagerty wondered if spiritual experience could be induced by chemicals, so she participated in an American Indian peyote ceremony (without ingesting). She later went to Johns Hopkins University's Medical Center, where Roland Griffiths studies the effect of psilocybin (mushrooms) on spirituality.
None of it convinced her that mystical experience is nothing but brain activity.
"If there were an Other who wanted to commune with us, of course He or She or It would use the brain to do so, as opposed to say, the left big toe. Of course God would use the chemistry in our brains to create visions," Hagerty writes. "He would also use electricity."
From there, she examined the neuroscience research on the brains of mystics, monks and nuns -- all of which clearly shows activity in the temporal lobe of those who are meditating deeply. Later, she looked at so-called prayer studies in which people pray for unknown patients, and she talked with people who reported out-of-body experiences.
Hagerty's book is a "wonderful review for the nonspecialist reader of a whole lot of new neuroscience work, showing that the physical brain is not all there is," said Richard Sherlock, a philosophy professor at Utah State University. "She presents both sides, but clearly thinks that the new studies are valuable and cannot be explained away."
The Jesus question » What is unique in Hagerty's book is her willingness to offer candid responses to scientific findings, infusing the narrative with her own soul-searching experiences.
She describes, for example, moving away from the Christian Science faith of her childhood, then realizing founder Mary Baker Eddy may have had some important mind-body insights that modern seekers are just now discovering. She shares a frightening experience of being lost and panicked on a dark mountain in Tennessee and of discovering that her grandmother had what can be described only as a near-death experience.
It was tough for the award-winning reporter for The Christian Science Monitor and NPR to be so self-revealing. But she wanted readers to know these weren't just academic questions to her. They mattered.
"Journalists often treat religious people as if they're anthropologists, as in 'look at those funny little people with their funny little beliefs,' " she said. "I wanted [believers] to know I wasn't looking down my nose at them. I was saying, I have the same questions you have. Come along with me."
As a Christian, the hardest issue she faced was Christianity's claim that Jesus is the only way.
"I interviewed 80 people for the chapter on mystical experiences who had all sorts of religious backgrounds or none," Hagerty said. "What was clear to me is that they were just as transformed after that experience as any Christian I have ever met. I couldn't deny their experience."
In the end, she decided people of all faiths or none can follow Jesus' edicts about "feeding the poor, helping those who cannot benefit you, loving your enemies, sacrificing rather than promoting yourself, living as if every moment on Earth counts for eternity."
The scientific studies did not rob Hagerty of her faith in the "young man on the cross," she writes, "although the old man with a beard can no longer encompass the grandeur and genius of the God I embrace today."
She ends her book where she began, answering the question: Is there more than this?
"Yes, I believe there is, and the new science of spirituality buttresses my instinct. ... The language of our genes, the chemistry of our bodies, and the wiring of our brains -- these are the handiwork of One who longs to be known."
We have all about us, she says, "the fingerprints of God."
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Stubborn facts on Episcopalians
From GetReligion.org via TitusOneNine:
Friday, August 21, 2009
Posted by Douglas LeBlanc
Jon Meacham has occasionally cited John Adams as saying facts are stubborn things, but apparently some facts aren’t stubborn enough to be noticed by Newsweek under Meacham’s editing.
I truly wanted to like Lisa Miller’s latest Newsweek column. For starters, I agree with her: The Episcopal Church attracts far more news coverage than its membership numbers merit. I’ve devoted much of my journalism career to writing about the Episcopal Church, and I am part of the problem. I have no trouble admitting this or laughing about it.
Further, Miller steps up to one of tmatt’s favorite hobbies: Explaining why the Episcopal Church attracts so much coverage.
What ruins the piece for me is that Newsweek has not corrected errors first pointed out by fellow Godbeat scribe Frank Lockwood. It openly corrected one error: The claim that President Reagan ever identified himself as an Episcopalian. It quietly corrected two other problems: Referring to the church’s General Convention as an annual rather than a triennial meeting, and referring to President Ford as if he were still alive. (Under a sacramental reading of Hebrews 12:1, one could make the case for referring to President Ford’s faith in the present tense.)
But Newsweek has let stand some howlers involving membership statistics. As one of many journalists cursed with innumeracy, I sympathize with Miller on these mistakes. I once wildly overstated the membership of the Episcopal Diocese of Springfield, but as soon as I realized my error I alerted my editor to it, and he corrected it.
All this is to say it’s time for another episode of Proofreading With GetReligion.
The general convention: General Convention of the Episcopal Church ended last month in Anaheim, Calif., with a whimper, despite these rather staggering announcements: it would, after years of internal battling, continue to elevate cite its freedom to elect more gay priests to bishops, and it would consider blessing bless same-sex unions in the states that allow gays and lesbians to marry.
General Convention is the proper name of a legislative body that meets every three years. I know this may be a question of Newsweek’s house style, so it could be considered a gray area.
About elevate: Episcopalians elect, approve and then ordain/consecrate bishops. Episcopalians have been keen on this point for some time now.
On blessings for same-sex couples, see General Convention’s Resolution C056: “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.” (The website of General Convention legislation is spotty; here is a report by Episcopal News Service.) http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_112629_ENG_HTM.htm
Newsweek:
After years of dominance outsized cultural influence, Episcopalians have become a minority religion in America. There are just 2.4 (Newsweek number) 2.1 (more likely number) million Episcopalians in the United States, down from 3.5 (Newsweek number) 2.3 million (real number) in 2001 — a 31 percent falloff. (The Episcopal Church is the American branch of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide church that has 80 million members.) By comparison, there are 8 million nondenominational Christians (a low estimate), up from 2.5 million — an explosion of 220 percent over the same period.
Comment: Bookmark this address [http://www.episcopalchurch.org/research_51538_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=51354] for trends of baptized members in the Episcopal Church. This PDF [http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Members_by_Prov__Diocese_97-07.pdf] provides the latest numbers. For a number near 3.5 million, you’ll need to look 40 years back.
Newsweek:
Thanks to the Great Awakenings and the waves of immigration over the past hundred years there are exponentially more Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists in America than Episcopalians. There are also — surprisingly — more Mormons, more Pentecostals, and slightly more Jews.
Comment: This table [http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0076.pdf] from the U.S. Census estimates the Jewish population of this nation at 6.4 million — more than triple the number of baptized Episcopalians.
Newsweek:
This reversal of Episcopal fortune is due largely to well-known demographic shifts — the shrinking of the mainline Protestant denominations; the growth of evangelical and nondenominational churches, as well as in the number of people who declare themselves “unaffiliated.” But the Episcopal Church has had its own unique troubles above and beyond the encroachment of those other sects.
Comment: By what measure do these larger groups qualify as other sects?
Newsweek:
After three centuries as the church of the WASP establishment in America, it started to make news in 2003 when it elevated to bishop of New Hampshire an openly gay priest named Gene Robinson.
Comment: Started to make news in 2003? Look up the names of the Rt. Revs. James Pike, Barbara Harris and John Shelby Spong.
Newsweek:
A colleague who is Episcopalian describes the rift thus: “Here we have the faith of the Founding Fathers, the religion that is the purest representation of old-line American power and money, tearing itself apart before our very eyes over … homosexuality. How embarrassing! How publicly humiliating — this for a faith and culture that abhors nothing more than public humiliation.”
Comment: Three words: Shoe-leather journalism.
Newsweek:
In one of the most byzantine organizational maneuvers ever wrought, the conservative opposition then regrouped under the leadership of a few conservative African bishops — still Anglican, still part of the global church, but no longer officially connected to the Americans.
Comment: It’s more than a few bishops, not limited to Africa and beginning long before 2003. Counting bishops who helped the Anglican Mission in the Americas and have since retired, they include Peter Akinola, Nigeria; Emmanuel Kolini, Rwanda; Frank Lyons, Bolivia; Benjamin Nzimbi, Kenya; Henry Orombi, Uganda; Moses Tay, Singapore; Gregory Venables, Argentina; and Ping Chung Yong, Malaysia.
Newsweek:
Certainly, when the Episcopalians support — or seem to be supporting — gay marriage, it says something important about who we are as a nation and where we are going.
Comment: When clergy are free to bless same-sex couples in states where gay marriage is legal, call it what you like — but it’s clearly supporting gay marriage.
Newsweek:
Watching the Episcopalians fight amongst themselves is like watching a boozy family brawl at a genteel country club. Onlookers continue to hope that someone — grandpa or junior — will finally say what he’s really thinking and make a headline.
Comment: Who are these unidentified onlookers? Any reporter who has covered General Convention can tell you this: The problem is not that grandpa or junior (or lots of people in between) is at a loss for words. If anything, my fellow Episcopalians compete regularly on who will have the fewest unspoken thoughts.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Posted by Douglas LeBlanc
Jon Meacham has occasionally cited John Adams as saying facts are stubborn things, but apparently some facts aren’t stubborn enough to be noticed by Newsweek under Meacham’s editing.
I truly wanted to like Lisa Miller’s latest Newsweek column. For starters, I agree with her: The Episcopal Church attracts far more news coverage than its membership numbers merit. I’ve devoted much of my journalism career to writing about the Episcopal Church, and I am part of the problem. I have no trouble admitting this or laughing about it.
Further, Miller steps up to one of tmatt’s favorite hobbies: Explaining why the Episcopal Church attracts so much coverage.
What ruins the piece for me is that Newsweek has not corrected errors first pointed out by fellow Godbeat scribe Frank Lockwood. It openly corrected one error: The claim that President Reagan ever identified himself as an Episcopalian. It quietly corrected two other problems: Referring to the church’s General Convention as an annual rather than a triennial meeting, and referring to President Ford as if he were still alive. (Under a sacramental reading of Hebrews 12:1, one could make the case for referring to President Ford’s faith in the present tense.)
But Newsweek has let stand some howlers involving membership statistics. As one of many journalists cursed with innumeracy, I sympathize with Miller on these mistakes. I once wildly overstated the membership of the Episcopal Diocese of Springfield, but as soon as I realized my error I alerted my editor to it, and he corrected it.
All this is to say it’s time for another episode of Proofreading With GetReligion.
The general convention: General Convention of the Episcopal Church ended last month in Anaheim, Calif., with a whimper, despite these rather staggering announcements: it would, after years of internal battling, continue to elevate cite its freedom to elect more gay priests to bishops, and it would consider blessing bless same-sex unions in the states that allow gays and lesbians to marry.
General Convention is the proper name of a legislative body that meets every three years. I know this may be a question of Newsweek’s house style, so it could be considered a gray area.
About elevate: Episcopalians elect, approve and then ordain/consecrate bishops. Episcopalians have been keen on this point for some time now.
On blessings for same-sex couples, see General Convention’s Resolution C056: “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.” (The website of General Convention legislation is spotty; here is a report by Episcopal News Service.) http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_112629_ENG_HTM.htm
Newsweek:
After years of dominance outsized cultural influence, Episcopalians have become a minority religion in America. There are just 2.4 (Newsweek number) 2.1 (more likely number) million Episcopalians in the United States, down from 3.5 (Newsweek number) 2.3 million (real number) in 2001 — a 31 percent falloff. (The Episcopal Church is the American branch of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide church that has 80 million members.) By comparison, there are 8 million nondenominational Christians (a low estimate), up from 2.5 million — an explosion of 220 percent over the same period.
Comment: Bookmark this address [http://www.episcopalchurch.org/research_51538_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=51354] for trends of baptized members in the Episcopal Church. This PDF [http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Members_by_Prov__Diocese_97-07.pdf] provides the latest numbers. For a number near 3.5 million, you’ll need to look 40 years back.
Newsweek:
Thanks to the Great Awakenings and the waves of immigration over the past hundred years there are exponentially more Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists in America than Episcopalians. There are also — surprisingly — more Mormons, more Pentecostals, and slightly more Jews.
Comment: This table [http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0076.pdf] from the U.S. Census estimates the Jewish population of this nation at 6.4 million — more than triple the number of baptized Episcopalians.
Newsweek:
This reversal of Episcopal fortune is due largely to well-known demographic shifts — the shrinking of the mainline Protestant denominations; the growth of evangelical and nondenominational churches, as well as in the number of people who declare themselves “unaffiliated.” But the Episcopal Church has had its own unique troubles above and beyond the encroachment of those other sects.
Comment: By what measure do these larger groups qualify as other sects?
Newsweek:
After three centuries as the church of the WASP establishment in America, it started to make news in 2003 when it elevated to bishop of New Hampshire an openly gay priest named Gene Robinson.
Comment: Started to make news in 2003? Look up the names of the Rt. Revs. James Pike, Barbara Harris and John Shelby Spong.
Newsweek:
A colleague who is Episcopalian describes the rift thus: “Here we have the faith of the Founding Fathers, the religion that is the purest representation of old-line American power and money, tearing itself apart before our very eyes over … homosexuality. How embarrassing! How publicly humiliating — this for a faith and culture that abhors nothing more than public humiliation.”
Comment: Three words: Shoe-leather journalism.
Newsweek:
In one of the most byzantine organizational maneuvers ever wrought, the conservative opposition then regrouped under the leadership of a few conservative African bishops — still Anglican, still part of the global church, but no longer officially connected to the Americans.
Comment: It’s more than a few bishops, not limited to Africa and beginning long before 2003. Counting bishops who helped the Anglican Mission in the Americas and have since retired, they include Peter Akinola, Nigeria; Emmanuel Kolini, Rwanda; Frank Lyons, Bolivia; Benjamin Nzimbi, Kenya; Henry Orombi, Uganda; Moses Tay, Singapore; Gregory Venables, Argentina; and Ping Chung Yong, Malaysia.
Newsweek:
Certainly, when the Episcopalians support — or seem to be supporting — gay marriage, it says something important about who we are as a nation and where we are going.
Comment: When clergy are free to bless same-sex couples in states where gay marriage is legal, call it what you like — but it’s clearly supporting gay marriage.
Newsweek:
Watching the Episcopalians fight amongst themselves is like watching a boozy family brawl at a genteel country club. Onlookers continue to hope that someone — grandpa or junior — will finally say what he’s really thinking and make a headline.
Comment: Who are these unidentified onlookers? Any reporter who has covered General Convention can tell you this: The problem is not that grandpa or junior (or lots of people in between) is at a loss for words. If anything, my fellow Episcopalians compete regularly on who will have the fewest unspoken thoughts.
Should We Support Gay Marriage? NO
by Wolfhart Pannenberg
from Good News Magazine
Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian
doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted
love. Human beings are created for love, as creatures of the God who
is Love. And yet that divine appointment is corrupted whenever people
turn away from God or love other things more than God.
Jesus said, ?Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me?? (Matt. 10:37, NRSV). Love for God must take precedence
over love for our parents, even though love for parents is commanded
by the fourth commandment.
The will of God be the guiding star of our identity and self-
determination. What this means for sexual behavior can be seen in
Jesus? teaching about divorce. In order to answer the Pharisees?
question about the admissibility of divorce, Jesus refers to the
creation of human beings. Here he sees God expressing his purpose for
his creatures: Creation confirms that God has created human beings as
male and female. Thus, a man leaves his father and mother to be united
with his wife, and the two become one flesh.
Jesus concludes from this that the unbreakable permanence of
fellowship between husband and wife is the Creator?s will for human
beings. The indissoluble fellowship of marriage, therefore, is the
goal of our creation as sexual beings (Mark 10:2-9). Since on this
principle the Bible is not time bound, Jesus? word is the foundation
and criterion for all Christian pronouncement on sexuality, not just
marriage in particular, but our entire creaturely identities as sexual
beings. According to Jesus? teaching, human sexuality as male and as
female
is intended for the indissoluble fellowship of marriage. This standard
informs Christian teaching about the entire domain of sexual behavior.
Jesus? perspective, by and large, corresponds to Jewish tradition,
even though his stress on the indissolubility of marriage goes beyond
the provision for divorce within Jewish law (Deut. 24:1). It was a
shared Jewish conviction that men and women in their sexual identity
are intended for the community of marriage. This also accounts for the
Old Testament assessment of sexual behaviors that depart from this
norm, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual relations.
The biblical assessments of homosexual practice are unambiguous in
their rejection, and all its statements on this subject agree without
exception. The Holiness Code of Leviticus incontrovertibly affirms,
?You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
abomination? (Lev. 18:22 NRSV). Leviticus 20 includes homosexual
behavior among the crimes meriting capital punishment (Lev. 20:13; it
is significant that the same applies to adultery in verse 10). On
these matters, Judaism always knew itself to be distinct from other
nations.
This same distinctiveness continued to determine the New Testament
statement about homosexuality, in contrast to the Hellenistic culture
that took no offense at homosexual relations. In Romans, Paul includes
homosexual behavior among the consequences of turning away from God
(1:27). In 1 Corinthians, homosexual practice belongs with
fornication, adultery, idolatry, greed, drunkenness, theft, and
robbery as behaviors that preclude participation in the kingdom of God
(6:9 10); Paul affirms that through baptism Christians have become
free from their entanglement in all these practices (6:11).
The New Testament contains not a single passage that might
indicate a more positive assessment of homosexual activity to
counterbalance these Pauline statements. Thus, the entire biblical
witness includes practicing homosexuality, without exception among the
kinds of behavior that give particularly striking expression to
humanity?s turning away from God. This exegetical result places very
narrow boundaries around the view of homosexuality in any church that
is under the authority of Scripture. What is more, the biblical
statements on this subject merely represent the negative corollary to
the Bible?s positive views on the creational purpose of men and women
in their sexuality.
These texts that are negative toward homosexual behavior are not
merely dealing with marginal opinions that could be neglected without
detriment to the Christian message as a whole. Moreover, the biblical
statements about homosexuality cannot be relativized as the
expressions of a cultural situation that today is simply outdated. The
biblical witness from the outset deliberately opposed the assumptions
of their cultural environment in the name of faith in the God of
Israel, who in Creation appointed men and women for a particular
identity.
Contemporary advocates for a change in the church?s view of
homosexuality commonly point out that the biblical statements were
unaware of important modern anthropological evidence. This new
evidence, it is said, suggests that homosexuality must be regarded as
a given constituent of the psychosomatic identity of homosexual
persons, entirely prior to any corresponding sexual expression. (For
the sake of clarity it is better to speak here of a homophile
inclination as distant from homosexual practice.) Such phenomena occur
not only in people who are homosexually active. But inclination need
not dictate practice. It is characteristic of human beings that our
sexual impulses are not confined to a separate realm of behavior; they
permeate our behavior in every area of life. This, of course, includes
relationships with persons of the same sex. However, precisely because
erotic motives are involved in all aspects of human behavior, we are
faced with the task of integrating them into the whole of our life and
conduct.
The mere existence of homophile inclinations does not
automatically lead to homosexual practice. Rather, these inclinations
can be integrated into a life in which they are subordinated to the
relationship with the opposite sex where, in fact, the subject of
sexual activity should not be the all-determining center of human life
and vocation. As the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly pointed
out, one of the primary achievements of marriage as an institution is
its enrollment of human sexuality in the service of ulterior tasks and
goals.
The reality of homophile inclinations, therefore, need not be
denied and must not be condemned. The question, however, is how to
handle such inclinations within the human task of responsibly
directing our behavior. This is the real problem; and it is here that
we must deal with the conclusion that homosexual activity is a
departure from the norm for sexual behavior that has been given to men
and women as creatures of God. For the church this is the case not
only for homosexual, but for any sexual activity that does not intend
the goal of marriage between man and wife particular, adultery.
The church has to live with the fact that, in this area of life as
in
others, departures from the norm are not exceptional but rather common
and widespread. The church must encounter all those concerned with
tolerance and understanding but also call them to repentance. It
cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and behavior that
departs from that norm.
Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to
be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to
change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are
promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the
point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from
the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal
partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand
no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of
Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one,
holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Wolfhart Pannenberg, arguably the preeminent contemporary
theologian, recently retired after 27 years as professor of systematic
theology at the University of Munich, Germany, and director of the
Institute of Ecumenical Theology. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl for
publication in the Church Times; copyright Wolfhart Pannenberg.
from Good News Magazine
Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian
doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted
love. Human beings are created for love, as creatures of the God who
is Love. And yet that divine appointment is corrupted whenever people
turn away from God or love other things more than God.
Jesus said, ?Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me?? (Matt. 10:37, NRSV). Love for God must take precedence
over love for our parents, even though love for parents is commanded
by the fourth commandment.
The will of God be the guiding star of our identity and self-
determination. What this means for sexual behavior can be seen in
Jesus? teaching about divorce. In order to answer the Pharisees?
question about the admissibility of divorce, Jesus refers to the
creation of human beings. Here he sees God expressing his purpose for
his creatures: Creation confirms that God has created human beings as
male and female. Thus, a man leaves his father and mother to be united
with his wife, and the two become one flesh.
Jesus concludes from this that the unbreakable permanence of
fellowship between husband and wife is the Creator?s will for human
beings. The indissoluble fellowship of marriage, therefore, is the
goal of our creation as sexual beings (Mark 10:2-9). Since on this
principle the Bible is not time bound, Jesus? word is the foundation
and criterion for all Christian pronouncement on sexuality, not just
marriage in particular, but our entire creaturely identities as sexual
beings. According to Jesus? teaching, human sexuality as male and as
female
is intended for the indissoluble fellowship of marriage. This standard
informs Christian teaching about the entire domain of sexual behavior.
Jesus? perspective, by and large, corresponds to Jewish tradition,
even though his stress on the indissolubility of marriage goes beyond
the provision for divorce within Jewish law (Deut. 24:1). It was a
shared Jewish conviction that men and women in their sexual identity
are intended for the community of marriage. This also accounts for the
Old Testament assessment of sexual behaviors that depart from this
norm, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual relations.
The biblical assessments of homosexual practice are unambiguous in
their rejection, and all its statements on this subject agree without
exception. The Holiness Code of Leviticus incontrovertibly affirms,
?You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
abomination? (Lev. 18:22 NRSV). Leviticus 20 includes homosexual
behavior among the crimes meriting capital punishment (Lev. 20:13; it
is significant that the same applies to adultery in verse 10). On
these matters, Judaism always knew itself to be distinct from other
nations.
This same distinctiveness continued to determine the New Testament
statement about homosexuality, in contrast to the Hellenistic culture
that took no offense at homosexual relations. In Romans, Paul includes
homosexual behavior among the consequences of turning away from God
(1:27). In 1 Corinthians, homosexual practice belongs with
fornication, adultery, idolatry, greed, drunkenness, theft, and
robbery as behaviors that preclude participation in the kingdom of God
(6:9 10); Paul affirms that through baptism Christians have become
free from their entanglement in all these practices (6:11).
The New Testament contains not a single passage that might
indicate a more positive assessment of homosexual activity to
counterbalance these Pauline statements. Thus, the entire biblical
witness includes practicing homosexuality, without exception among the
kinds of behavior that give particularly striking expression to
humanity?s turning away from God. This exegetical result places very
narrow boundaries around the view of homosexuality in any church that
is under the authority of Scripture. What is more, the biblical
statements on this subject merely represent the negative corollary to
the Bible?s positive views on the creational purpose of men and women
in their sexuality.
These texts that are negative toward homosexual behavior are not
merely dealing with marginal opinions that could be neglected without
detriment to the Christian message as a whole. Moreover, the biblical
statements about homosexuality cannot be relativized as the
expressions of a cultural situation that today is simply outdated. The
biblical witness from the outset deliberately opposed the assumptions
of their cultural environment in the name of faith in the God of
Israel, who in Creation appointed men and women for a particular
identity.
Contemporary advocates for a change in the church?s view of
homosexuality commonly point out that the biblical statements were
unaware of important modern anthropological evidence. This new
evidence, it is said, suggests that homosexuality must be regarded as
a given constituent of the psychosomatic identity of homosexual
persons, entirely prior to any corresponding sexual expression. (For
the sake of clarity it is better to speak here of a homophile
inclination as distant from homosexual practice.) Such phenomena occur
not only in people who are homosexually active. But inclination need
not dictate practice. It is characteristic of human beings that our
sexual impulses are not confined to a separate realm of behavior; they
permeate our behavior in every area of life. This, of course, includes
relationships with persons of the same sex. However, precisely because
erotic motives are involved in all aspects of human behavior, we are
faced with the task of integrating them into the whole of our life and
conduct.
The mere existence of homophile inclinations does not
automatically lead to homosexual practice. Rather, these inclinations
can be integrated into a life in which they are subordinated to the
relationship with the opposite sex where, in fact, the subject of
sexual activity should not be the all-determining center of human life
and vocation. As the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly pointed
out, one of the primary achievements of marriage as an institution is
its enrollment of human sexuality in the service of ulterior tasks and
goals.
The reality of homophile inclinations, therefore, need not be
denied and must not be condemned. The question, however, is how to
handle such inclinations within the human task of responsibly
directing our behavior. This is the real problem; and it is here that
we must deal with the conclusion that homosexual activity is a
departure from the norm for sexual behavior that has been given to men
and women as creatures of God. For the church this is the case not
only for homosexual, but for any sexual activity that does not intend
the goal of marriage between man and wife particular, adultery.
The church has to live with the fact that, in this area of life as
in
others, departures from the norm are not exceptional but rather common
and widespread. The church must encounter all those concerned with
tolerance and understanding but also call them to repentance. It
cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and behavior that
departs from that norm.
Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to
be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to
change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are
promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the
point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from
the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal
partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand
no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of
Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one,
holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Wolfhart Pannenberg, arguably the preeminent contemporary
theologian, recently retired after 27 years as professor of systematic
theology at the University of Munich, Germany, and director of the
Institute of Ecumenical Theology. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl for
publication in the Church Times; copyright Wolfhart Pannenberg.
Friday, August 21, 2009
A Message from Bishop David Anderson
Beloved in Christ,
The General Convention of The Episcopal Church (TEC) is now well over, but the ramifications of the actions taken there are starting to hit the grassroots level in those few remaining orthodox TEC dioceses. From South Carolina to Albany, from the Midwest to South Central, conversations are taking place where Episcopalians gather. It takes a while for parishioners who don't follow Anglican news closely to become aware that the General Convention was another disaster for orthodox Christianity, not just for Anglicans, and for them to start talking with each other and then with their priest, but it's now happening.
The problem for the orthodox in TEC is that no one has yet put forward a well-thought-out, realistic, attainable way forward, other than leaving TEC. Since the Archbishop of Canterbury has issued an analysis which, while accurate in many respects, lacks a concrete plan of action that he is willing to implement, the question is "what is the way forward?" If Dr. Williams were willing to act in favor of Anglican orthodoxy, granting independent recognition of the Communion Partner Bishops and Diocese, and similar recognition for ACNA, things would begin to settle down. But, it appears, Dr. Williams isn't going to come over and rescue anyone, and so the question lingers, "what is the way forward?"
For those who have left and formed the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) the question has been answered, but for those still inside TEC who avow that they will never leave TEC, the future is decidedly unclear and unsafe. And if, in an orthodox diocese, many orthodox parishes decide to leave, the result can be a formerly orthodox diocese which is nearly evenly split between revisionist and orthodox congregations, such that a diocesan departure is not possible. Then what can happen is that the orthodox bishop retires, more congregations decide to leave, and eventually TEC will establish its aberrant form of Anglicanism where once orthodoxy lived and thrived. Orthodox faith alone isn't enough; the church needs leaders who are also visionary, courageous and bold, and have a sense of how strategically and tactically to move the church committed to their protection forward.
We anticipate that before the end of the year, dozens of orthodox congregations across the United States and Canada will decide to leave TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC). Already some revisionist bishops are boldly going after the orthodox congregations left in their dioceses. One of the game plans involves the bishop expressing his/her concern for the mental well-being of an orthodox rector, and insisting (by godly admonition or pastoral directive if needed) that the priest see the diocesan psychiatrist. If the priest refuses, he or she is inhibited and cut off from the parish because the bishop is "concerned about the safety of both priest and the congregation." Checkmate, game over. If the priest has the evaluation, he or she is, of course, reported to be over-stressed, not mentally well, and in an unstable time of life for making decisions, so the priest (who is usually not allowed to see the actual report), is inhibited while he or she recovers. Checkmate, game over. There are effective counter moves to these revisionist tactics against priests which the AAC can provide, working within a one-on-one counseling relationship. You don't have to lose your parish and be declared nuts by a revisionist bishop's unfriendly psychiatrist.
One of the great hopes that the orthodox Anglicans in the United States have had, in the midst of the turmoil and suffering, was that other so-called mainline denominations, such as the Lutherans, would see the wreckage that the homosexual lobby has made of the Episcopal Church, and that sane and thoughtful Lutherans would step back and say, "We don't want our church to go through that." For orthodox Anglicans to have endured the persecution but also to have provided a warning to other denominations would have made the difficulties easier. Apparently this is not to be, for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has passed this week the first of several homosexual-agenda pieces of legislation by an astounding two thirds majority. The most critical vote is Friday, August 21, and this vote, to permit homosexuals to serve in congregations as pastors, only requires a simple majority. Pundits call it a slam dunk. Why have Lutherans, like lemmings, raced over the spiritual edge of the cliff, following their Episcopalian counterparts into greater heterodoxy? We will have to listen to the Lutherans from both sides of the issue to find the reasons, but it suggests that there will be a Lutheran exodus as well, as those good Lutherans who are faithful to the Gospel will realign somewhere. It is a sad day to see another great church body choose the spirit of the age rather than the Holy Spirit as the guiding presence of their denomination.
There will come a day, I am sure, when the heterodox Episcopal Church and a heterodox Lutheran Church will merge. Apparently TEC has now entered into inter-Communion with the Moravian Church. Do the Moravians have any idea of what they have done and with whom they have allied? May God help the Moravians.
The final defining line through Christianity won't be on liturgy or vestments, it will be over Christology and Holy Scripture, and one can pray that these two also become the basis for the reunification of faithful orthodox Christian Churches in the battle for the soul of humankind.
May our Lord bless and sustain you in every good thing,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
_______________
The General Convention of The Episcopal Church (TEC) is now well over, but the ramifications of the actions taken there are starting to hit the grassroots level in those few remaining orthodox TEC dioceses. From South Carolina to Albany, from the Midwest to South Central, conversations are taking place where Episcopalians gather. It takes a while for parishioners who don't follow Anglican news closely to become aware that the General Convention was another disaster for orthodox Christianity, not just for Anglicans, and for them to start talking with each other and then with their priest, but it's now happening.
The problem for the orthodox in TEC is that no one has yet put forward a well-thought-out, realistic, attainable way forward, other than leaving TEC. Since the Archbishop of Canterbury has issued an analysis which, while accurate in many respects, lacks a concrete plan of action that he is willing to implement, the question is "what is the way forward?" If Dr. Williams were willing to act in favor of Anglican orthodoxy, granting independent recognition of the Communion Partner Bishops and Diocese, and similar recognition for ACNA, things would begin to settle down. But, it appears, Dr. Williams isn't going to come over and rescue anyone, and so the question lingers, "what is the way forward?"
For those who have left and formed the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) the question has been answered, but for those still inside TEC who avow that they will never leave TEC, the future is decidedly unclear and unsafe. And if, in an orthodox diocese, many orthodox parishes decide to leave, the result can be a formerly orthodox diocese which is nearly evenly split between revisionist and orthodox congregations, such that a diocesan departure is not possible. Then what can happen is that the orthodox bishop retires, more congregations decide to leave, and eventually TEC will establish its aberrant form of Anglicanism where once orthodoxy lived and thrived. Orthodox faith alone isn't enough; the church needs leaders who are also visionary, courageous and bold, and have a sense of how strategically and tactically to move the church committed to their protection forward.
We anticipate that before the end of the year, dozens of orthodox congregations across the United States and Canada will decide to leave TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC). Already some revisionist bishops are boldly going after the orthodox congregations left in their dioceses. One of the game plans involves the bishop expressing his/her concern for the mental well-being of an orthodox rector, and insisting (by godly admonition or pastoral directive if needed) that the priest see the diocesan psychiatrist. If the priest refuses, he or she is inhibited and cut off from the parish because the bishop is "concerned about the safety of both priest and the congregation." Checkmate, game over. If the priest has the evaluation, he or she is, of course, reported to be over-stressed, not mentally well, and in an unstable time of life for making decisions, so the priest (who is usually not allowed to see the actual report), is inhibited while he or she recovers. Checkmate, game over. There are effective counter moves to these revisionist tactics against priests which the AAC can provide, working within a one-on-one counseling relationship. You don't have to lose your parish and be declared nuts by a revisionist bishop's unfriendly psychiatrist.
One of the great hopes that the orthodox Anglicans in the United States have had, in the midst of the turmoil and suffering, was that other so-called mainline denominations, such as the Lutherans, would see the wreckage that the homosexual lobby has made of the Episcopal Church, and that sane and thoughtful Lutherans would step back and say, "We don't want our church to go through that." For orthodox Anglicans to have endured the persecution but also to have provided a warning to other denominations would have made the difficulties easier. Apparently this is not to be, for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has passed this week the first of several homosexual-agenda pieces of legislation by an astounding two thirds majority. The most critical vote is Friday, August 21, and this vote, to permit homosexuals to serve in congregations as pastors, only requires a simple majority. Pundits call it a slam dunk. Why have Lutherans, like lemmings, raced over the spiritual edge of the cliff, following their Episcopalian counterparts into greater heterodoxy? We will have to listen to the Lutherans from both sides of the issue to find the reasons, but it suggests that there will be a Lutheran exodus as well, as those good Lutherans who are faithful to the Gospel will realign somewhere. It is a sad day to see another great church body choose the spirit of the age rather than the Holy Spirit as the guiding presence of their denomination.
There will come a day, I am sure, when the heterodox Episcopal Church and a heterodox Lutheran Church will merge. Apparently TEC has now entered into inter-Communion with the Moravian Church. Do the Moravians have any idea of what they have done and with whom they have allied? May God help the Moravians.
The final defining line through Christianity won't be on liturgy or vestments, it will be over Christology and Holy Scripture, and one can pray that these two also become the basis for the reunification of faithful orthodox Christian Churches in the battle for the soul of humankind.
May our Lord bless and sustain you in every good thing,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
_______________
Reduced status suggested for Episcopal Church
From The Christian Century via BabyBlue:
August 25, 2009
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has suggested that the Episcopal Church may have to accept a secondary role in the Anglican Communion after voting to allow the ordination of gay bishops and blessings for same-sex unions.
Williams, the spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, said in a statement from England that "very serious anxieties have already been expressed" about the pro-gay resolutions approved by the Episcopal Church at its General Convention in Anaheim, California.
While "there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness," Williams said, certain churches, including the Episcopal Church, may have to take a back seat in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue because their views on homosexuality do not represent the larger Anglican Communion.
Many of the world's Anglican churches oppose homosexuality as sinful and unbiblical.
"It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal," Williams said, "and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are—two styles of being Anglican."
Williams said the mechanics of a two-track system "will certainly need working out," but could well include the kinds of "cooperation in mission and service" that is currently shared between sister churches in the communion.
Episcopal Church officials in New York did not make an immediate response to Williams's statement. But Mark Harris, a member of the church's Executive Council, said on his blog, Preludium, that the archbishop "nicely and in his usual nuanced style essentially said that no one is fooled: . . . the Episcopal Church has strayed from the fold."
As head of the Church of England, Williams serves as spiritual guide of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide fellowship of churches that includes the 2.1 million-member Episcopal Church.
Though he lacks the power of a pope to enforce his will on the communion, Williams remains extraordinarily influential among Anglicans; he has proposed the two-tiered system several times in recent years as a way to make the communion's 38 provinces more mutually accountable.
At the start of the July 8-17 Episcopal convention, Williams urged the U.S. church not to take steps that would exacerbate Anglican tensions, which began to rise after the consecration of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire in 2003. Despite the warning, Episcopalians overwhelmingly voted to lift a de facto ban on the consecration of additional gay bishops and approved a broad local option for bishops who wish to allow gay and lesbian couples to receive nuptial blessings from the church.
At the end of the convention, Episcopal leaders sought to cut off criticism with a letter to Williams that described the measures as "more descriptive than prescriptive in nature"—more in keeping with a church that is ministering to a culture with rapidly changing understandings of homosexuality.
Williams responded July 27 with a pastoral, five-page reflection that gently chided Episcopalians for overturning centuries of Christian understanding of marriage and homosexuality without there being a wider consensus among Anglicans.
The archbishop also suggested that Anglicans could settle their differences with a proposed covenant that would outline acceptable beliefs and practices, particularly on divisive issues like homosexuality. Churches that could not agree to the covenant would be given a reduced role in the communion.
"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," he wrote.
"The question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity," he said. "It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences." By pressing ahead without wide consensus, the Episcopal Church "risks becoming unrecognizable" and renders itself "strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe," he said.
Susan Russell, president of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA, said that it is clear that the steps her church took in Anaheim "were contrary to what the archbishop said he hoped would happen."
But Russell said she does not expect Episcopalians to back off on consecrating gay bishops or blessing same-sex unions. In fact, she said, the Diocese of Los Angeles, where Russell is a priest, is expected to consider electing a gay or lesbian candidate as suffragan (assistant) bishop later this year.
Bishop-theologian N. T. (Tom) Wright of England, in a July 30 post on the Thinking Anglicans Web site, said the Canterbury statement drew wide-ranging reactions—from calling the archbishop "a hopeless liberal" to saying he "sold out to the conservatives." Said Wright: "There is much to welcome, and much whose implications need further unpacking." -Religion News Service
August 25, 2009
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has suggested that the Episcopal Church may have to accept a secondary role in the Anglican Communion after voting to allow the ordination of gay bishops and blessings for same-sex unions.
Williams, the spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, said in a statement from England that "very serious anxieties have already been expressed" about the pro-gay resolutions approved by the Episcopal Church at its General Convention in Anaheim, California.
While "there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness," Williams said, certain churches, including the Episcopal Church, may have to take a back seat in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue because their views on homosexuality do not represent the larger Anglican Communion.
Many of the world's Anglican churches oppose homosexuality as sinful and unbiblical.
"It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal," Williams said, "and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are—two styles of being Anglican."
Williams said the mechanics of a two-track system "will certainly need working out," but could well include the kinds of "cooperation in mission and service" that is currently shared between sister churches in the communion.
Episcopal Church officials in New York did not make an immediate response to Williams's statement. But Mark Harris, a member of the church's Executive Council, said on his blog, Preludium, that the archbishop "nicely and in his usual nuanced style essentially said that no one is fooled: . . . the Episcopal Church has strayed from the fold."
As head of the Church of England, Williams serves as spiritual guide of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide fellowship of churches that includes the 2.1 million-member Episcopal Church.
Though he lacks the power of a pope to enforce his will on the communion, Williams remains extraordinarily influential among Anglicans; he has proposed the two-tiered system several times in recent years as a way to make the communion's 38 provinces more mutually accountable.
At the start of the July 8-17 Episcopal convention, Williams urged the U.S. church not to take steps that would exacerbate Anglican tensions, which began to rise after the consecration of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire in 2003. Despite the warning, Episcopalians overwhelmingly voted to lift a de facto ban on the consecration of additional gay bishops and approved a broad local option for bishops who wish to allow gay and lesbian couples to receive nuptial blessings from the church.
At the end of the convention, Episcopal leaders sought to cut off criticism with a letter to Williams that described the measures as "more descriptive than prescriptive in nature"—more in keeping with a church that is ministering to a culture with rapidly changing understandings of homosexuality.
Williams responded July 27 with a pastoral, five-page reflection that gently chided Episcopalians for overturning centuries of Christian understanding of marriage and homosexuality without there being a wider consensus among Anglicans.
The archbishop also suggested that Anglicans could settle their differences with a proposed covenant that would outline acceptable beliefs and practices, particularly on divisive issues like homosexuality. Churches that could not agree to the covenant would be given a reduced role in the communion.
"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," he wrote.
"The question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity," he said. "It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences." By pressing ahead without wide consensus, the Episcopal Church "risks becoming unrecognizable" and renders itself "strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe," he said.
Susan Russell, president of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA, said that it is clear that the steps her church took in Anaheim "were contrary to what the archbishop said he hoped would happen."
But Russell said she does not expect Episcopalians to back off on consecrating gay bishops or blessing same-sex unions. In fact, she said, the Diocese of Los Angeles, where Russell is a priest, is expected to consider electing a gay or lesbian candidate as suffragan (assistant) bishop later this year.
Bishop-theologian N. T. (Tom) Wright of England, in a July 30 post on the Thinking Anglicans Web site, said the Canterbury statement drew wide-ranging reactions—from calling the archbishop "a hopeless liberal" to saying he "sold out to the conservatives." Said Wright: "There is much to welcome, and much whose implications need further unpacking." -Religion News Service
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Who cares about the arcane battles of Episcopal Church?
From Newsweek via Stand Firm:
Lisa Miller
Family Feud
Aug 19, 2009
The annual convention of the Episcopal Church ended last month in Anaheim, Calif., with a whimper, despite these rather staggering announcements: it would, after years of internal battling, continue to elevate gay priests to bishops, and it would consider blessing same-sex unions in the states that allow gays and lesbians to marry. The convention—and these announcements—received a fair amount of obligatory coverage, but the news cycle quickly moved on. In the wake of that coverage I received the following e-mail from an editor: "I've been following this story and trying, without success, to think of an interesting line of argument. It's been in the news a lot lately." Right. It's hard to think of an interesting story about the Episcopal Church in America because what happens within the Episcopal Church is—frankly, and with deep apologies to all my Episcopalian friends—just not that interesting.
After years of dominance, Episcopalians have become a minority religion in America. There are just 2.4 million Episcopalians in the United States, down from 3.5 million in 2001—a 31 percent falloff. (The Episcopal Church is the American branch of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide church that has 80 million members.) By comparison, there are 8 million nondenominational Christians (a low estimate), up from 2.5 million—an explosion of 220 percent over the same period. Thanks to the Great Awakenings and the waves of immigration over the past hundred years there are exponentially more Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists in America than Episcopalians. There are also—surprisingly—more Mormons, more Pentecostals, and slightly more Jews. (This last is especially interesting because at the height of 20th-century anti-Semitism, American Jews who wanted access to the highest levels of status and power would sometimes become Episcopalian. One wonders whether they would have done so had they known that they were switching from one shrinking minority religion to another.) According to the latest data from the American Religious Identification Survey, more people belong to cults and emerging religions than to the Episcopal Church.
Not only are Episcopalians less numerous than they used to be, their cultural and social power has been diluted as well. Our country was at least partially founded by Anglicans. America was colonized by the British at a time when the Church of England was, in effect, a national church. Thus many of the colonizers were Anglican, and the colonies were, too. Anglicanism became the established religion of Virginia in 1610, of lower New York in 1693, of Maryland in 1702, of South Carolina in 1706, and eventually a number of other Southern and mid-Atlantic states. (The Puritans in New England, always rebels, countered the Anglican juggernaut by claiming Congregationalism as their official church—and during the American Revolution sent many of the nascent nation's Anglican primates fleeing to Canada for their lives.) Only after the Revolution did the states agree to separate their governments from religion—an agreement reflected in Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Still, the Anglicans continued to wield enormous influence. Thirty one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence belonged to the Church of England, as did 21 of the 39 signers of the Constitution. George Washington was an Anglican.
This reversal of Episcopal fortune is due largely to well-known demographic shifts—the shrinking of the mainline Protestant denominations; the growth of evangelical and nondenominational churches, as well as in the number of people who declare themselves "unaffiliated." But the Episcopal Church has had its own unique troubles above and beyond the encroachment of those other sects. After three centuries as the church of the WASP establishment in America, it started to make news in 2003 when it elevated to bishop of New Hampshire an openly gay priest named Gene Robinson. The denomination suffered a massive identity crisis, with a majority of dioceses and parishes (openly or silently or unenthusiastically) supporting Robinson's promotion and a vocal minority opposing it. The grief of its members and clergy over the schism was both authentic and enduring. A colleague who is Episcopalian describes the rift thus: "Here we have the faith of the Founding Fathers, the religion that is the purest representation of old-line American power and money, tearing itself apart before our very eyes over … homosexuality. How embarrassing! How publicly humiliating—this for a faith and culture that abhors nothing more than public humiliation."
In one of the most byzantine organizational maneuvers ever wrought, the conservative opposition then regrouped under the leadership of a few conservative African bishops—still Anglican, still part of the global church, but no longer officially connected to the Americans. (This would be like a Girl Scout troop in Connecticut reestablishing itself as an outpost of Les Guides de France.) Skirmishes erupted over real estate: Did the property of a breakaway parish or diocese belong to the American church? Or the new church led by the Africans? This was important, of course, because some of that church property was quite old and worth a lot of money. Finally in December, the breakaway group, calling itself the Anglican Church in North America, declared its independence and elected an American bishop as its leader.
Following the story was difficult—a little bit like reading a Russian novel where you can't remember anyone's name. You had to keep flipping back to the beginning to figure out who did what to whom. And the climax, the establishment of a church of dissenters, was really very undramatic: America is and has always been an Eden for breakaway religious groups. There are at least 70 different kinds of Baptist in America, each group claiming its own theological truth, and at least two major factions of Lutherans. In the end, number of actual people who have seceded from the Episcopal Church is about 100,000. They would, in other words, fill Wembley Stadium—something Michael Jackson managed to do 10 times over.
Certainly, when the Episcopalians support—or seem to be supporting—gay marriage, it says something important about who we are as a nation and where we are going. But interest from the press is more prurient than that. Reporters haven't covered the similar battles within the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran denominations with the same zeal, and the fact that the United Church of Christ (which has its roots in those early Puritan congregations) already ordains and promotes gay clerics and performs same-sex unions merits little attention. (Though, to be fair, those churches have also managed to keep themselves intact.) The Episcopalians matter because, small and fractious as they are, they represent the apex of WASP culture—the honorable, formal, Greatest Generation values of a bygone age. (And because, despite their dwindling numbers, they still hold more than $4 billion in investments—not including real estate—according to a 2007 Episcopal Church fact sheet. They could, in other words, fund Obama's new education initiative.) FDR and Ronald Reagan were Episcopalian, as are Gerald Ford and George Herbert Walker Bush. Watching the Episcopalians fight amongst themselves is like watching a boozy family brawl at a genteel country club. Onlookers continue to hope that someone—grandpa or junior—will finally say what he's really thinking and make a headline. Or that someone will step in and dramatically reconcile the warring factions, thus making the family happy once again. No such luck. Like most families, the Episcopal Church prefers to potter along. They fight, they patch things up (or not), they move on. In this saga, as in all stories about families, the drama is in questions of identity and affiliation as the world continues to change—and not in carefully worded resolutions coming out of an annual convention.
Lisa Miller
Family Feud
Aug 19, 2009
The annual convention of the Episcopal Church ended last month in Anaheim, Calif., with a whimper, despite these rather staggering announcements: it would, after years of internal battling, continue to elevate gay priests to bishops, and it would consider blessing same-sex unions in the states that allow gays and lesbians to marry. The convention—and these announcements—received a fair amount of obligatory coverage, but the news cycle quickly moved on. In the wake of that coverage I received the following e-mail from an editor: "I've been following this story and trying, without success, to think of an interesting line of argument. It's been in the news a lot lately." Right. It's hard to think of an interesting story about the Episcopal Church in America because what happens within the Episcopal Church is—frankly, and with deep apologies to all my Episcopalian friends—just not that interesting.
After years of dominance, Episcopalians have become a minority religion in America. There are just 2.4 million Episcopalians in the United States, down from 3.5 million in 2001—a 31 percent falloff. (The Episcopal Church is the American branch of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide church that has 80 million members.) By comparison, there are 8 million nondenominational Christians (a low estimate), up from 2.5 million—an explosion of 220 percent over the same period. Thanks to the Great Awakenings and the waves of immigration over the past hundred years there are exponentially more Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists in America than Episcopalians. There are also—surprisingly—more Mormons, more Pentecostals, and slightly more Jews. (This last is especially interesting because at the height of 20th-century anti-Semitism, American Jews who wanted access to the highest levels of status and power would sometimes become Episcopalian. One wonders whether they would have done so had they known that they were switching from one shrinking minority religion to another.) According to the latest data from the American Religious Identification Survey, more people belong to cults and emerging religions than to the Episcopal Church.
Not only are Episcopalians less numerous than they used to be, their cultural and social power has been diluted as well. Our country was at least partially founded by Anglicans. America was colonized by the British at a time when the Church of England was, in effect, a national church. Thus many of the colonizers were Anglican, and the colonies were, too. Anglicanism became the established religion of Virginia in 1610, of lower New York in 1693, of Maryland in 1702, of South Carolina in 1706, and eventually a number of other Southern and mid-Atlantic states. (The Puritans in New England, always rebels, countered the Anglican juggernaut by claiming Congregationalism as their official church—and during the American Revolution sent many of the nascent nation's Anglican primates fleeing to Canada for their lives.) Only after the Revolution did the states agree to separate their governments from religion—an agreement reflected in Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Still, the Anglicans continued to wield enormous influence. Thirty one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence belonged to the Church of England, as did 21 of the 39 signers of the Constitution. George Washington was an Anglican.
This reversal of Episcopal fortune is due largely to well-known demographic shifts—the shrinking of the mainline Protestant denominations; the growth of evangelical and nondenominational churches, as well as in the number of people who declare themselves "unaffiliated." But the Episcopal Church has had its own unique troubles above and beyond the encroachment of those other sects. After three centuries as the church of the WASP establishment in America, it started to make news in 2003 when it elevated to bishop of New Hampshire an openly gay priest named Gene Robinson. The denomination suffered a massive identity crisis, with a majority of dioceses and parishes (openly or silently or unenthusiastically) supporting Robinson's promotion and a vocal minority opposing it. The grief of its members and clergy over the schism was both authentic and enduring. A colleague who is Episcopalian describes the rift thus: "Here we have the faith of the Founding Fathers, the religion that is the purest representation of old-line American power and money, tearing itself apart before our very eyes over … homosexuality. How embarrassing! How publicly humiliating—this for a faith and culture that abhors nothing more than public humiliation."
In one of the most byzantine organizational maneuvers ever wrought, the conservative opposition then regrouped under the leadership of a few conservative African bishops—still Anglican, still part of the global church, but no longer officially connected to the Americans. (This would be like a Girl Scout troop in Connecticut reestablishing itself as an outpost of Les Guides de France.) Skirmishes erupted over real estate: Did the property of a breakaway parish or diocese belong to the American church? Or the new church led by the Africans? This was important, of course, because some of that church property was quite old and worth a lot of money. Finally in December, the breakaway group, calling itself the Anglican Church in North America, declared its independence and elected an American bishop as its leader.
Following the story was difficult—a little bit like reading a Russian novel where you can't remember anyone's name. You had to keep flipping back to the beginning to figure out who did what to whom. And the climax, the establishment of a church of dissenters, was really very undramatic: America is and has always been an Eden for breakaway religious groups. There are at least 70 different kinds of Baptist in America, each group claiming its own theological truth, and at least two major factions of Lutherans. In the end, number of actual people who have seceded from the Episcopal Church is about 100,000. They would, in other words, fill Wembley Stadium—something Michael Jackson managed to do 10 times over.
Certainly, when the Episcopalians support—or seem to be supporting—gay marriage, it says something important about who we are as a nation and where we are going. But interest from the press is more prurient than that. Reporters haven't covered the similar battles within the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran denominations with the same zeal, and the fact that the United Church of Christ (which has its roots in those early Puritan congregations) already ordains and promotes gay clerics and performs same-sex unions merits little attention. (Though, to be fair, those churches have also managed to keep themselves intact.) The Episcopalians matter because, small and fractious as they are, they represent the apex of WASP culture—the honorable, formal, Greatest Generation values of a bygone age. (And because, despite their dwindling numbers, they still hold more than $4 billion in investments—not including real estate—according to a 2007 Episcopal Church fact sheet. They could, in other words, fund Obama's new education initiative.) FDR and Ronald Reagan were Episcopalian, as are Gerald Ford and George Herbert Walker Bush. Watching the Episcopalians fight amongst themselves is like watching a boozy family brawl at a genteel country club. Onlookers continue to hope that someone—grandpa or junior—will finally say what he's really thinking and make a headline. Or that someone will step in and dramatically reconcile the warring factions, thus making the family happy once again. No such luck. Like most families, the Episcopal Church prefers to potter along. They fight, they patch things up (or not), they move on. In this saga, as in all stories about families, the drama is in questions of identity and affiliation as the world continues to change—and not in carefully worded resolutions coming out of an annual convention.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Binghamton college told to stop discriminating against churches
From Transfigurations:
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
College scraps discriminatory policy prohibiting use of facilities for religious purposes
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have reached a favorable settlement agreement with Broome Community College on behalf of North Pointe Church, which is now allowed equal access to campus facilities after being told it was no longer permitted to meet on campus. ADF attorneys filed suit in February over the school’s discriminatory policy prohibiting religious groups from renting its buildings for meetings while allowing other similarly situated community groups to do so.
“Churches shouldn’t be discriminated against for their beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “We are pleased that Broome Community College now recognizes the constitutional right of churches and other religious groups to meet in public meeting facilities on the same terms as other groups.”
North Pointe Church had been regularly holding meetings in a rented facility on the Broome Community College campus for several months. But college officials invoked a ban on “religious services” and barred the church from continuing to rent space there after a few members of the public complained to the college about a church meeting in a public facility.
ADF attorneys, along with local counsel Raymond Dague of Syracuse, filed North Pointe Church v. Moppert with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of NewYork, arguing that churches have equal access to public facilities under the law and cannot be discriminated against because of the religious nature of their meetings--especially as paying customers.
In March, just days after the filing, the college stated in court that it would be closing its facilities to everyone on weekends because of financial constraints that made it cheaper to simply close the buildings; however, later evidence revealed that Broome’s buildings actually remained open on the weekends for other uses.
Barred from using the campus, the church searched for and found another location at which to meet during the ongoing litigation and plans to continue meeting at its new location now that it has already moved. However, the change in the Broome policy removes an unconstitutional barrier for any church that wishes to meet on the campus on equal terms with other groups in the future.
ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit with the court Tuesday in light of the settlement, in which the college also agreed to reimburse legal fees and costs.
posted by Pat Dague @ 11:07 PM
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
College scraps discriminatory policy prohibiting use of facilities for religious purposes
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have reached a favorable settlement agreement with Broome Community College on behalf of North Pointe Church, which is now allowed equal access to campus facilities after being told it was no longer permitted to meet on campus. ADF attorneys filed suit in February over the school’s discriminatory policy prohibiting religious groups from renting its buildings for meetings while allowing other similarly situated community groups to do so.
“Churches shouldn’t be discriminated against for their beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “We are pleased that Broome Community College now recognizes the constitutional right of churches and other religious groups to meet in public meeting facilities on the same terms as other groups.”
North Pointe Church had been regularly holding meetings in a rented facility on the Broome Community College campus for several months. But college officials invoked a ban on “religious services” and barred the church from continuing to rent space there after a few members of the public complained to the college about a church meeting in a public facility.
ADF attorneys, along with local counsel Raymond Dague of Syracuse, filed North Pointe Church v. Moppert with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of NewYork, arguing that churches have equal access to public facilities under the law and cannot be discriminated against because of the religious nature of their meetings--especially as paying customers.
In March, just days after the filing, the college stated in court that it would be closing its facilities to everyone on weekends because of financial constraints that made it cheaper to simply close the buildings; however, later evidence revealed that Broome’s buildings actually remained open on the weekends for other uses.
Barred from using the campus, the church searched for and found another location at which to meet during the ongoing litigation and plans to continue meeting at its new location now that it has already moved. However, the change in the Broome policy removes an unconstitutional barrier for any church that wishes to meet on the campus on equal terms with other groups in the future.
ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit with the court Tuesday in light of the settlement, in which the college also agreed to reimburse legal fees and costs.
posted by Pat Dague @ 11:07 PM
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
Via Transfigurations:
Monday, August 17, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.
During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.
“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.
“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.
“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.
In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.
Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.
Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.
In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.
Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.
Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.
The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.
Monday, August 17, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.
During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.
“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.
“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.
“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.
In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.
Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.
Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.
In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.
Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.
Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.
The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.
Monday, August 17, 2009
A Response to Bishop Lawrence's Remarks to the Clergy of South Carolina
From TexAnglican (Fr. Randall Foster) via TitusOneNine:
Friday, August 14, 2009
Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina, one of the most stalwart orthodox bishops left inside TEC, has addressed his clergy and called for a special convention to discuss responses to GenCon 09. His remarks may be found here. Please read them all carefully. They are important, though not nearly as strong as I would have hoped.
I freely admit that this is a powerful statement from a faithful shepherd. He is a good and godly man, trying his best to serve God and his people. I certainly mean no disrespect to the worthy bishop by what follows here, but I just don’t see any proposal in these remarks to take much more than a few symbolic protest actions. As a “strongly worded letter of protest” at what TEC has been up to, the bishop's remarks are superb. But we have seen many such fine protest letters defending the true Faith over the last six years, haven’t we? What concrete actions does the bishop of South Carolina envision? What is DioSC actually going to do differently now that GenCon 09 has made the course of TEC clear? I see five things in these remarks:
1. Action will soon be taken to clarify that ordinands in South Carolina won’t be taking oaths to support recent, illegitimate actions by TEC when they are ordained. This is a good thing as a symbol, but of little practical importance as far as I can see.
2. DioSC will apparently be taking steps to formally endorse the Ridley draft of the Covenant individually, and we all know national TEC will not ever do so. This diocesan endorsement of the Covenant may one day have some significance if ABC Williams’ prediction of “two tracks” in the world-wide Communion ever comes to pass. But in practical terms such an endorsement by DioSC will matter little for years to come, if ever. This looks to me like just another symbolic action, at least until TEC definitively rejects the Covenant. (Will that final rejection come six years from now at GenCon 2015? You know TEC will stall as long as possible in making a final decision that might result in consequences from Lambeth Palace.).
3. There are calls here for DioSC to offer support to orthodox parishes elsewhere within TEC. The bishop mentions increased engagement by parishes and the laity in this effort. I am not clear exactly what this increased engagement in non-DioSC orthodox parishes still inside TEC would entail. DEPO has been around a long time, so surely +Lawrence means more than that. Time will tell how this can be lived out. I hope it is of great help to the orthodox in TEC around the nation.
4. There are signs the bishop hopes for increased engagement with GAFCON and ACNA. That’s a good thing. What precisely that would mean, I don’t know. If it means dropping certain lawsuits, that would really miff PB Schori, and that would surely be a good thing!
5. Finally, there is the most important proposed action in the text: “The Standing Committee and bishop will be proposing a resolution to come before the special convention that this diocese begin withdrawing from all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions. Let no one think this is a denial of the vows a priest or bishop makes to participate in the councils of governance.”
Yet as Anglican Curmudgeon points out, this is not a call to formally terminate membership in any ecclesial body, even General Convention. Rather, it appears to mean only not sending representatives to meetings in order to “participate in the councils of governance.” Unfortunately, it seems that DioSC doesn’t presently have any reps on any national committees of TEC, so they may have no one to “pull” from TEC governance meetings to effectuate this “withdrawal” other than Bishop Lawrence himself. In practical terms in the next few years this would mean little more than +Lawrence boycotting House of Bishops meetings and DioSC not sending any representatives to take part at GenCon 2012 (though Dr. Seitz of the ACI seems to be saying they should send ‘observers’ to GenCon 2012).
So, for all practical purposes we will notice little more different with regard to DioSC during the next few years than the following: a few symbolic steps to “differentiate” themselves more from national TEC (ordinands will formally be told that they are not swearing to uphold illegitimate actions of GenCon and DioSC will sign the Covenant individually), there may be increased, as-yet undefined links between DioSC and orthodox TEC parishes elsewhere and with GAFCON/ACNA, and Bishop Lawrence may boycott House of Bishops meetings. (I should note here that Bishop Iker didn’t attend HoB meetings for years before we left TEC last fall. No one seemed to think that was a particularly bold move at the time.)
Have I left anything important off this list?
Perhaps these moves aren’t exactly "timid" but they surely are not the bold action I was hoping for from the worthy Bishop Lawrence. This very cautious approach may be exactly what the good people of DioSC want to happen. But does the “third way” some are looking for between a.) endorsing TEC's present trajectory into folly and heresy, and b.) departing TEC for ACNA, amount to anything more than I have just summarized? As far as I can tell this “third way” constitutes little more than tending faithfully to church local affairs while taking a few symbolic actions to "differentiate" from national TEC a bit more and ignoring 815 as much as possible.
Sadly absolutely nothing proposed in this new "middle way" will save DioSC in the long run. One day the worthy Bishop Lawrence will leave the scene and they will have to elect a new bishop. And as long as they remain under the Constitutions and Canons of TEC their new-bishop elect, whoever he is, will have to receive consents from a majority of the heretical leadership of TEC in order to be consecrated. Any plan DioSC adopts now that does not rapidly move toward departure from TEC will eventually spell their doom. I hope they have the wisdom to see that.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina, one of the most stalwart orthodox bishops left inside TEC, has addressed his clergy and called for a special convention to discuss responses to GenCon 09. His remarks may be found here. Please read them all carefully. They are important, though not nearly as strong as I would have hoped.
I freely admit that this is a powerful statement from a faithful shepherd. He is a good and godly man, trying his best to serve God and his people. I certainly mean no disrespect to the worthy bishop by what follows here, but I just don’t see any proposal in these remarks to take much more than a few symbolic protest actions. As a “strongly worded letter of protest” at what TEC has been up to, the bishop's remarks are superb. But we have seen many such fine protest letters defending the true Faith over the last six years, haven’t we? What concrete actions does the bishop of South Carolina envision? What is DioSC actually going to do differently now that GenCon 09 has made the course of TEC clear? I see five things in these remarks:
1. Action will soon be taken to clarify that ordinands in South Carolina won’t be taking oaths to support recent, illegitimate actions by TEC when they are ordained. This is a good thing as a symbol, but of little practical importance as far as I can see.
2. DioSC will apparently be taking steps to formally endorse the Ridley draft of the Covenant individually, and we all know national TEC will not ever do so. This diocesan endorsement of the Covenant may one day have some significance if ABC Williams’ prediction of “two tracks” in the world-wide Communion ever comes to pass. But in practical terms such an endorsement by DioSC will matter little for years to come, if ever. This looks to me like just another symbolic action, at least until TEC definitively rejects the Covenant. (Will that final rejection come six years from now at GenCon 2015? You know TEC will stall as long as possible in making a final decision that might result in consequences from Lambeth Palace.).
3. There are calls here for DioSC to offer support to orthodox parishes elsewhere within TEC. The bishop mentions increased engagement by parishes and the laity in this effort. I am not clear exactly what this increased engagement in non-DioSC orthodox parishes still inside TEC would entail. DEPO has been around a long time, so surely +Lawrence means more than that. Time will tell how this can be lived out. I hope it is of great help to the orthodox in TEC around the nation.
4. There are signs the bishop hopes for increased engagement with GAFCON and ACNA. That’s a good thing. What precisely that would mean, I don’t know. If it means dropping certain lawsuits, that would really miff PB Schori, and that would surely be a good thing!
5. Finally, there is the most important proposed action in the text: “The Standing Committee and bishop will be proposing a resolution to come before the special convention that this diocese begin withdrawing from all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions. Let no one think this is a denial of the vows a priest or bishop makes to participate in the councils of governance.”
Yet as Anglican Curmudgeon points out, this is not a call to formally terminate membership in any ecclesial body, even General Convention. Rather, it appears to mean only not sending representatives to meetings in order to “participate in the councils of governance.” Unfortunately, it seems that DioSC doesn’t presently have any reps on any national committees of TEC, so they may have no one to “pull” from TEC governance meetings to effectuate this “withdrawal” other than Bishop Lawrence himself. In practical terms in the next few years this would mean little more than +Lawrence boycotting House of Bishops meetings and DioSC not sending any representatives to take part at GenCon 2012 (though Dr. Seitz of the ACI seems to be saying they should send ‘observers’ to GenCon 2012).
So, for all practical purposes we will notice little more different with regard to DioSC during the next few years than the following: a few symbolic steps to “differentiate” themselves more from national TEC (ordinands will formally be told that they are not swearing to uphold illegitimate actions of GenCon and DioSC will sign the Covenant individually), there may be increased, as-yet undefined links between DioSC and orthodox TEC parishes elsewhere and with GAFCON/ACNA, and Bishop Lawrence may boycott House of Bishops meetings. (I should note here that Bishop Iker didn’t attend HoB meetings for years before we left TEC last fall. No one seemed to think that was a particularly bold move at the time.)
Have I left anything important off this list?
Perhaps these moves aren’t exactly "timid" but they surely are not the bold action I was hoping for from the worthy Bishop Lawrence. This very cautious approach may be exactly what the good people of DioSC want to happen. But does the “third way” some are looking for between a.) endorsing TEC's present trajectory into folly and heresy, and b.) departing TEC for ACNA, amount to anything more than I have just summarized? As far as I can tell this “third way” constitutes little more than tending faithfully to church local affairs while taking a few symbolic actions to "differentiate" from national TEC a bit more and ignoring 815 as much as possible.
Sadly absolutely nothing proposed in this new "middle way" will save DioSC in the long run. One day the worthy Bishop Lawrence will leave the scene and they will have to elect a new bishop. And as long as they remain under the Constitutions and Canons of TEC their new-bishop elect, whoever he is, will have to receive consents from a majority of the heretical leadership of TEC in order to be consecrated. Any plan DioSC adopts now that does not rapidly move toward departure from TEC will eventually spell their doom. I hope they have the wisdom to see that.
A Further Look into ECUSA Finances
From the Anglican Curmudgeon via Stand Firm:
Saturday, August 15, 2009
In a post last week I discussed how some of the exhibits presented to the Court in the Pittsburgh litigation offered a window into the fast track available to certain insiders within ECUSA who signaled their willingness to cooperate with the Church's litigation strategy: never acknowledge that a Diocese has withdrawn, but organize those remaining and "recognize" the insiders as quickly as possible in order to give the appearance of an ongoing entity. Then use that claim of an ongoing entity to have it take on the role of plaintiff in a lawsuit against the departed Diocese.
As I have pointed out concerning the similar strategy being followed in San Joaquin, ECUSA is playing a very high-risk game. It is staking everything on the success of its being able to prove to secular courts that dioceses are not at liberty to withdraw from the voluntary association which is the Episcopal Church (USA). Not only does this argument ignore the very nature of voluntary associations, but it violates First Amendment principles of free exercise and freedom of association as well.
A chief reason for this strategy is probably this: the Dennis Canon provides no means or argument with which ECUSA can go after the property and assets of departing dioceses. By its terms, the Dennis Canon addresses only property held by or for the benefit of individual parishes. Thus to maintain any claim to the assets of a diocese, ECUSA has to act as though the diocese never left, and is coming into court to take back from those who did leave that which (it says) they had no right to take with them.
ECUSA's concerns for property are thus shaping its legal arguments, and that is not a healthy dynamic. In this post, I want to underscore that point by showing how another of the Pittsburgh exhibits demonstrates that ECUSA appears (on the surface, at least) to disregard the terms of trusts to which it is subject: namely, the gifts, bequests and devises that have been left to it over the years. You will see below how, to suit its immediate needs and purposes, ECUSA at first would seem to twist and contort the terms of individual bequests to enable it to carry on with its misguided litigation strategy. But then a surprisingly different possible interpretation suggests itself, as I also spell out below. Which interpretation is correct? You will have to be the judge.
I gave a link in the earlier post to the first of three downloads of exhibit volumes filed with the Court. It is a large download, and probably not worth your trouble for my present purposes, since I want to focus on just one exhibit, which I shall quote here in full: Exhibit 35, which is a two-page copy of a resolution adopted by the Church's Executive Council at its meeting in Helena, Montana in October 2008, as certified by the Rev. Dr. Gregory Straub, the Council's Secretary. It begins:
November 3, 2008
The following is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Executive Council at its meeting on October 20 - 23, 2008, in Helena, Montana, at which a quorum was present and voting.
Resolved, That up to $700,000 of undistributed accumulated income and appreciation be made available in calendar year 2009 from one or more of the following trust funds established to support the missionary work or mission work of the Church,
TF# 756 Lloyd, Ethel S., Bequest of (1966)
TF# 200.02 The St. Leger Fund (1909)
TF#492 Hopkins, Theresa B., Bequest of (1936)
TF# 723 Zabriskie Memorial Fund (1961)
TF# 814 Boyd, Lizzie E. Fupd (1978)
TF# 656 Monteagle, Lydia Paige, Bequest of (1953)
TF# 678 Olden, Sarah E., Bequest of (1955)
TF# 860 Gregg, Ellen F. and David McM. Memorial Fund (1982)
TF# 540 Seager, Schuyler E, Gift of(1941)
and be it further
Resolved, That these funds be used to provide fmancial assistance during calendar year 2009 in the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and other similarly situated dioceses for clergy salaries and other expenses; and be it further
Resolved, That in the light of the action of the Presiding Bishop in deposing the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan as Bishop of Pittsburgh for abandoning the Communion of this Church, the Executive Council joins with the Presiding Bishop in recognizing the Rev. James Simons, the Rev. Jeffrey Murph, and Ms. Mary Roehrich as the current Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and designates a portion of the funds referred to in the first Resolve be used to provide financial assistance during calendar year 2009 to the current leadership of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for clergy salaries and other expenses; and be it further
Resolved, That the Executive Council joins with the Presiding Bishop in recognizing The Rev. Keith Axberg, The Rev. Glenn Kanestrom, Ms: Cindy Smith, Mr. John Ledbetter, The Rev. John Shumaker, Mr. Richard Jennings, Ms. Beryl Simkins, and The Rev. Tim Vivian as the current Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin and designates a portion of the funds referred to in the first Resolve be used to provide continued financial assistance to the current leadership of the Diocese of San Joaquin, as well as to the leadership of other similarly-situated dioceses, for clergy salaries and other expenses during the calendar year 2009 . . .
Now this seems rather transparent, does it not? In order for ECUSA's legal theory to succeed in court, we need to have some official "recognition" of the remnant groups by the Church itself. So the Executive Council obligingly passes a resolution attesting to its "recognition" of certain individuals as constituting a "Standing Committee". Never mind that there is, as yet, no formally organized association in the eyes of the law to which such a "Standing Committee" could belong. (Pittsburgh had, as of October 2008, not yet held its "Special Convention", and San Joaquin's, called in March 2008, had been improperly noticed and lacked a legal quorum.)
"Recognition" is one thing, but what is this in the Helena Resolution about pulling out "up to $700,000 of undistributed annual income and appreciation" from certain trust funds to pay for "clergy salaries and other expenses"? Why should there be any "undistributed income" at all, if the trust fund is designated for a particular purpose? And what does it mean that there is "undistributed" appreciation? Since when is the increase in the value of a trust fund regarded as something to "distribute"? (Obviously, if a trustee kept paying out the yearly appreciation in a fund along with its income, it could never grow at all. And in years when it went down in value, it could never come back later, if any subsequent gains were distributed as they occurred.) Intrigued by the references to specific trust funds in the Council's Resolution, I decided to do some further digging.
It turns out that, as a consequence of all the brouhaha over the embezzlement of millions by a former treasurer of the Church, ECUSA was required by the Attorney General of New York to do an audit of its funds held in trust. As part of the audit, it agreed "to prepare an annual trust fund book and promptly provide copies of it to members of the church who request it." Now, this was news to me; I had not seen any such "annual trust fund book". I went looking for it on ECUSA's official Website, and what do you know -- I found it. (Caution -- the link is to a 308-page .pdf download of the last such book published, for calendar year 2007).
This "Annual Trust Funds Book" provides a wealth of information about the wealth of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America -- which is the official name of the incorporated arm of ECUSA, organized under New York law in 1846 (but existing in earlier form ever since 1820). The DFMS was modeled on two similar predecessors established under the Church of England: the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. In accordance with those models, the main purpose of the DFMS was to facilitate the work of missionaries and the spread of Church missions both domestically and in foreign countries, and it was through its efforts that ECUSA became a national church that affiliated over the years with a number of foreign dioceses.
Over those same years, a great deal of money was given to further the missionary work of the DFMS. The 2007 Trust Funds Book reports the total value of all funds it currently holds in trust at $363,218,308 as of the end of that year. All of the individual bequests are pooled into a common investment fund, which is allocated 72% to equities, 20% to bonds (mostly of the United States), and 8% to other types of investment, chiefly hedge funds (see the tabular breakout on page 6).
The Trust Funds Book also lists each separate bequest it tracks, and classifies them by the purpose for which the income from the bequest (and principal, in some cases) may be used. The largest single such category is Category 200: "General Purposes of the Society" (listed at pp. 235-240). The listing in the Helena Resolution quoted above identifies the nine funds by their individual numbers in the main listing of all funds in the book in chronological order (the higher the number, the more recent the gift). Of the nine, six are in Category 200, two are in Category 210 ("Program"), and one in Category 211 ("Domestic Missions"). Here are their individual descriptions as they appear in the main body of the book, again in chronological order:
200.02 St. Leger Fund (1909) A Special
First Section: Two-thirds [Trust Fund No. 200.02] for general missionary work; one-third [Trust Fund No. 200.01] for hospital work in Alaska in memory of Captain Isaac Waite. . .
Shares in Pool: 18,799.212 Category: 210 (Program)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $428,899 12/31/2007: $452,670
492.00 Hopkins, Mrs. Theresa B., Boston, MA (1936) No. 1, Bequest of
Income to be used for general missions. Principal may be used as well, but only for a pension system for unordained missionaries.
Shares in Pool: 8,992.529 Category: 200 (General Purposes)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $205,162 12/31/2007: $216,533
540.00 Seager, Schuyler F., Berkeley, CA (1941) Gift of, A Special
In memory of Leila Betts. Established under terms of trust agreement. Income to go to a life beneficiary. Upon her death (beneficiary died September 16, 1953), income for missionary work of the Society.
Shares in Pool: 1,798.521 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $41,033 12/31/2007: $43,307
656.00 Monteagle, Lydia Paige, San Francisco, CA (1953) Bequest of, A Special
When Mrs. Monteagle died in 1930, her will established several trusts. The Society was bequeathed the remainder of one trust, subject to a life income interest. The life beneficiary died in 1953, and under the terms of the will, the Society received the principal "to be used by it for such Missionary work as it may determine."
Shares in Pool: 4,968.089 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $113,346 12/31/2007: $119,628
678.00 Olden, Sarah E., New York, NY (1955) Bequest of, A Special
The income from this fund was restricted by the donor to missions within the United States.
Shares in Pool: 4,373.153 Category: 211 (Domestic Missions)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $99,772 12/31/2007: $105,302
723.00 Zabriskie Memorial Fund, New York, NY (1961) A Special
Received from the Helen and Reginald Zabriskie Memorial Fund. Income for specific projects of missionary work in the United States and foreign countries.
Shares in Pool: 9,875.932 Category: 210 (Program)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $225,317 12/31/2007: $237,805
756.00 Lloyd, Ethel S., Detroit, MI (1966) Bequest of, A Special
To establish the "Memorial Fund." Given "to the glory of God and in loving and grateful memory of Thomas Lloyd and Emily B. (Pulling) Lloyd, by their children: Arthur H. Lloyd, Bertha E. Lloyd, and Ethel S. Lloyd. Income for the missionary expansion of the work of the Society in the United States and throughout the world."
Shares in Pool: 141,111.113 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $3,219,413 12/31/2007: $3,397,845
814.00 Boyd, Lizzie E., Richmond, VA (1978)
Income to be used in such manner as the Society may from time to time deem best in furtherance of its missionary work.
Shares in Pool: 7,694.097 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $175,539 12/31/2007: $185,268
860.00 Gregg, Ellen F. and David McM., Memorial Fund, Pennsylvania (1982) Bequest of George S. Gregg
Income is be used perpetually for general missionary work. This fund resulted from the bequest of the remainder of a residuary trust under the decedent's will, subject to the life income interest of an individual beneficiary. The income beneficiary died in 1981, and this trust was set up with the proceeds received by the Society.
Shares in Pool: 3,116.406 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $71,100 12/31/2007: $75,041
In these descriptions of the individual bequests, time and again one reads that they are "for the purposes of the Society", and for "general missionary work". One is restricted for "domestic missionary work" -- Fund #678, the Sarah E. Olden Bequest -- but none of the others have geographical restrictions on them. Now let us look at the rest of the text of the Helena Resolution, and see how the Executive Council justifies the appropriation of the "undistributed income and appreciation" from these funds for "clergy salaries and other expenses" in the putative dioceses of Pittsburgh and San Joaquin:
Resolved, That the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church commends the work of all those involved in supporting the efforts by Dioceses to exercise their pastoral and fiduciary responsibilities in regard to the ownership of properties and funds; and be it further
Resolved, That the disbursement of these funds from one or more of the above trusts be made by the Presiding Bishop and the Treasurer.
EXPLANATION
Some members of the Episcopal Church in the Dioceses of San Joaquin and Pittsburgh have opted to leave the Church. The remaining members of these dioceses -- lay and ordained -- find they have reduced resources from which to care for one another and to reach out to those who do not know the Gospel of Christ. Ordained ministers, who provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians, now face insecurity with respect to their salaries.
The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ -- through prayer and worship, proclaiming the Gospel, and promoting justice, peace and love. These dioceses have become fertile areas for mission work.
The Executive Council authorized a draw of up to $500,000 to fund similar work in 2008. Through October, nearly $421,000 had been expended to support mission in the dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh. These disbursements were reviewed and approved by legal counsel, who confirmed that the disbursements complied with the terms and conditions of the trusts.
The undistributed appreciation in the above named trust funds totaled an estimated $3.0 million as of 09/30/08.
(Except for the word "Resolved", I have added the bold emphasis to the original.) Note that only the disbursements totaling $421,000 made through October 2008 had been "reviewed and approved by legal counsel" --- not the $700,000 which the Executive Council authorized to be disbursed by this Resolution. The total market value of all of the nine funds at the end of calendar 2007 comes to $4,833,400, with nearly two-thirds of that coming from the Ethel S. Lloyd Fund, a gift made in 1966. Thus, according to the Treasurer, nearly two-thirds of the market value of the identified funds is available for use by ECUSA.
But available for what purposes? For "general missionary work" -- meaning to keep clergy preaching to the remnants in Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and San Joaquin? And to pay unidentified "other expenses" -- such as legal fees, perhaps? It seems to this attorney, based just on the descriptions given in the book, somewhat irregular that ECUSA would decide that the nine funds it identifies could be used for such a purpose. Especially when one considers that the book lists the following fund (to take just one example I found):
663.00 Clergy Sustentation Fund (1953) A Special
This fund was established by an anonymous gift. The donor directed that "this fund as well as the income from it, is to be used exclusively for the payment of ministerial salaries, with preference to be given to those localities where clergy of the Catholic Apostolic Church now exist or formerly existed and where members of that church now reside, notably in the Dioceses of New York, Long Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, and California." The income and/or principal is to be appropriated by the Presiding Bishop at his discretion. [Note: The principal of this fund had previously been described (in the 1993 Trust Fund Record) as donor restricted, but it is clear that the Presiding Bishop has discretion to apply both principal and income to the specified purposes. The donor's expression of preference for certain dioceses does not restrict the Presiding Bishop's discretionary authority.]
Shares in Pool: 81,950.182 Category: 109 (Presiding Bishop's Discretionary Fund)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $1,869,672 12/31/2007: $1,973,296
There is nearly $2 million of which both principal and interest may be used at the discretion of the Presiding Bishop for clergy salaries in any diocese whatsoever, without restriction. And yet this fund is not tapped, but instead the funds chosen to be used are ones designated for "general missionary purposes".
Do you see what is being hidden here? The attorneys for ECUSA approve the expenditure of missionary funds in the areas of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh. These "dioceses" are not -- and probably will never be, unless and until they win their respective lawsuits and gain access to the funds of the majorities who voted to leave -- self-supporting, even though the dioceses which left each allowed those remnants to keep their own properties and bank accounts. But that is inadequate for them to keep their own clergy paid while the suits are pending -- because all of the individual parish pledges and plate collections must go 100% to the payment of the cost of maintaining the current lawsuits. Thus there are no local funds available to pay clergy, and the helpful DFMS must step in.
At the same time, however, the attorneys for ECUSA do not authorize the use of moneys from a trust fund specifically designated for the payment of "ministerial salaries". And why not? Look again at the description of the trust's purposes as stated in the Trust Fund Book and quoted above. It speaks of specific Dioceses where those funds are to be used -- "New York, Long Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, and California" -- although counsel have opined that the Presiding Bishop is not restricted by that listing.
I ask myself: could the operative word here be "Dioceses"? And could the fact that the groups in Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Quincy have yet to prove in a court of law that they are fully legal and duly constituted dioceses of ECUSA have anything to do with what is going on here? Might it just be that conservative legal advice pointed out that, until that question is finally resolved in the courts, it would be imprudent to use funds to support clergy who might not be in dioceses, but in missionary areas? (The New York Attorney General has the power to order Church officials personally to refund any moneys that are expended in violation of the specific terms of a trust.)
I do not pretend to know the answer, since I have no access to the original trust documents. But it certainly is an interesting distinction which the Executive Council has drawn: missionary funds are to be used in what are currently only missionary areas (even though the Council will never admit that they are), while funds designated for clergy in specific dioceses accumulate unspent back in New York.
Moreover, the Church's missionary funds are drawn down to support operations in what the Church clearly wants to be regarded as full-fledged dioceses, with already established parishes. That, in fact, satisfies no definition of "mission" of which I am aware -- and it denigrates nearly 200 years of honorable and outstanding work by actual missionaries to spread the Gospel to those who are unaware of it.
The question, at any rate, is certainly worth asking. Now, will anyone at ECUSA step forward and provide an explanation?
Posted by A. S. Haley at 11:52 AM
Saturday, August 15, 2009
In a post last week I discussed how some of the exhibits presented to the Court in the Pittsburgh litigation offered a window into the fast track available to certain insiders within ECUSA who signaled their willingness to cooperate with the Church's litigation strategy: never acknowledge that a Diocese has withdrawn, but organize those remaining and "recognize" the insiders as quickly as possible in order to give the appearance of an ongoing entity. Then use that claim of an ongoing entity to have it take on the role of plaintiff in a lawsuit against the departed Diocese.
As I have pointed out concerning the similar strategy being followed in San Joaquin, ECUSA is playing a very high-risk game. It is staking everything on the success of its being able to prove to secular courts that dioceses are not at liberty to withdraw from the voluntary association which is the Episcopal Church (USA). Not only does this argument ignore the very nature of voluntary associations, but it violates First Amendment principles of free exercise and freedom of association as well.
A chief reason for this strategy is probably this: the Dennis Canon provides no means or argument with which ECUSA can go after the property and assets of departing dioceses. By its terms, the Dennis Canon addresses only property held by or for the benefit of individual parishes. Thus to maintain any claim to the assets of a diocese, ECUSA has to act as though the diocese never left, and is coming into court to take back from those who did leave that which (it says) they had no right to take with them.
ECUSA's concerns for property are thus shaping its legal arguments, and that is not a healthy dynamic. In this post, I want to underscore that point by showing how another of the Pittsburgh exhibits demonstrates that ECUSA appears (on the surface, at least) to disregard the terms of trusts to which it is subject: namely, the gifts, bequests and devises that have been left to it over the years. You will see below how, to suit its immediate needs and purposes, ECUSA at first would seem to twist and contort the terms of individual bequests to enable it to carry on with its misguided litigation strategy. But then a surprisingly different possible interpretation suggests itself, as I also spell out below. Which interpretation is correct? You will have to be the judge.
I gave a link in the earlier post to the first of three downloads of exhibit volumes filed with the Court. It is a large download, and probably not worth your trouble for my present purposes, since I want to focus on just one exhibit, which I shall quote here in full: Exhibit 35, which is a two-page copy of a resolution adopted by the Church's Executive Council at its meeting in Helena, Montana in October 2008, as certified by the Rev. Dr. Gregory Straub, the Council's Secretary. It begins:
November 3, 2008
The following is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Executive Council at its meeting on October 20 - 23, 2008, in Helena, Montana, at which a quorum was present and voting.
Resolved, That up to $700,000 of undistributed accumulated income and appreciation be made available in calendar year 2009 from one or more of the following trust funds established to support the missionary work or mission work of the Church,
TF# 756 Lloyd, Ethel S., Bequest of (1966)
TF# 200.02 The St. Leger Fund (1909)
TF#492 Hopkins, Theresa B., Bequest of (1936)
TF# 723 Zabriskie Memorial Fund (1961)
TF# 814 Boyd, Lizzie E. Fupd (1978)
TF# 656 Monteagle, Lydia Paige, Bequest of (1953)
TF# 678 Olden, Sarah E., Bequest of (1955)
TF# 860 Gregg, Ellen F. and David McM. Memorial Fund (1982)
TF# 540 Seager, Schuyler E, Gift of(1941)
and be it further
Resolved, That these funds be used to provide fmancial assistance during calendar year 2009 in the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and other similarly situated dioceses for clergy salaries and other expenses; and be it further
Resolved, That in the light of the action of the Presiding Bishop in deposing the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan as Bishop of Pittsburgh for abandoning the Communion of this Church, the Executive Council joins with the Presiding Bishop in recognizing the Rev. James Simons, the Rev. Jeffrey Murph, and Ms. Mary Roehrich as the current Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and designates a portion of the funds referred to in the first Resolve be used to provide financial assistance during calendar year 2009 to the current leadership of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for clergy salaries and other expenses; and be it further
Resolved, That the Executive Council joins with the Presiding Bishop in recognizing The Rev. Keith Axberg, The Rev. Glenn Kanestrom, Ms: Cindy Smith, Mr. John Ledbetter, The Rev. John Shumaker, Mr. Richard Jennings, Ms. Beryl Simkins, and The Rev. Tim Vivian as the current Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin and designates a portion of the funds referred to in the first Resolve be used to provide continued financial assistance to the current leadership of the Diocese of San Joaquin, as well as to the leadership of other similarly-situated dioceses, for clergy salaries and other expenses during the calendar year 2009 . . .
Now this seems rather transparent, does it not? In order for ECUSA's legal theory to succeed in court, we need to have some official "recognition" of the remnant groups by the Church itself. So the Executive Council obligingly passes a resolution attesting to its "recognition" of certain individuals as constituting a "Standing Committee". Never mind that there is, as yet, no formally organized association in the eyes of the law to which such a "Standing Committee" could belong. (Pittsburgh had, as of October 2008, not yet held its "Special Convention", and San Joaquin's, called in March 2008, had been improperly noticed and lacked a legal quorum.)
"Recognition" is one thing, but what is this in the Helena Resolution about pulling out "up to $700,000 of undistributed annual income and appreciation" from certain trust funds to pay for "clergy salaries and other expenses"? Why should there be any "undistributed income" at all, if the trust fund is designated for a particular purpose? And what does it mean that there is "undistributed" appreciation? Since when is the increase in the value of a trust fund regarded as something to "distribute"? (Obviously, if a trustee kept paying out the yearly appreciation in a fund along with its income, it could never grow at all. And in years when it went down in value, it could never come back later, if any subsequent gains were distributed as they occurred.) Intrigued by the references to specific trust funds in the Council's Resolution, I decided to do some further digging.
It turns out that, as a consequence of all the brouhaha over the embezzlement of millions by a former treasurer of the Church, ECUSA was required by the Attorney General of New York to do an audit of its funds held in trust. As part of the audit, it agreed "to prepare an annual trust fund book and promptly provide copies of it to members of the church who request it." Now, this was news to me; I had not seen any such "annual trust fund book". I went looking for it on ECUSA's official Website, and what do you know -- I found it. (Caution -- the link is to a 308-page .pdf download of the last such book published, for calendar year 2007).
This "Annual Trust Funds Book" provides a wealth of information about the wealth of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America -- which is the official name of the incorporated arm of ECUSA, organized under New York law in 1846 (but existing in earlier form ever since 1820). The DFMS was modeled on two similar predecessors established under the Church of England: the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. In accordance with those models, the main purpose of the DFMS was to facilitate the work of missionaries and the spread of Church missions both domestically and in foreign countries, and it was through its efforts that ECUSA became a national church that affiliated over the years with a number of foreign dioceses.
Over those same years, a great deal of money was given to further the missionary work of the DFMS. The 2007 Trust Funds Book reports the total value of all funds it currently holds in trust at $363,218,308 as of the end of that year. All of the individual bequests are pooled into a common investment fund, which is allocated 72% to equities, 20% to bonds (mostly of the United States), and 8% to other types of investment, chiefly hedge funds (see the tabular breakout on page 6).
The Trust Funds Book also lists each separate bequest it tracks, and classifies them by the purpose for which the income from the bequest (and principal, in some cases) may be used. The largest single such category is Category 200: "General Purposes of the Society" (listed at pp. 235-240). The listing in the Helena Resolution quoted above identifies the nine funds by their individual numbers in the main listing of all funds in the book in chronological order (the higher the number, the more recent the gift). Of the nine, six are in Category 200, two are in Category 210 ("Program"), and one in Category 211 ("Domestic Missions"). Here are their individual descriptions as they appear in the main body of the book, again in chronological order:
200.02 St. Leger Fund (1909) A Special
First Section: Two-thirds [Trust Fund No. 200.02] for general missionary work; one-third [Trust Fund No. 200.01] for hospital work in Alaska in memory of Captain Isaac Waite. . .
Shares in Pool: 18,799.212 Category: 210 (Program)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $428,899 12/31/2007: $452,670
492.00 Hopkins, Mrs. Theresa B., Boston, MA (1936) No. 1, Bequest of
Income to be used for general missions. Principal may be used as well, but only for a pension system for unordained missionaries.
Shares in Pool: 8,992.529 Category: 200 (General Purposes)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $205,162 12/31/2007: $216,533
540.00 Seager, Schuyler F., Berkeley, CA (1941) Gift of, A Special
In memory of Leila Betts. Established under terms of trust agreement. Income to go to a life beneficiary. Upon her death (beneficiary died September 16, 1953), income for missionary work of the Society.
Shares in Pool: 1,798.521 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $41,033 12/31/2007: $43,307
656.00 Monteagle, Lydia Paige, San Francisco, CA (1953) Bequest of, A Special
When Mrs. Monteagle died in 1930, her will established several trusts. The Society was bequeathed the remainder of one trust, subject to a life income interest. The life beneficiary died in 1953, and under the terms of the will, the Society received the principal "to be used by it for such Missionary work as it may determine."
Shares in Pool: 4,968.089 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $113,346 12/31/2007: $119,628
678.00 Olden, Sarah E., New York, NY (1955) Bequest of, A Special
The income from this fund was restricted by the donor to missions within the United States.
Shares in Pool: 4,373.153 Category: 211 (Domestic Missions)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $99,772 12/31/2007: $105,302
723.00 Zabriskie Memorial Fund, New York, NY (1961) A Special
Received from the Helen and Reginald Zabriskie Memorial Fund. Income for specific projects of missionary work in the United States and foreign countries.
Shares in Pool: 9,875.932 Category: 210 (Program)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $225,317 12/31/2007: $237,805
756.00 Lloyd, Ethel S., Detroit, MI (1966) Bequest of, A Special
To establish the "Memorial Fund." Given "to the glory of God and in loving and grateful memory of Thomas Lloyd and Emily B. (Pulling) Lloyd, by their children: Arthur H. Lloyd, Bertha E. Lloyd, and Ethel S. Lloyd. Income for the missionary expansion of the work of the Society in the United States and throughout the world."
Shares in Pool: 141,111.113 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $3,219,413 12/31/2007: $3,397,845
814.00 Boyd, Lizzie E., Richmond, VA (1978)
Income to be used in such manner as the Society may from time to time deem best in furtherance of its missionary work.
Shares in Pool: 7,694.097 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $175,539 12/31/2007: $185,268
860.00 Gregg, Ellen F. and David McM., Memorial Fund, Pennsylvania (1982) Bequest of George S. Gregg
Income is be used perpetually for general missionary work. This fund resulted from the bequest of the remainder of a residuary trust under the decedent's will, subject to the life income interest of an individual beneficiary. The income beneficiary died in 1981, and this trust was set up with the proceeds received by the Society.
Shares in Pool: 3,116.406 Category: 200 (General Purpose)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $71,100 12/31/2007: $75,041
In these descriptions of the individual bequests, time and again one reads that they are "for the purposes of the Society", and for "general missionary work". One is restricted for "domestic missionary work" -- Fund #678, the Sarah E. Olden Bequest -- but none of the others have geographical restrictions on them. Now let us look at the rest of the text of the Helena Resolution, and see how the Executive Council justifies the appropriation of the "undistributed income and appreciation" from these funds for "clergy salaries and other expenses" in the putative dioceses of Pittsburgh and San Joaquin:
Resolved, That the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church commends the work of all those involved in supporting the efforts by Dioceses to exercise their pastoral and fiduciary responsibilities in regard to the ownership of properties and funds; and be it further
Resolved, That the disbursement of these funds from one or more of the above trusts be made by the Presiding Bishop and the Treasurer.
EXPLANATION
Some members of the Episcopal Church in the Dioceses of San Joaquin and Pittsburgh have opted to leave the Church. The remaining members of these dioceses -- lay and ordained -- find they have reduced resources from which to care for one another and to reach out to those who do not know the Gospel of Christ. Ordained ministers, who provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians, now face insecurity with respect to their salaries.
The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ -- through prayer and worship, proclaiming the Gospel, and promoting justice, peace and love. These dioceses have become fertile areas for mission work.
The Executive Council authorized a draw of up to $500,000 to fund similar work in 2008. Through October, nearly $421,000 had been expended to support mission in the dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh. These disbursements were reviewed and approved by legal counsel, who confirmed that the disbursements complied with the terms and conditions of the trusts.
The undistributed appreciation in the above named trust funds totaled an estimated $3.0 million as of 09/30/08.
(Except for the word "Resolved", I have added the bold emphasis to the original.) Note that only the disbursements totaling $421,000 made through October 2008 had been "reviewed and approved by legal counsel" --- not the $700,000 which the Executive Council authorized to be disbursed by this Resolution. The total market value of all of the nine funds at the end of calendar 2007 comes to $4,833,400, with nearly two-thirds of that coming from the Ethel S. Lloyd Fund, a gift made in 1966. Thus, according to the Treasurer, nearly two-thirds of the market value of the identified funds is available for use by ECUSA.
But available for what purposes? For "general missionary work" -- meaning to keep clergy preaching to the remnants in Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and San Joaquin? And to pay unidentified "other expenses" -- such as legal fees, perhaps? It seems to this attorney, based just on the descriptions given in the book, somewhat irregular that ECUSA would decide that the nine funds it identifies could be used for such a purpose. Especially when one considers that the book lists the following fund (to take just one example I found):
663.00 Clergy Sustentation Fund (1953) A Special
This fund was established by an anonymous gift. The donor directed that "this fund as well as the income from it, is to be used exclusively for the payment of ministerial salaries, with preference to be given to those localities where clergy of the Catholic Apostolic Church now exist or formerly existed and where members of that church now reside, notably in the Dioceses of New York, Long Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, and California." The income and/or principal is to be appropriated by the Presiding Bishop at his discretion. [Note: The principal of this fund had previously been described (in the 1993 Trust Fund Record) as donor restricted, but it is clear that the Presiding Bishop has discretion to apply both principal and income to the specified purposes. The donor's expression of preference for certain dioceses does not restrict the Presiding Bishop's discretionary authority.]
Shares in Pool: 81,950.182 Category: 109 (Presiding Bishop's Discretionary Fund)
Market Value, 12/31/2006: $1,869,672 12/31/2007: $1,973,296
There is nearly $2 million of which both principal and interest may be used at the discretion of the Presiding Bishop for clergy salaries in any diocese whatsoever, without restriction. And yet this fund is not tapped, but instead the funds chosen to be used are ones designated for "general missionary purposes".
Do you see what is being hidden here? The attorneys for ECUSA approve the expenditure of missionary funds in the areas of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh. These "dioceses" are not -- and probably will never be, unless and until they win their respective lawsuits and gain access to the funds of the majorities who voted to leave -- self-supporting, even though the dioceses which left each allowed those remnants to keep their own properties and bank accounts. But that is inadequate for them to keep their own clergy paid while the suits are pending -- because all of the individual parish pledges and plate collections must go 100% to the payment of the cost of maintaining the current lawsuits. Thus there are no local funds available to pay clergy, and the helpful DFMS must step in.
At the same time, however, the attorneys for ECUSA do not authorize the use of moneys from a trust fund specifically designated for the payment of "ministerial salaries". And why not? Look again at the description of the trust's purposes as stated in the Trust Fund Book and quoted above. It speaks of specific Dioceses where those funds are to be used -- "New York, Long Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, and California" -- although counsel have opined that the Presiding Bishop is not restricted by that listing.
I ask myself: could the operative word here be "Dioceses"? And could the fact that the groups in Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Quincy have yet to prove in a court of law that they are fully legal and duly constituted dioceses of ECUSA have anything to do with what is going on here? Might it just be that conservative legal advice pointed out that, until that question is finally resolved in the courts, it would be imprudent to use funds to support clergy who might not be in dioceses, but in missionary areas? (The New York Attorney General has the power to order Church officials personally to refund any moneys that are expended in violation of the specific terms of a trust.)
I do not pretend to know the answer, since I have no access to the original trust documents. But it certainly is an interesting distinction which the Executive Council has drawn: missionary funds are to be used in what are currently only missionary areas (even though the Council will never admit that they are), while funds designated for clergy in specific dioceses accumulate unspent back in New York.
Moreover, the Church's missionary funds are drawn down to support operations in what the Church clearly wants to be regarded as full-fledged dioceses, with already established parishes. That, in fact, satisfies no definition of "mission" of which I am aware -- and it denigrates nearly 200 years of honorable and outstanding work by actual missionaries to spread the Gospel to those who are unaware of it.
The question, at any rate, is certainly worth asking. Now, will anyone at ECUSA step forward and provide an explanation?
Posted by A. S. Haley at 11:52 AM
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Episcopal Church convinces few that it is not breaking moratoria
From Religious Intelligence via Transfigurations:
Friday, 14th August 2009. 4:02pm
By: George Conger.
The Episcopal Church’s protestation that it has not ended the ban on gay bishops or blessings has not found support outside its borders.
Episcopal Church convinces few that it is not breaking moratoria
After strong international reaction against the decisions of the recent General Convention, US Church leaders moved quickly to claim that the Church had not changed its position.
But critics said that this was the inevitable outcome when the Episcopal Church opened the discernment process for new bishops to gay clergy and permitted dioceses to compile and develop rites for the blessings of same-sex unions None of the American church’s allies among the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion have publicly spoken up in support of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s claims that nothing has changed, while several sharp statements have been released by overseas provinces and dioceses charging that the Episcopal Church had walked away from the Anglican Communion.
On July 18 Bishop Jefferts Schori stated that “in 2009” there are “more and deeper relationships with parts of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion than five or 10 years ago.”
The votes taken at General Convention were a “truthful attempt to deepen relationships,” she said.
However, on July 30 the Standing Committee of the Anglican Church in Southeast Asia stated the adoption of resolutions D025 and CO56 by the US General Convention, “when on a plain and ordinary reading, constitutes an abrogation by [the Episcopal Church] of the agreed-to moratorium on the consecration of practising homosexual clergy as bishops and rites of blessing for same-sex unions.”
This “effectively moves” the US church “away from the orthodox position” of the wider communion and is a “repudiation of the listening and consultation processes put in place in an attempt to resolve these issues.”
The Rt Rev Bethlehem Nopece, Bishop of the South African diocese of Port Elizabeth, called the adoption of the two resolutions by the US church a “deliberate defiance of the wider Body of the Anglican Communion.”
“The blessings of the same-sex unions and the ordination of practicing gay clergy is inconsistent with the Word of God written; it is theologically uninformed, incoherent with the wider church, endorsing schism in the Anglican Communion and threatens ecumenical fellowship and relations,” he charged on July 31.
The Episcopal Church had chosen to “journey alone,” he said. The South African church will “still uplift the Biblical standard of guidance in moral behaviour. We do not seek any political correctness, but call upon all people to repentance and change of life and patterns of behaviour for a new character in line with the demands of the Word of God,” Bishop Nopece said.
Friday, 14th August 2009. 4:02pm
By: George Conger.
The Episcopal Church’s protestation that it has not ended the ban on gay bishops or blessings has not found support outside its borders.
Episcopal Church convinces few that it is not breaking moratoria
After strong international reaction against the decisions of the recent General Convention, US Church leaders moved quickly to claim that the Church had not changed its position.
But critics said that this was the inevitable outcome when the Episcopal Church opened the discernment process for new bishops to gay clergy and permitted dioceses to compile and develop rites for the blessings of same-sex unions None of the American church’s allies among the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion have publicly spoken up in support of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s claims that nothing has changed, while several sharp statements have been released by overseas provinces and dioceses charging that the Episcopal Church had walked away from the Anglican Communion.
On July 18 Bishop Jefferts Schori stated that “in 2009” there are “more and deeper relationships with parts of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion than five or 10 years ago.”
The votes taken at General Convention were a “truthful attempt to deepen relationships,” she said.
However, on July 30 the Standing Committee of the Anglican Church in Southeast Asia stated the adoption of resolutions D025 and CO56 by the US General Convention, “when on a plain and ordinary reading, constitutes an abrogation by [the Episcopal Church] of the agreed-to moratorium on the consecration of practising homosexual clergy as bishops and rites of blessing for same-sex unions.”
This “effectively moves” the US church “away from the orthodox position” of the wider communion and is a “repudiation of the listening and consultation processes put in place in an attempt to resolve these issues.”
The Rt Rev Bethlehem Nopece, Bishop of the South African diocese of Port Elizabeth, called the adoption of the two resolutions by the US church a “deliberate defiance of the wider Body of the Anglican Communion.”
“The blessings of the same-sex unions and the ordination of practicing gay clergy is inconsistent with the Word of God written; it is theologically uninformed, incoherent with the wider church, endorsing schism in the Anglican Communion and threatens ecumenical fellowship and relations,” he charged on July 31.
The Episcopal Church had chosen to “journey alone,” he said. The South African church will “still uplift the Biblical standard of guidance in moral behaviour. We do not seek any political correctness, but call upon all people to repentance and change of life and patterns of behaviour for a new character in line with the demands of the Word of God,” Bishop Nopece said.
Rev. Phil Ashey: Update on court proceedings today for Christ Church Savannah
Via Transfigurations:
Friday, August 14, 2009
By The Rev. Phil Ashey, J.D.
AAC email update
posted August 14, 2009
In Prayer and in Court
I am writing from Savannah, Georgia, where I arrived last night to join with 200 people in a prayer vigil at the "Mother Church of Georgia," Christ Church Savannah, in preparation for the hearing today in Chatham County Superior Court.
The sanctuary is holy ground, sanctified by the prayers of the saints and the pulpit of George Whitfield and John Wesley. Last night I saw among the crowd the Vicar-General of the new Anglican Diocese of the Southeast, the Rev. Neil Lebhar, and clergy representing different churches in Savannah-including Episcopal churches-who are standing in solidarity with the people of Christ Church. There were visitors who had driven from as far away as Monroe, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida just to pray in solidarity with the parishioners of Christ Church. It was a tremendous encouragement to receive personal greetings and words of biblical encouragement from Vicar-General Neil Lebhar and the pastors of churches in Savannah, who expressed great affection for the Rector of Christ Church, the Rev. Marc Robertson, and for the people of Christ Church as they stand for Biblical truth and "the faith once delivered to the saints." Even more encouraging was the list that Senior Warden Mrs. Carol Rogers-Smith shared with the gathering-a list of all the people who were praying at that very hour with Christ Church. Brothers and sisters in Christ from all over the world-Korea, Uganda, the U.K., Malaysia, California, Michigan, Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and more-were praying for Christ Church Savannah.
The vigil itself was beautifully planned by the Rector and his staff, with a combination of greetings, meditations, hymns classical and contemporary, collects from a variety of Anglican prayer books, and silence for personal prayer. It was an honor and a privilege to have been invited to offer the four meditations: on overcoming anxiety, peace in the storm, overcoming bitterness, and winning and losing in the Kingdom of God.
During the vigil, a number of us also had the privilege of pulling aside into the chapel to pray for members of Christ Church's legal defense team, including their Chancellor, Neil Creasy, and co-counsel, Steffen Johnson. Steffen Johnson is among the lead counsel for the legal defense team in the Anglican District Virginia (ADV) cases which are currently on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. Steffen is not only a brilliant advocate but he is above all a fully-devoted follower of Jesus Christ who is a passionate prayer warrior. Many in the ADV will know that Steffen and co-counsel have prayer-walked the churches they are defending, and encouraged prayer meetings like the kind we experienced last night.
It is a remarkable thing to be among people who are facing the loss of their church home, and the historic buildings from which the gospel of Jesus Christ has been proclaimed uninterrupted for 300 years. As I looked into people's faces I did not see fear or grief. Instead, I saw faith, hope, a desire to move beyond bitterness, an eagerness to hear God's word and confidence in his promises. As we prayed together in the chapel, voices were raised in loud praise of God and his goodness and faithfulness, in passionate prayer against spiritual strongholds-and not against flesh and blood (Eph 6:13). When we sang, we sang with joy and lifted our voices to the Lord in praise and worship. One had the tangible sense that, even if these hallowed halls are lost to The Episcopal Church (TEC), a deeper victory will have been won for the people of Christ Church as they press on with the work of the Kingdom.
The hearing today in Courtroom F of the Chatham County Superior Court was packed-literally standing room only. Members from Christ Church were in abundance, and there were also members from the "shadow" congregation and the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, including Bishop Loutit. The audience was subdued, quiet and polite throughout the entire proceedings.
We began at 1:30pm and final rebuttal concluded at 3:45pm.
The Honorable Michael Karpf presided and informed counsel and the audience that the issues were too numerous and complicated for him to issue a ruling today and that they should be patient. He will take the arguments under submission and issue a ruling as soon as his calendar permits. He then invited counsel for the plaintiffs, the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia and TEC, to make their statements.
Without going into every detail, today's hearing was on a motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs (TEC and the Diocese) asking for immediate possession of all real and personal property of Christ Church and an accounting. The arguments centered on the disposition of church property cases by "neutral principles of law" as decided by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf. TEC and the Diocese interpret Jones v. Wolf to read that in such a "neutral principles" case, where the governing documents of a hierarchical church are clear, they are decisive. Hence the 1979 Dennis Canon-which unilaterally imposed a trust interest in favor of TEC in the property of each local church-trumps all other principles and the property belongs to the Diocese and/or TEC.
Not so fast, said the Judge. Is this Dennis Canon "severable" from the rest of the TEC canons-including matters of doctrine into which the courts cannot inquire? Does the Dennis Canon trump Diocesan canons that cut in favor of Christ Church? In response to TEC's argument that the Dennis Canon is merely a codification of a "common understanding and practice" that the property of the local church is held in trust for the denomination, Judge Karpf asked if a "mere understanding" not expressly within the governing documents is a neutral principle? What if the rules of procedure governing the passage of a canon by General Convention were violated? What about the unilateral nature of the Dennis Canon and the lack of notice to the local congregation?
Now it was Christ Church's turn to argue against plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and in support of their cross motion for summary judgment against TEC and the Diocese. Counsel for Christ Church argued that the plaintiff's interpretation of "neutral principles" in Jones v Wolf was seriously flawed, and that their arguments ignored both Georgia law and the unique nature of the 1789 Georgia legislature's grant of property to Christ Church prior to the very existence of the Diocese of Georgia.
However, the Judge questioned the efficacy of the 1789 grant after Christ Church's subsequent accession in 1918 to the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of Georgia. Counsel responded that the accession was limited to the Constitution and Canons at that time, and not in perpetuity to every subsequent amendment (including by incorporation the 1979 Dennis Canon). Counsel also argued that Christ Church amended its charter in 2006 to remove that accession language, and was not required by either Georgia law or the canons of the Diocese to give notice.
Christ Church also took the offensive in challenging the authority of the Dennis Canon. Judge Karpf was troubled by Christ Church's failure to make any objection to the Dennis Canon for almost 25 years, until doctrinal differences with TEC led to their withdrawal in 2007. In response to questions along this line, counsel responded that TEC is a New York corporation. Under New York law, a membership association that asserts a property interest must give its members advance notice of such a claim, and an opportunity to contest or accede to that claim. Obviously, this never happened in the last minute passage of the Dennis canon at GC 1979: it was made effective immediately upon passage, and notice was given (if at all) only after the fact.
Moreover, under principles of Georgia law, TEC and the Diocese would be "estopped" or prevented from taking advantage of Christ Church's failure to object to the Dennis Canon and their subsequent engagement with the Diocese on other matters regarding the property, for lack of adequate and advance notice. Counsel also argued that the Dennis Canon was not merely a codification of an already existing "understood and implied" trust interest, but was rather a massive and unprecedented taking of church property by the creation of a unilateral and implied trust. Counsel cited Bishop White and his commentary on the Constitution and Canons of TEC where he stated unequivocally that the Dennis Canon was a response to Jones v Wolf and not merely a codification of existing practice. When the judge asked if Christ Church had been given adequate notice in advance, could it have objected and left with the property, counsel responded in the affirmative.
It seems that the judge could rule in either one of three ways: (1) Grant TEC and the Diocese's motion for Summary Judgment; or (2) grant Christ Church's motion for Summary Judgment, or (3) deny both motions and set the case for trial. Either way, this case will go on by appeal or trial.
During the prayer vigil, the Rev. Marc Robertson shared a vision he had in his early years as rector of Christ Church. The Lord showed him a "Sherwin-Williams" picture of God's anointing pouring out and flowing over and through Christ Church to the community. This anointing is for the healing of many. Please pray that God will continue to fulfill this great Kingdom vision for Christ Church as they await the next steps.
Yours in Christ,
Phil+
Friday, August 14, 2009
By The Rev. Phil Ashey, J.D.
AAC email update
posted August 14, 2009
In Prayer and in Court
I am writing from Savannah, Georgia, where I arrived last night to join with 200 people in a prayer vigil at the "Mother Church of Georgia," Christ Church Savannah, in preparation for the hearing today in Chatham County Superior Court.
The sanctuary is holy ground, sanctified by the prayers of the saints and the pulpit of George Whitfield and John Wesley. Last night I saw among the crowd the Vicar-General of the new Anglican Diocese of the Southeast, the Rev. Neil Lebhar, and clergy representing different churches in Savannah-including Episcopal churches-who are standing in solidarity with the people of Christ Church. There were visitors who had driven from as far away as Monroe, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida just to pray in solidarity with the parishioners of Christ Church. It was a tremendous encouragement to receive personal greetings and words of biblical encouragement from Vicar-General Neil Lebhar and the pastors of churches in Savannah, who expressed great affection for the Rector of Christ Church, the Rev. Marc Robertson, and for the people of Christ Church as they stand for Biblical truth and "the faith once delivered to the saints." Even more encouraging was the list that Senior Warden Mrs. Carol Rogers-Smith shared with the gathering-a list of all the people who were praying at that very hour with Christ Church. Brothers and sisters in Christ from all over the world-Korea, Uganda, the U.K., Malaysia, California, Michigan, Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and more-were praying for Christ Church Savannah.
The vigil itself was beautifully planned by the Rector and his staff, with a combination of greetings, meditations, hymns classical and contemporary, collects from a variety of Anglican prayer books, and silence for personal prayer. It was an honor and a privilege to have been invited to offer the four meditations: on overcoming anxiety, peace in the storm, overcoming bitterness, and winning and losing in the Kingdom of God.
During the vigil, a number of us also had the privilege of pulling aside into the chapel to pray for members of Christ Church's legal defense team, including their Chancellor, Neil Creasy, and co-counsel, Steffen Johnson. Steffen Johnson is among the lead counsel for the legal defense team in the Anglican District Virginia (ADV) cases which are currently on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. Steffen is not only a brilliant advocate but he is above all a fully-devoted follower of Jesus Christ who is a passionate prayer warrior. Many in the ADV will know that Steffen and co-counsel have prayer-walked the churches they are defending, and encouraged prayer meetings like the kind we experienced last night.
It is a remarkable thing to be among people who are facing the loss of their church home, and the historic buildings from which the gospel of Jesus Christ has been proclaimed uninterrupted for 300 years. As I looked into people's faces I did not see fear or grief. Instead, I saw faith, hope, a desire to move beyond bitterness, an eagerness to hear God's word and confidence in his promises. As we prayed together in the chapel, voices were raised in loud praise of God and his goodness and faithfulness, in passionate prayer against spiritual strongholds-and not against flesh and blood (Eph 6:13). When we sang, we sang with joy and lifted our voices to the Lord in praise and worship. One had the tangible sense that, even if these hallowed halls are lost to The Episcopal Church (TEC), a deeper victory will have been won for the people of Christ Church as they press on with the work of the Kingdom.
The hearing today in Courtroom F of the Chatham County Superior Court was packed-literally standing room only. Members from Christ Church were in abundance, and there were also members from the "shadow" congregation and the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, including Bishop Loutit. The audience was subdued, quiet and polite throughout the entire proceedings.
We began at 1:30pm and final rebuttal concluded at 3:45pm.
The Honorable Michael Karpf presided and informed counsel and the audience that the issues were too numerous and complicated for him to issue a ruling today and that they should be patient. He will take the arguments under submission and issue a ruling as soon as his calendar permits. He then invited counsel for the plaintiffs, the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia and TEC, to make their statements.
Without going into every detail, today's hearing was on a motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs (TEC and the Diocese) asking for immediate possession of all real and personal property of Christ Church and an accounting. The arguments centered on the disposition of church property cases by "neutral principles of law" as decided by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf. TEC and the Diocese interpret Jones v. Wolf to read that in such a "neutral principles" case, where the governing documents of a hierarchical church are clear, they are decisive. Hence the 1979 Dennis Canon-which unilaterally imposed a trust interest in favor of TEC in the property of each local church-trumps all other principles and the property belongs to the Diocese and/or TEC.
Not so fast, said the Judge. Is this Dennis Canon "severable" from the rest of the TEC canons-including matters of doctrine into which the courts cannot inquire? Does the Dennis Canon trump Diocesan canons that cut in favor of Christ Church? In response to TEC's argument that the Dennis Canon is merely a codification of a "common understanding and practice" that the property of the local church is held in trust for the denomination, Judge Karpf asked if a "mere understanding" not expressly within the governing documents is a neutral principle? What if the rules of procedure governing the passage of a canon by General Convention were violated? What about the unilateral nature of the Dennis Canon and the lack of notice to the local congregation?
Now it was Christ Church's turn to argue against plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and in support of their cross motion for summary judgment against TEC and the Diocese. Counsel for Christ Church argued that the plaintiff's interpretation of "neutral principles" in Jones v Wolf was seriously flawed, and that their arguments ignored both Georgia law and the unique nature of the 1789 Georgia legislature's grant of property to Christ Church prior to the very existence of the Diocese of Georgia.
However, the Judge questioned the efficacy of the 1789 grant after Christ Church's subsequent accession in 1918 to the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of Georgia. Counsel responded that the accession was limited to the Constitution and Canons at that time, and not in perpetuity to every subsequent amendment (including by incorporation the 1979 Dennis Canon). Counsel also argued that Christ Church amended its charter in 2006 to remove that accession language, and was not required by either Georgia law or the canons of the Diocese to give notice.
Christ Church also took the offensive in challenging the authority of the Dennis Canon. Judge Karpf was troubled by Christ Church's failure to make any objection to the Dennis Canon for almost 25 years, until doctrinal differences with TEC led to their withdrawal in 2007. In response to questions along this line, counsel responded that TEC is a New York corporation. Under New York law, a membership association that asserts a property interest must give its members advance notice of such a claim, and an opportunity to contest or accede to that claim. Obviously, this never happened in the last minute passage of the Dennis canon at GC 1979: it was made effective immediately upon passage, and notice was given (if at all) only after the fact.
Moreover, under principles of Georgia law, TEC and the Diocese would be "estopped" or prevented from taking advantage of Christ Church's failure to object to the Dennis Canon and their subsequent engagement with the Diocese on other matters regarding the property, for lack of adequate and advance notice. Counsel also argued that the Dennis Canon was not merely a codification of an already existing "understood and implied" trust interest, but was rather a massive and unprecedented taking of church property by the creation of a unilateral and implied trust. Counsel cited Bishop White and his commentary on the Constitution and Canons of TEC where he stated unequivocally that the Dennis Canon was a response to Jones v Wolf and not merely a codification of existing practice. When the judge asked if Christ Church had been given adequate notice in advance, could it have objected and left with the property, counsel responded in the affirmative.
It seems that the judge could rule in either one of three ways: (1) Grant TEC and the Diocese's motion for Summary Judgment; or (2) grant Christ Church's motion for Summary Judgment, or (3) deny both motions and set the case for trial. Either way, this case will go on by appeal or trial.
During the prayer vigil, the Rev. Marc Robertson shared a vision he had in his early years as rector of Christ Church. The Lord showed him a "Sherwin-Williams" picture of God's anointing pouring out and flowing over and through Christ Church to the community. This anointing is for the healing of many. Please pray that God will continue to fulfill this great Kingdom vision for Christ Church as they await the next steps.
Yours in Christ,
Phil+
Bad hair days for the Anglican liberals
From CEN as posted on Anglican Mainstream via BabyBlue:
August 15th, 2009
By Andrew Carey, CEN
It’s been a week full of bad hair days for Anglican liberals. Their worst nightmare came to pass. Not one but two of Anglicanism’s world-renowned theologians made statements that had liberals fulminating, frothing and spitting in rage.
Firstly, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s surprisingly strong reaction to The Episcopal Church’s General Convention dealt a final blow to the bizarre pretence by the American leadership that their controversial resolutions were merely descriptive. Dr Williams realized that ‘pastoral generosity’ amounted to a green light for same-sex blessings, and that the reference to ‘no’ extra-canonical restraints on Episcopal elections was a turning away from an already very weak moratorium on the consecration of practising homosexuals.
Furthermore, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s clear recognition that the Episcopal Church was walking even further apart from the Anglican Communion was followed by strong language of a twin-track communion — with the Episcopal Church on the outside track.
Many liberals can scarcely conceal their sense of betrayal at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s defence of the ecumenical, traditional and biblical consensus on human sexuality. They thought he was one of them when he was appointed. After seeing off Carey, they were certain that good old Rowan would support a gradual overturning of Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality. Instead, he has supported Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the ‘mind of the Communion’ at every stage. Perhaps he is now more aware than ever that the novel, liberal teaching on homosexuality would represent a massive departure from universal Christian norms and our ecumenical partners?
And then the worst nightmare came, the New Testament theologian, NT Wright, added his voice to the Archbishop’s censure of The Episcopal Church. Let’s not forget that this is a theologian who demolishes weak, tendentious and dishonest theologies for breakfast while the rest of us are blearily chewing our Weetabix. The Bishop of Durham both supported the Archbishop of Canterbury’s analysis but also called for immediate action to twin-track the Communion now. Don’t wait for the Covenant and the endless delaying tactics of The Episcopal Church, he warned, the Communion can be restructured tomorrow allowing a substantial and faithful remnant within The Episcopal Church to rally around the Anaheim statement with its declaration of loyalty to the Communion.
He was described as ‘megalomaniacal’ by Colin Coward of Changing Attitude for this contribution to the debate. But an even clearer sign that the archiepiscopal broadside had rattled the liberals was the knee-jerk statement by 13 liberal organizations, including Inclusive Church.
The statement’s muttering about strengthening bonds of affection “with those … who share our commitment to the full inclusion of all of God’s faithful”, together with their criticism of a “two-track communion” amounted to a declaration of guerrilla warfare in the Church of England.
The initial thinking is not just to strengthen ties with liberals in North America, but to encourage the creation of an Episcopal chaplaincy in England along the lines of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.
But they are also intent on planting more facts on the ground. It has worked in North America, so why not here? The first initiative is a survey of gay and lesbian clergy in the Church of England in an attempt to demonstrate that far from being anomalous these relationships and civil partnerships are widely accepted. This might amount to a massive exercise in ‘outing’ clergy, but it could, in fact, be groups like Inclusive Church who are exaggerating the numbers of practising homosexuals
in ministry. The other declaration in the statement is that they will “continue to work towards liturgical and sacramental recognition of the God-given love which enables many LGBT couples to thrive”. This is another aspect of planting facts on the ground, with the stepping up of same-sex blessings despite the fact that these are not permitted in the Church of England.
In other words, lawlessness on the part of those who claim to uphold the law of the Church of England and who have criticized evangelicals and others for undermining canon law.
Why the liberals are less of a threat than they think
So should we be concerned about this new ‘militancy’ on the part of liberal Anglicans? Not really. Firstly, the numbers involved are very small. Many of these 13 organizations amount to little more than a man and his dog. There are also duplicated memberships. Furthermore, for a campaign to come to anything it has to be a genuine cause and you have to be principled in support of your cause.
Liberals have been a victim of their own success, they are ensconced comfortably in the Church of England, they’ve dominated the hierarchy for decades and they’ve had it too comfortable. Furthermore,
they now preside over mostly moribund churches and they don’t believe anything terribly much. If you’re really going to make a difference you have to believe in it as though it’s a matter of life and death, even eternal life and death.
August 15th, 2009
By Andrew Carey, CEN
It’s been a week full of bad hair days for Anglican liberals. Their worst nightmare came to pass. Not one but two of Anglicanism’s world-renowned theologians made statements that had liberals fulminating, frothing and spitting in rage.
Firstly, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s surprisingly strong reaction to The Episcopal Church’s General Convention dealt a final blow to the bizarre pretence by the American leadership that their controversial resolutions were merely descriptive. Dr Williams realized that ‘pastoral generosity’ amounted to a green light for same-sex blessings, and that the reference to ‘no’ extra-canonical restraints on Episcopal elections was a turning away from an already very weak moratorium on the consecration of practising homosexuals.
Furthermore, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s clear recognition that the Episcopal Church was walking even further apart from the Anglican Communion was followed by strong language of a twin-track communion — with the Episcopal Church on the outside track.
Many liberals can scarcely conceal their sense of betrayal at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s defence of the ecumenical, traditional and biblical consensus on human sexuality. They thought he was one of them when he was appointed. After seeing off Carey, they were certain that good old Rowan would support a gradual overturning of Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality. Instead, he has supported Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the ‘mind of the Communion’ at every stage. Perhaps he is now more aware than ever that the novel, liberal teaching on homosexuality would represent a massive departure from universal Christian norms and our ecumenical partners?
And then the worst nightmare came, the New Testament theologian, NT Wright, added his voice to the Archbishop’s censure of The Episcopal Church. Let’s not forget that this is a theologian who demolishes weak, tendentious and dishonest theologies for breakfast while the rest of us are blearily chewing our Weetabix. The Bishop of Durham both supported the Archbishop of Canterbury’s analysis but also called for immediate action to twin-track the Communion now. Don’t wait for the Covenant and the endless delaying tactics of The Episcopal Church, he warned, the Communion can be restructured tomorrow allowing a substantial and faithful remnant within The Episcopal Church to rally around the Anaheim statement with its declaration of loyalty to the Communion.
He was described as ‘megalomaniacal’ by Colin Coward of Changing Attitude for this contribution to the debate. But an even clearer sign that the archiepiscopal broadside had rattled the liberals was the knee-jerk statement by 13 liberal organizations, including Inclusive Church.
The statement’s muttering about strengthening bonds of affection “with those … who share our commitment to the full inclusion of all of God’s faithful”, together with their criticism of a “two-track communion” amounted to a declaration of guerrilla warfare in the Church of England.
The initial thinking is not just to strengthen ties with liberals in North America, but to encourage the creation of an Episcopal chaplaincy in England along the lines of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.
But they are also intent on planting more facts on the ground. It has worked in North America, so why not here? The first initiative is a survey of gay and lesbian clergy in the Church of England in an attempt to demonstrate that far from being anomalous these relationships and civil partnerships are widely accepted. This might amount to a massive exercise in ‘outing’ clergy, but it could, in fact, be groups like Inclusive Church who are exaggerating the numbers of practising homosexuals
in ministry. The other declaration in the statement is that they will “continue to work towards liturgical and sacramental recognition of the God-given love which enables many LGBT couples to thrive”. This is another aspect of planting facts on the ground, with the stepping up of same-sex blessings despite the fact that these are not permitted in the Church of England.
In other words, lawlessness on the part of those who claim to uphold the law of the Church of England and who have criticized evangelicals and others for undermining canon law.
Why the liberals are less of a threat than they think
So should we be concerned about this new ‘militancy’ on the part of liberal Anglicans? Not really. Firstly, the numbers involved are very small. Many of these 13 organizations amount to little more than a man and his dog. There are also duplicated memberships. Furthermore, for a campaign to come to anything it has to be a genuine cause and you have to be principled in support of your cause.
Liberals have been a victim of their own success, they are ensconced comfortably in the Church of England, they’ve dominated the hierarchy for decades and they’ve had it too comfortable. Furthermore,
they now preside over mostly moribund churches and they don’t believe anything terribly much. If you’re really going to make a difference you have to believe in it as though it’s a matter of life and death, even eternal life and death.
Friday, August 14, 2009
SOUTH CAROLINA: Bishop's Address Leaves Clergy Bewildered as to Diocese' Future Lawrence Proposes Withdrawing from TEC Governing Bodies
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 14, 2009
CHARLESTON, SC-- Clergy, attending a special meeting of the Diocese of South Carolina this week, heard Bishop Mark Lawrence say that the diocese needs to distance itself from the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church. He then held out an exit card to parishes wanting to leave the diocese for safer more orthodox ecclesiastical pastures.
Lawrence advocated withdrawing as a diocese from "all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions."
It was bewildering and confusing, an orthodox rector told VOL. "Liberal rectors concluded that he would not take the diocese out of TEC and therefore would not go after him by appealing to Jefferts Schori or David Booth Beers, but a number of orthodox rectors, many of whom have sworn allegiance to the wider Anglican Communion are now weighing their options. I would not be surprised if a number of them decided to leave," the source said.
In his long peroration delivered at St. James' Church, James Island, Charleston, Lawrence blasted the actions of The Episcopal Church's recent General Convention, upheld the authority of Scripture, urged the diocese not to consider leaving TEC, and concluded by calling for a special convention on Oct. 24 to vote on proposals that he presented during the meeting.
"It was bizarre," said an evangelical priest. "People are trying to understand what the bishop really said. If he doesn't uphold the doctrine and discipline of the church (meaning TEC), what does he want ordinands to uphold that will be accepted by the leadership of TEC?"
Can he uphold the doctrine and discipline of the church (universal) and by pass TEC?
"He is skating on very thin ice," said another priest. "He was pressed over and over, but would not reveal the deeper plan of the diocese."
According to clergy who attended the meeting, the special Diocesan Convention in Oct. 24 will grapple with how ordinands take their vows to TEC. "I understand this means adapting them in such a way as to make vows prior to GC2003 (and Gene Robinson's ordination.)" A resolutions committee will write up special resolutions to be heard for that convention, VOL was told.
Lawrence hinted that he was looking for a third option or third way in dealing with TEC, which begs the question why he did not align himself and his diocese with the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) as Central Florida Bishop John W. Howe has done.
In his speech, he talked about the Anglican Communion Development Committee, which no one has ever heard of, to draw together his diocese with orthodox parishes in revisionist dioceses. In his polemic, he called for sound doctrine, and more and better missional actions. Then he stated, "There is also a need to find ways to support conservative parishes and missions in dioceses where there is isolation or worse. I would like to encourage congregations in this diocese to create missional relationships with '"orthodox" congregations' isolated across North America."
This is dangerous talk. Very dangerous. If he should cross diocesan boundaries and come to the revisionist Diocese of Pennsylvania and approach the evangelical Church of the Good Samaritan, in Paoli, it would excite the Standing Committee to act against the parish. Does Lawrence have any understanding at all of just how much pressure orthodox parishes are under in revisionist dioceses? Any move by him would raise red flags and send shudders throughout the parish clergy. Recently, the Standing Committee of the diocese refused to allow a recognized Anglican bishop, in the person of Frank Lyons of Bolivia, to preach at a Sunday service.
Lawrence then said , on The Emergence of 21st Century Anglicanism: "We need to be guided by the principle that we are called to help shape an emerging Anglicanism that is sufficient of the 21st Century...We have the opportunity to help shape the emergence of a truly global Anglicanism-Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age." What are GAFCON and ACNA all about? They ARE the emerging Anglicanism of the 21st Century.
"The Archbishop (of Canterbury) has expressed in section 25 of 'Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future' his strong hope that 'elements' will adopt the Covenant. I believe we ought to sign on to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant as it presently stands in all four sections. (If it means we need to withdraw from a lawsuit, we withdraw from a lawsuit). Therefore we need to begin the process of studying the Ridley Draft in every deanery and parish and be prepared to vote on it either in the special convention in October or, if that's too ambitious a time frame, no later than our Annual Diocesan Convention in March 2010."
Few people are even buying the fact that a covenant will be signed up by everyone...especially not the liberals. Not many conservatives believe it will fly either. Pinning ones hopes on the covenant is a vain hope at this late stage in the Anglican Communion train wreck.
Lawrence says he wants to work with several of the Provinces within the Communion, and, "if they are so inclined to partner with us, we should work with GAFCON and ACNA from within TEC to further gospel initiatives." This dog won't hunt. If Lawrence makes any move towards GAFCON, Jefferts Schori will come down on him like a ton of bricks. Whatever his definition of "partner" is, it better be very loose or all hell will descend on him from 815 2nd avenue, New York
Lawrence did have one idea that made sense. In his concluding thoughts, he said that should a parish find it needs to be served by alternative Episcopal care he will work with them towards that end. That's good news. No litigation. Clearly, he has learned something from bishops John W. Howe and James Stanton. But it better be fair market value or David Booth Beers will have something to say about it.
Canon Philip Ashey, COO of the American Anglican Council told VOL, "that on Sunday, June 22nd the Provincial Council of the ACNA unanimously passed a resolution expressing its solidarity with all communion partner dioceses and our desire for them and us to sign the Ridley Cambridge draft as it stands. The AAC also enjoyed supporting and assisting the deputies from the Diocese of South Carolina at GC2009. As members of the Anglican Church in North America and as brothers and sisters in Christ we look forward to partnering with Bishop Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina."
The truth is the diocese is isolated with nowhere to go. It is surrounded by liberal and revisionist Episcopal dioceses. What is in its favor is the ability to grow locally, but even here the diocese has a problem. The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) is located right in its backyard and they are planting parishes in the same spiritually fertile fields as the Diocese of SC. If Lawrence wants linkages perhaps he should sit down with Bishop Chuck Murphy and resolve the legal dispute over All Saints, Pawleys Island. That might be a good start while entertaining loftier notions of GAFCON and ACNA. (AMiA holds dual citizenship with ACNA and the Province of Rwanda).
"I have no doubt some parishes will now move to leave TEC. It is only a matter of when," concluded one evangelical cleric.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 14, 2009
CHARLESTON, SC-- Clergy, attending a special meeting of the Diocese of South Carolina this week, heard Bishop Mark Lawrence say that the diocese needs to distance itself from the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church. He then held out an exit card to parishes wanting to leave the diocese for safer more orthodox ecclesiastical pastures.
Lawrence advocated withdrawing as a diocese from "all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions."
It was bewildering and confusing, an orthodox rector told VOL. "Liberal rectors concluded that he would not take the diocese out of TEC and therefore would not go after him by appealing to Jefferts Schori or David Booth Beers, but a number of orthodox rectors, many of whom have sworn allegiance to the wider Anglican Communion are now weighing their options. I would not be surprised if a number of them decided to leave," the source said.
In his long peroration delivered at St. James' Church, James Island, Charleston, Lawrence blasted the actions of The Episcopal Church's recent General Convention, upheld the authority of Scripture, urged the diocese not to consider leaving TEC, and concluded by calling for a special convention on Oct. 24 to vote on proposals that he presented during the meeting.
"It was bizarre," said an evangelical priest. "People are trying to understand what the bishop really said. If he doesn't uphold the doctrine and discipline of the church (meaning TEC), what does he want ordinands to uphold that will be accepted by the leadership of TEC?"
Can he uphold the doctrine and discipline of the church (universal) and by pass TEC?
"He is skating on very thin ice," said another priest. "He was pressed over and over, but would not reveal the deeper plan of the diocese."
According to clergy who attended the meeting, the special Diocesan Convention in Oct. 24 will grapple with how ordinands take their vows to TEC. "I understand this means adapting them in such a way as to make vows prior to GC2003 (and Gene Robinson's ordination.)" A resolutions committee will write up special resolutions to be heard for that convention, VOL was told.
Lawrence hinted that he was looking for a third option or third way in dealing with TEC, which begs the question why he did not align himself and his diocese with the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) as Central Florida Bishop John W. Howe has done.
In his speech, he talked about the Anglican Communion Development Committee, which no one has ever heard of, to draw together his diocese with orthodox parishes in revisionist dioceses. In his polemic, he called for sound doctrine, and more and better missional actions. Then he stated, "There is also a need to find ways to support conservative parishes and missions in dioceses where there is isolation or worse. I would like to encourage congregations in this diocese to create missional relationships with '"orthodox" congregations' isolated across North America."
This is dangerous talk. Very dangerous. If he should cross diocesan boundaries and come to the revisionist Diocese of Pennsylvania and approach the evangelical Church of the Good Samaritan, in Paoli, it would excite the Standing Committee to act against the parish. Does Lawrence have any understanding at all of just how much pressure orthodox parishes are under in revisionist dioceses? Any move by him would raise red flags and send shudders throughout the parish clergy. Recently, the Standing Committee of the diocese refused to allow a recognized Anglican bishop, in the person of Frank Lyons of Bolivia, to preach at a Sunday service.
Lawrence then said , on The Emergence of 21st Century Anglicanism: "We need to be guided by the principle that we are called to help shape an emerging Anglicanism that is sufficient of the 21st Century...We have the opportunity to help shape the emergence of a truly global Anglicanism-Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age." What are GAFCON and ACNA all about? They ARE the emerging Anglicanism of the 21st Century.
"The Archbishop (of Canterbury) has expressed in section 25 of 'Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future' his strong hope that 'elements' will adopt the Covenant. I believe we ought to sign on to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant as it presently stands in all four sections. (If it means we need to withdraw from a lawsuit, we withdraw from a lawsuit). Therefore we need to begin the process of studying the Ridley Draft in every deanery and parish and be prepared to vote on it either in the special convention in October or, if that's too ambitious a time frame, no later than our Annual Diocesan Convention in March 2010."
Few people are even buying the fact that a covenant will be signed up by everyone...especially not the liberals. Not many conservatives believe it will fly either. Pinning ones hopes on the covenant is a vain hope at this late stage in the Anglican Communion train wreck.
Lawrence says he wants to work with several of the Provinces within the Communion, and, "if they are so inclined to partner with us, we should work with GAFCON and ACNA from within TEC to further gospel initiatives." This dog won't hunt. If Lawrence makes any move towards GAFCON, Jefferts Schori will come down on him like a ton of bricks. Whatever his definition of "partner" is, it better be very loose or all hell will descend on him from 815 2nd avenue, New York
Lawrence did have one idea that made sense. In his concluding thoughts, he said that should a parish find it needs to be served by alternative Episcopal care he will work with them towards that end. That's good news. No litigation. Clearly, he has learned something from bishops John W. Howe and James Stanton. But it better be fair market value or David Booth Beers will have something to say about it.
Canon Philip Ashey, COO of the American Anglican Council told VOL, "that on Sunday, June 22nd the Provincial Council of the ACNA unanimously passed a resolution expressing its solidarity with all communion partner dioceses and our desire for them and us to sign the Ridley Cambridge draft as it stands. The AAC also enjoyed supporting and assisting the deputies from the Diocese of South Carolina at GC2009. As members of the Anglican Church in North America and as brothers and sisters in Christ we look forward to partnering with Bishop Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina."
The truth is the diocese is isolated with nowhere to go. It is surrounded by liberal and revisionist Episcopal dioceses. What is in its favor is the ability to grow locally, but even here the diocese has a problem. The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) is located right in its backyard and they are planting parishes in the same spiritually fertile fields as the Diocese of SC. If Lawrence wants linkages perhaps he should sit down with Bishop Chuck Murphy and resolve the legal dispute over All Saints, Pawleys Island. That might be a good start while entertaining loftier notions of GAFCON and ACNA. (AMiA holds dual citizenship with ACNA and the Province of Rwanda).
"I have no doubt some parishes will now move to leave TEC. It is only a matter of when," concluded one evangelical cleric.
END
DSC: Much ado about very little
Bishop Lawrence's address to clergy in South Caroline is posted below. Kendall Harmon implored us to pray for the gathering and it has received a fair amount of press coverage, but I find it to be a disappointing statement. I realize that what happens in the DSC might be of little interest in the DCNY, but you may add your comments here or after the address itself. I would guess that a fair number of us did pray for the clergy of the DSC, but to what end?
First, I find the bishop's use of the word "react" to be strange in light of the time frame - pecusa's train wreck, as Bishop Wright of Durham, England has labeled it, has been progressing for six years. The DSC has had plenty of time to respond prayerfully and thoughtfully to what has happened. Those of us who have left pecusa did so prayerfully and thoughtfully, reading Scripture, Theology and the Church Fathers. Bishop Lawrence speaks about making a "hasty departure." What exactly is hasty about acting six-plus years after pecusa created the present Anglican crisis?
He speaks against a "paralyzed passivity," but how are we to understand his call for the DSC to remove itself from "all bodies of governance." How is dynamism reflected through defecting in place? This sounds like a passive stance to me, but maybe someone can explain how this is actually dynamism. While the DSC defects in place the Anglican Church in North America is proposing and beginning to work toward planting 1,000 new churches in North America. Part of the changing landscape in Anglicanism that Lawrence fails to mention is the Anglican Church in North America.
Lawrence speaks of divine providence and even quotes a section of Isaiah in support of his position. But could it be that God's providence in this crisis is the Anglican Church in North America? One could certainly make that case as easily as Lawrence's position from the Scripture he cites. He also cites the Apostle Paul and the Church in Galatia. Certainly the bishop is an adequate enough exegete to know that the situation in Galatia doesn't line up with the crisis in Anglicanism. The apostle Paul had both apostolic authority and a relationship of trust from which he can persuade the Galatians to spurn false teachers. No one has been able to do that with pecusa. There are plenty of verses in the New Testament about separating from false teaching (I published a post on this from the Rev. Dr. Tim Smith a while ago). I can't recall any that refer to remaining attached to heresy and apostasy. I know that some quote the stories of wheats and tares and other passages that speak of a mixed church. These folks generally do not quote the verses about separating from heresy. Nor do they often speak about godly discipline.
The bishop speaks of dynamism to meet the challenges of remaining in pecusa. He also talks about future suffering. The future suffering part I believe. There will be future suffering as the DSC continues to remain in communion with the heretics and apostates of pecusa. I don't view that suffering as suffering for the gospel, and is it possible that part of DSC's suffering is self-inflicted as they remain attached to an organization that promotes a false gospel? What exactly is dynamic about remaining in a dying organization (I can't call it a church for the same reasons that the bishop cites as marks of the Church)? Is that dynamism that Lawrence mentions at all related to the proclamation of the gospel?
And how is it that the DSC is going to thrive while being attached to pecusa? I don't think that Bishop Lawrence addressed this in his address. My guess is that the third wave that David Virtue has spoken about will soon hit SC. The third wave is orthodox parishes in orthodox dioceses leaving pecusa. Virtue says as much in the post above this one.
An excerpt:
Clergy, attending a special meeting of the DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA this week, heard Bishop Mark Lawrence say that the diocese needs to distance itself from the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church. He then held out an exit card to parishes wanting to leave the diocese for safer more orthodox ecclesiastical pastures.
Lawrence advocated withdrawing as a diocese from "all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions."
It was bewildering and confusing, an orthodox rector told VOL. "Liberal rectors concluded that he would not take the diocese out of TEC and therefore would not go after him by appealing to Jefferts Schori or David Booth Beers, but a number of orthodox rectors, many of whom have sworn allegiance to the wider Anglican Communion are now weighing their options. I would not be surprised if a number of them decided to leave," the source said.
First, I find the bishop's use of the word "react" to be strange in light of the time frame - pecusa's train wreck, as Bishop Wright of Durham, England has labeled it, has been progressing for six years. The DSC has had plenty of time to respond prayerfully and thoughtfully to what has happened. Those of us who have left pecusa did so prayerfully and thoughtfully, reading Scripture, Theology and the Church Fathers. Bishop Lawrence speaks about making a "hasty departure." What exactly is hasty about acting six-plus years after pecusa created the present Anglican crisis?
He speaks against a "paralyzed passivity," but how are we to understand his call for the DSC to remove itself from "all bodies of governance." How is dynamism reflected through defecting in place? This sounds like a passive stance to me, but maybe someone can explain how this is actually dynamism. While the DSC defects in place the Anglican Church in North America is proposing and beginning to work toward planting 1,000 new churches in North America. Part of the changing landscape in Anglicanism that Lawrence fails to mention is the Anglican Church in North America.
Lawrence speaks of divine providence and even quotes a section of Isaiah in support of his position. But could it be that God's providence in this crisis is the Anglican Church in North America? One could certainly make that case as easily as Lawrence's position from the Scripture he cites. He also cites the Apostle Paul and the Church in Galatia. Certainly the bishop is an adequate enough exegete to know that the situation in Galatia doesn't line up with the crisis in Anglicanism. The apostle Paul had both apostolic authority and a relationship of trust from which he can persuade the Galatians to spurn false teachers. No one has been able to do that with pecusa. There are plenty of verses in the New Testament about separating from false teaching (I published a post on this from the Rev. Dr. Tim Smith a while ago). I can't recall any that refer to remaining attached to heresy and apostasy. I know that some quote the stories of wheats and tares and other passages that speak of a mixed church. These folks generally do not quote the verses about separating from heresy. Nor do they often speak about godly discipline.
The bishop speaks of dynamism to meet the challenges of remaining in pecusa. He also talks about future suffering. The future suffering part I believe. There will be future suffering as the DSC continues to remain in communion with the heretics and apostates of pecusa. I don't view that suffering as suffering for the gospel, and is it possible that part of DSC's suffering is self-inflicted as they remain attached to an organization that promotes a false gospel? What exactly is dynamic about remaining in a dying organization (I can't call it a church for the same reasons that the bishop cites as marks of the Church)? Is that dynamism that Lawrence mentions at all related to the proclamation of the gospel?
And how is it that the DSC is going to thrive while being attached to pecusa? I don't think that Bishop Lawrence addressed this in his address. My guess is that the third wave that David Virtue has spoken about will soon hit SC. The third wave is orthodox parishes in orthodox dioceses leaving pecusa. Virtue says as much in the post above this one.
An excerpt:
Clergy, attending a special meeting of the DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA this week, heard Bishop Mark Lawrence say that the diocese needs to distance itself from the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church. He then held out an exit card to parishes wanting to leave the diocese for safer more orthodox ecclesiastical pastures.
Lawrence advocated withdrawing as a diocese from "all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions."
It was bewildering and confusing, an orthodox rector told VOL. "Liberal rectors concluded that he would not take the diocese out of TEC and therefore would not go after him by appealing to Jefferts Schori or David Booth Beers, but a number of orthodox rectors, many of whom have sworn allegiance to the wider Anglican Communion are now weighing their options. I would not be surprised if a number of them decided to leave," the source said.
Episcopal Lobby Pushes Obamacare - Jeff Walton
Via VirtueOnline:
Dear XXXXX,
Have you been watching the debate about health care reform? Episcopal Church leaders are doing so, and they are strongly in favor of the Obamacare plan to potentially dramatically increase the role of government in health care.
This week the Episcopal Church joined with a coalition of Religious Left leaders to support the "40 Days of Health Reform" campaign. It's the usual suspects: the National Council of Churches, the Unitarian Universalist Association, Jim Wallis' Sojourners, and others, all pressing for a universal health care plan with a "government option". You can read my coverage of the "40 Days of Health Reform" campaign by clicking here. I also have covered the Episcopal Church's lobbying activities in favor of socialized medicine, which far exceed what the Obama Administration is seeking. You can read that by clicking here.
Wallis has been especially vocal about the need he feels to counter conservative resistance to an Obamacare plan.
"I see lies being told, I see fears being raised, and I see violence even being threatened at these mob sessions," the Sojourners president said, alluding to congressional "town hall" meetings where lawmakers have met with a critical reception from some constituents concerned about potentially dramatic government led changes to the health care system.
Wallis has been joined by "Emergent Church" pastor and author Brian McLaren, who in a subsequent blog posting chastised Christians that "have begun seeing Jesus and the faith through the lens of a neo-conservative political framework, thus reducing their vision of Jesus and his essential message of the kingdom of God."
McLaren, who headlined the Episcopal General Convention in July, said that "too many of us are becoming more and more zealous conservatives, but less and less Christ-like Christians, and many don't seem to notice the difference."
The Emergent leader then went on to say that "Thankfully, many Christian leaders are far more thoughtful and nuanced in their integration of faith and public life."
Well thanks, Pastor Brian. We are grateful that thoughtful, nuanced leaders like you are able to steer zealous, un-Christ-like lay people like us away from error. People like you really understand the "essential message of the Kingdom of God" - that's why you headlined the Episcopal General Convention this year - the same one that eliminated all evangelism funding and repeatedly embraced alternative lifestyles and a spirit of Universalism.
"Lives could be saved as a result of our joint calls for Christian integrity and civility: We've already seen what happens when people translate religious and ideological passion into violent action," McLaren warned ominously.
Support Anglican Action
For those unfamiliar with "emergent-speak", I'll translate: those grannies at the town hall meetings all need to be checked for suicide bomber explosive vests. "Fundamentalist" Christians are just like those other fundamentalists - you know, the ones from that moderate "religion of peace" that McLaren won't mention.
McLaren concludes his appeal by stating that "the moral authority of Christians has been severely compromised in our culture in recent years. The most serious kinds of sexual scandals have rocked the Catholic, evangelical, and charismatic communities, not to mention financial scandals, ugly denominational lawsuits, and high-profile divisions. Studies have shown that some kinds of Christians are not only more likely to support torture - they are also more likely to hold racist views, to engage in domestic violence, and to end their marriages in divorce. No wonder young people are turned off as never before to a hypocritical face of Christianity that radiates shame, anger, and judgment rather than grace, love, and truth."
Translation: "I can't stand you. Now do what I say." McLaren doesn't seem to realize that Christians don't set themselves up as models of perfection. Rather, as Christianity Today Managing Editor Mark Galli recently said, our job is to reflect the light of Christ, speaking for what he says is right, "acknowledging our own complicity in the sins we decry, and pointing to the One who must save us all."
Anglicans will be particularly interested in McLaren's condemnation of "ugly denominational lawsuits" - it would have been helpful if he had brought that up at General Convention. Regrettably, he seems to have forgotten to do so.
In Christ,
Jeff H. Walton
IRD Communications Manager Staffer,
Anglican Action for Faith & Freedom
Dear XXXXX,
Have you been watching the debate about health care reform? Episcopal Church leaders are doing so, and they are strongly in favor of the Obamacare plan to potentially dramatically increase the role of government in health care.
This week the Episcopal Church joined with a coalition of Religious Left leaders to support the "40 Days of Health Reform" campaign. It's the usual suspects: the National Council of Churches, the Unitarian Universalist Association, Jim Wallis' Sojourners, and others, all pressing for a universal health care plan with a "government option". You can read my coverage of the "40 Days of Health Reform" campaign by clicking here. I also have covered the Episcopal Church's lobbying activities in favor of socialized medicine, which far exceed what the Obama Administration is seeking. You can read that by clicking here.
Wallis has been especially vocal about the need he feels to counter conservative resistance to an Obamacare plan.
"I see lies being told, I see fears being raised, and I see violence even being threatened at these mob sessions," the Sojourners president said, alluding to congressional "town hall" meetings where lawmakers have met with a critical reception from some constituents concerned about potentially dramatic government led changes to the health care system.
Wallis has been joined by "Emergent Church" pastor and author Brian McLaren, who in a subsequent blog posting chastised Christians that "have begun seeing Jesus and the faith through the lens of a neo-conservative political framework, thus reducing their vision of Jesus and his essential message of the kingdom of God."
McLaren, who headlined the Episcopal General Convention in July, said that "too many of us are becoming more and more zealous conservatives, but less and less Christ-like Christians, and many don't seem to notice the difference."
The Emergent leader then went on to say that "Thankfully, many Christian leaders are far more thoughtful and nuanced in their integration of faith and public life."
Well thanks, Pastor Brian. We are grateful that thoughtful, nuanced leaders like you are able to steer zealous, un-Christ-like lay people like us away from error. People like you really understand the "essential message of the Kingdom of God" - that's why you headlined the Episcopal General Convention this year - the same one that eliminated all evangelism funding and repeatedly embraced alternative lifestyles and a spirit of Universalism.
"Lives could be saved as a result of our joint calls for Christian integrity and civility: We've already seen what happens when people translate religious and ideological passion into violent action," McLaren warned ominously.
Support Anglican Action
For those unfamiliar with "emergent-speak", I'll translate: those grannies at the town hall meetings all need to be checked for suicide bomber explosive vests. "Fundamentalist" Christians are just like those other fundamentalists - you know, the ones from that moderate "religion of peace" that McLaren won't mention.
McLaren concludes his appeal by stating that "the moral authority of Christians has been severely compromised in our culture in recent years. The most serious kinds of sexual scandals have rocked the Catholic, evangelical, and charismatic communities, not to mention financial scandals, ugly denominational lawsuits, and high-profile divisions. Studies have shown that some kinds of Christians are not only more likely to support torture - they are also more likely to hold racist views, to engage in domestic violence, and to end their marriages in divorce. No wonder young people are turned off as never before to a hypocritical face of Christianity that radiates shame, anger, and judgment rather than grace, love, and truth."
Translation: "I can't stand you. Now do what I say." McLaren doesn't seem to realize that Christians don't set themselves up as models of perfection. Rather, as Christianity Today Managing Editor Mark Galli recently said, our job is to reflect the light of Christ, speaking for what he says is right, "acknowledging our own complicity in the sins we decry, and pointing to the One who must save us all."
Anglicans will be particularly interested in McLaren's condemnation of "ugly denominational lawsuits" - it would have been helpful if he had brought that up at General Convention. Regrettably, he seems to have forgotten to do so.
In Christ,
Jeff H. Walton
IRD Communications Manager Staffer,
Anglican Action for Faith & Freedom
The Heresies of Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 12, 2009
Article XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
The Lambeth Quadrilateral. The Lambeth Conference of 1888. Resolution 11. (a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
On the Consecration of a Bishop. Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the same Holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach or maintain nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the same?
Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 (NIV)
"... If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
Recent statements, comments and interviews by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, reveal a common theme: she no longer (if she ever did) believes in the unique claims of Jesus Christ as both savior and Lord resulting in a poor if non-existent Christology.
In a recent video, Jefferts Schori openly and publicly denied that Jesus is the only way to salvation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IxG96wpx60
She has publicly said that Muslims do not need converting to Christ and that she would never tell them they do, or that Jews are saved under the first covenant. In her most recent statement, uttered publicly at General Convention in Anaheim, she stated that personal or individual conversion (to Christ) is a Western heresy and likened it to "work" rather than that of free grace.
In a video, she clarified her views on salvation saying, "In some parts of Christianity we have turned salvation into a work, you have to say that I claim Jesus as my Lord and Savior in order to be saved and that turns it into a work and it denies the possibility of grace."
The retired Bishop of South Carolina, The Rt. Rev. Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison expostulated that Mrs. Jefferts Schori's remarks are not a distortion of Christology, the Trinity or even the Creed, but are the announcement of a different religion. "It doesn't measure up to heresy. She is trying to reduce Christianity to the blank space in the creed between the Virgin Mary and Pontius Pilate."
The former Suffragan Bishop of Albany, The Rt. Rev. David Bena blasted Jefferts Schori at a recent CANA Council in Herndon, VA, where he is now a full bishop in communion with the Anglican province of Nigeria, saying that Jefferts Schori's rejection of personal salvation is a heresy that insults our Heavenly Father, who wishes each one of us to have a personal, saving relationship with his Son.
"Perhaps this leader has not read, marked, heeded and inwardly digested Romans 10:9, 'because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved' and a thousand other passages from the scriptures covering the same subject are there," he cried.
Jefferts Schori argues that God made promises to the Jews that have not been broken. "God made promises to Ishmael (Muslims) and I don't believe God has broken them, either." She then said that other faith traditions, which include men like Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Thich Nhat Hanh, show what look like fruits of the spirit through their godly behavior. "If I deny they have access to God...then it is a sin against the Holy Spirit."
That is not what Jesus taught about the sin against the Holy Spirit. In Mark 3:28-30 Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin." He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, 'He has an evil spirit'."
It was the religious leaders of his day who Jesus accused of blasphemy. Might not the same condemnation apply to the likes of Jefferts Schori for her blatant denial of the unique claims of Christ?
She concluded her ad hoc remarks by saying, "It is not my job, and it is God's job to figure out who is going to be in the Kingdom." While it is true that we do not know WHO will be in the kingdom, there is no doubt about HOW one obtains entrance into the kingdom. The Presiding Bishop is not free to pronounce on the sovereign "work" of grace what God does in the lives of people who often privately repent, seeking his forgiveness away from the bright lights of public crusades, weepy public confessions and much more. God works in the heart, far from human observation.
Mrs. Jefferts Schori's blunt universalism does not sit well with Scripture. No serious Christian theologian, excluding Arius, in twenty centuries has challenged the unique claims of Jesus being fully divine, that he is fully God and fully man, the Savior of the world, Messiah (that one's for the Jews), prophet, priest and king who will one day spread his rule over all the kingdoms of the earth, and of His kingdom, there will be no end.
Unpacking Jefferts Schori is a bit like unpacking a boat load of bananas from Chile only to discover that most of the bananas had rotted en route, but on further search discovering that one or two had made the trip intact, but had been contaminated beyond edibility.
She said the whole world has access to God. That statement is true. The whole world does. John 3:16 (NIV) confirms that. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Access is indeed universal. Scripture is equally clear however that "no man comes to the Father except by me" (the Son). The full text reads, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, nobody comes to the Father except through me." (John.14:6) One wonders how she parses such verses, of which there are a number, that indicate the exclusivity of revealed truth. "He that seeks me will find me." (Jer. 29:13)
In some parts of Christianity, we have turned salvation into a work that denies the possibility of grace, according to Jefferts Schori. Really. I wonder what 40 million evangelical Anglicans in the Global South, Evangelicals in Sydney and Nelson (NZ), Southeast Asia and the Southern Cone would make of that statement? Do you have wonder why GAFCON exists?
Jefferts Schori is right on one point. She said comments like these "drive some Christians nuts." In this, she is absolutely correct, it does, including this writer, every Evangelical in America associated with unnumbered Christian churches, every orthodox Anglican in the Global South and every catholic Christian on the planet whose numbers reach into the hundreds of millions.
Clearly God made promises to the Jews that have not been broken, she said. Jefferts Schori needs a refresher in OT theology. God established a new Covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-40, "I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts." The old covenant was broken, broken by sin. It ceased to have any redeeming value. Furthermore covenants were made to be broken. At least you would think that was the case, if you tracked the history of all the covenants God established in the Old Testament. Each covenant's basic structure is, "I, God, will do X and you, human, will do Y." From Adam to Moses, when a covenant was broken, it was always broken in the same way - people failing.
In what is likely the theological highlight of Jeremiah, and arguably the theological high point in the OT, Jeremiah declares the new covenant, "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah." (31:31) The covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 is not only new, it is different from the others.
Would Jefferts Schori say to my neighbor, a converted Jew and an Episcopalian, that his desire to honor Messiah Y'shua is a mistake? What would she say to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who over the centuries have acknowledged the messiahship of Y'shua? "He was our Messiah before he was yours," a converted Jew once told me. He is correct.
God made promises to Ishmael that God has not broken, said Jefferts Schori. "Other Abrahamic faiths have access to God the Father without consciously going through Jesus," she has stated. Note the word "consciously". Is she suggesting they are going through Jesus unconsciously? "I also look at people in other faith traditions, Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, who show the fruits of the Spirit...which we see as godly behavior."
If she honestly believes what she says she does, she should stand up and say that the Buddhist-leaning wannabe Bishop of Northern Michigan, Thew Forrester who got deep-sixed when he failed to obtain the required consents, was acceptable to her and go ahead and consecrate him, any way. Furthermore, she should over rule the decision to toss out a former Episcopal woman priest from TEC who announced, "I am both Muslim and Christian" and allow her to continue her ministry in The Episcopal Church.
Is Jefferts Schori saying that there is another name under heaven whereby we must be saved? If so, who?
If the HOB had any theology at all, it would bring her up on heresy charges. That will not happen, of course, because most bishops, who have gone through the church's liberal Episcopal seminaries in the last 30 years, don't believe much differently than she. After all, if Walter Righter could take a walk over heresy charges that he ordained an avowed non-celibate homosexual man to the priesthood, and if no one is going to bring presentment charges against Bishop John Shelby Spong whose 12 theses deny every vestige of historic Christianity, why bother going after Jefferts Schori? If the HOB were to do so, there would be cries of feminist outrage ranging from charges of sexism and exclusivity to fundamentalism.
Mrs. Jefferts Schori needs to be reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew 12:30-32, "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." The Episcopal Church is being scattered to the four winds by moral relativity, blatant theological apostasy and much more. One day, the Presiding Bishop will have to give an account of her stewardship to the Lord of the Church. Among the issues she will answer for is who gave her the right to exchange the call of The Great Commission (to preach the gospel to all the world) for Millennium Development Goals, why she said personal salvation was a "Western heresy" and a "work", why millions of dollars were spent on litigation expenses that in no way advanced the Kingdom, and why the apostasies of TEC went unchecked resulting in millions leaving the church.
On "that Day", it might be too late for "personal salvation" for Katharine Jefferts Schori.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 12, 2009
Article XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
The Lambeth Quadrilateral. The Lambeth Conference of 1888. Resolution 11. (a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
On the Consecration of a Bishop. Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the same Holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach or maintain nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the same?
Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 (NIV)
"... If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
Recent statements, comments and interviews by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, reveal a common theme: she no longer (if she ever did) believes in the unique claims of Jesus Christ as both savior and Lord resulting in a poor if non-existent Christology.
In a recent video, Jefferts Schori openly and publicly denied that Jesus is the only way to salvation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IxG96wpx60
She has publicly said that Muslims do not need converting to Christ and that she would never tell them they do, or that Jews are saved under the first covenant. In her most recent statement, uttered publicly at General Convention in Anaheim, she stated that personal or individual conversion (to Christ) is a Western heresy and likened it to "work" rather than that of free grace.
In a video, she clarified her views on salvation saying, "In some parts of Christianity we have turned salvation into a work, you have to say that I claim Jesus as my Lord and Savior in order to be saved and that turns it into a work and it denies the possibility of grace."
The retired Bishop of South Carolina, The Rt. Rev. Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison expostulated that Mrs. Jefferts Schori's remarks are not a distortion of Christology, the Trinity or even the Creed, but are the announcement of a different religion. "It doesn't measure up to heresy. She is trying to reduce Christianity to the blank space in the creed between the Virgin Mary and Pontius Pilate."
The former Suffragan Bishop of Albany, The Rt. Rev. David Bena blasted Jefferts Schori at a recent CANA Council in Herndon, VA, where he is now a full bishop in communion with the Anglican province of Nigeria, saying that Jefferts Schori's rejection of personal salvation is a heresy that insults our Heavenly Father, who wishes each one of us to have a personal, saving relationship with his Son.
"Perhaps this leader has not read, marked, heeded and inwardly digested Romans 10:9, 'because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved' and a thousand other passages from the scriptures covering the same subject are there," he cried.
Jefferts Schori argues that God made promises to the Jews that have not been broken. "God made promises to Ishmael (Muslims) and I don't believe God has broken them, either." She then said that other faith traditions, which include men like Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Thich Nhat Hanh, show what look like fruits of the spirit through their godly behavior. "If I deny they have access to God...then it is a sin against the Holy Spirit."
That is not what Jesus taught about the sin against the Holy Spirit. In Mark 3:28-30 Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin." He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, 'He has an evil spirit'."
It was the religious leaders of his day who Jesus accused of blasphemy. Might not the same condemnation apply to the likes of Jefferts Schori for her blatant denial of the unique claims of Christ?
She concluded her ad hoc remarks by saying, "It is not my job, and it is God's job to figure out who is going to be in the Kingdom." While it is true that we do not know WHO will be in the kingdom, there is no doubt about HOW one obtains entrance into the kingdom. The Presiding Bishop is not free to pronounce on the sovereign "work" of grace what God does in the lives of people who often privately repent, seeking his forgiveness away from the bright lights of public crusades, weepy public confessions and much more. God works in the heart, far from human observation.
Mrs. Jefferts Schori's blunt universalism does not sit well with Scripture. No serious Christian theologian, excluding Arius, in twenty centuries has challenged the unique claims of Jesus being fully divine, that he is fully God and fully man, the Savior of the world, Messiah (that one's for the Jews), prophet, priest and king who will one day spread his rule over all the kingdoms of the earth, and of His kingdom, there will be no end.
Unpacking Jefferts Schori is a bit like unpacking a boat load of bananas from Chile only to discover that most of the bananas had rotted en route, but on further search discovering that one or two had made the trip intact, but had been contaminated beyond edibility.
She said the whole world has access to God. That statement is true. The whole world does. John 3:16 (NIV) confirms that. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Access is indeed universal. Scripture is equally clear however that "no man comes to the Father except by me" (the Son). The full text reads, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, nobody comes to the Father except through me." (John.14:6) One wonders how she parses such verses, of which there are a number, that indicate the exclusivity of revealed truth. "He that seeks me will find me." (Jer. 29:13)
In some parts of Christianity, we have turned salvation into a work that denies the possibility of grace, according to Jefferts Schori. Really. I wonder what 40 million evangelical Anglicans in the Global South, Evangelicals in Sydney and Nelson (NZ), Southeast Asia and the Southern Cone would make of that statement? Do you have wonder why GAFCON exists?
Jefferts Schori is right on one point. She said comments like these "drive some Christians nuts." In this, she is absolutely correct, it does, including this writer, every Evangelical in America associated with unnumbered Christian churches, every orthodox Anglican in the Global South and every catholic Christian on the planet whose numbers reach into the hundreds of millions.
Clearly God made promises to the Jews that have not been broken, she said. Jefferts Schori needs a refresher in OT theology. God established a new Covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-40, "I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts." The old covenant was broken, broken by sin. It ceased to have any redeeming value. Furthermore covenants were made to be broken. At least you would think that was the case, if you tracked the history of all the covenants God established in the Old Testament. Each covenant's basic structure is, "I, God, will do X and you, human, will do Y." From Adam to Moses, when a covenant was broken, it was always broken in the same way - people failing.
In what is likely the theological highlight of Jeremiah, and arguably the theological high point in the OT, Jeremiah declares the new covenant, "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah." (31:31) The covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 is not only new, it is different from the others.
Would Jefferts Schori say to my neighbor, a converted Jew and an Episcopalian, that his desire to honor Messiah Y'shua is a mistake? What would she say to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who over the centuries have acknowledged the messiahship of Y'shua? "He was our Messiah before he was yours," a converted Jew once told me. He is correct.
God made promises to Ishmael that God has not broken, said Jefferts Schori. "Other Abrahamic faiths have access to God the Father without consciously going through Jesus," she has stated. Note the word "consciously". Is she suggesting they are going through Jesus unconsciously? "I also look at people in other faith traditions, Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, who show the fruits of the Spirit...which we see as godly behavior."
If she honestly believes what she says she does, she should stand up and say that the Buddhist-leaning wannabe Bishop of Northern Michigan, Thew Forrester who got deep-sixed when he failed to obtain the required consents, was acceptable to her and go ahead and consecrate him, any way. Furthermore, she should over rule the decision to toss out a former Episcopal woman priest from TEC who announced, "I am both Muslim and Christian" and allow her to continue her ministry in The Episcopal Church.
Is Jefferts Schori saying that there is another name under heaven whereby we must be saved? If so, who?
If the HOB had any theology at all, it would bring her up on heresy charges. That will not happen, of course, because most bishops, who have gone through the church's liberal Episcopal seminaries in the last 30 years, don't believe much differently than she. After all, if Walter Righter could take a walk over heresy charges that he ordained an avowed non-celibate homosexual man to the priesthood, and if no one is going to bring presentment charges against Bishop John Shelby Spong whose 12 theses deny every vestige of historic Christianity, why bother going after Jefferts Schori? If the HOB were to do so, there would be cries of feminist outrage ranging from charges of sexism and exclusivity to fundamentalism.
Mrs. Jefferts Schori needs to be reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew 12:30-32, "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." The Episcopal Church is being scattered to the four winds by moral relativity, blatant theological apostasy and much more. One day, the Presiding Bishop will have to give an account of her stewardship to the Lord of the Church. Among the issues she will answer for is who gave her the right to exchange the call of The Great Commission (to preach the gospel to all the world) for Millennium Development Goals, why she said personal salvation was a "Western heresy" and a "work", why millions of dollars were spent on litigation expenses that in no way advanced the Kingdom, and why the apostasies of TEC went unchecked resulting in millions leaving the church.
On "that Day", it might be too late for "personal salvation" for Katharine Jefferts Schori.
END
S.C. Bishop Proposes Diocese Withdraw from TEC Governing Bodies
From The Living Church via TitusOneNine:
Posted on: August 13, 2009
The Diocese of South Carolina needs to distance itself from the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church, its bishop said Thursday in an address to clergy meeting at St. James’ Church, James Island, Charleston, S.C.
The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, bishop since January 2008, did not urge the diocese to break all ties with The Episcopal Church.
Bishop Lawrence and the standing committee have called for a special convention on Oct. 24 to vote on proposals that Bishop Lawrence presented during the meeting. He and the standing committee discussed these proposals during a marathon meeting on July 28.
The proposals include:
• Reading a letter aloud at every ordination service that specifies what it means to be loyal to the “doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” Bishop Lawrence asked whether this vow includes adhering to the resolutions of General Convention.
• Withdrawing as a diocese from “all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions.”
• Affirming the latest draft of the Anglican Covenant.
“I believe we ought to sign on to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant as it presently stands in all four sections,” Bishop Lawrence said. “Therefore we need to begin the process of studying the Ridley Draft in every deanery and parish and be prepared to vote on it either in the special convention in October or, if that's too ambitious a time frame, no later than our Annual Diocesan Convention in March 2010.”
Posted on: August 13, 2009
The Diocese of South Carolina needs to distance itself from the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church, its bishop said Thursday in an address to clergy meeting at St. James’ Church, James Island, Charleston, S.C.
The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, bishop since January 2008, did not urge the diocese to break all ties with The Episcopal Church.
Bishop Lawrence and the standing committee have called for a special convention on Oct. 24 to vote on proposals that Bishop Lawrence presented during the meeting. He and the standing committee discussed these proposals during a marathon meeting on July 28.
The proposals include:
• Reading a letter aloud at every ordination service that specifies what it means to be loyal to the “doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” Bishop Lawrence asked whether this vow includes adhering to the resolutions of General Convention.
• Withdrawing as a diocese from “all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions.”
• Affirming the latest draft of the Anglican Covenant.
“I believe we ought to sign on to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant as it presently stands in all four sections,” Bishop Lawrence said. “Therefore we need to begin the process of studying the Ridley Draft in every deanery and parish and be prepared to vote on it either in the special convention in October or, if that's too ambitious a time frame, no later than our Annual Diocesan Convention in March 2010.”
Meeting to mull future of SC Episcopal diocese
Via TitusOneNine:
Thursday, Aug. 13, 2009
By BRUCE SMITH - Associated Press Writer
CHARLESTON, S.C. -- The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, increasingly disenchanted with the direction of the national Episcopal Church, on Thursday called a convention to discuss the future of the conservative diocese.
"Frankly, I don't know how to say this in any other way but to tell you that this is a call to action; of mobilization of clergy, parishes and laity," the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence said in a speech released after he delivered it to clergy representing 75 parishes in the lower and eastern part of the state.
Last month, the national church, during its California convention, authorized bishops to bless same-sex unions. The Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, in 2003.
The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, increasingly disenchanted with the direction of the national Episcopal Church, on Thursday called a convention to discuss the future of the conservative diocese.
"Frankly, I don't know how to say this in any other way but to tell you that this is a call to action; of mobilization of clergy, parishes and laity," the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence said in a speech released after he delivered it to clergy representing 75 parishes in the lower and eastern part of the state.
Last month, the national church, during its California convention, authorized bishops to bless same-sex unions. The Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, in 2003.
Just three weeks after the Episcopal Church lifted a de facto moratorium on approving gay bishops, a Chicago priest in a committed same-sex relationship has been named one of three nominees for Bishop of Minnesota.
The Rev. Bonnie Perry, rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in the Ravenswood neighborhood, announced the nomination to parishioners in a statement on Sunday. A certified kayak instructor, she is out of the country on a long-planned kayaking trip and unavailable for comment.
"As we all continue to discern God's call, I pray that we will bear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ that changes people's lives and proclaims the profound inclusivity and hospitality of God," she told parishioners in her statement.
Two Episcopal priests in same-gender relationships are among the nominees for assistant bishop of Los Angeles, officials said Sunday.
The Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco and the Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool of Maryland will be among six candidates on the ballot when lay people and clergy vote in December, despite a long-standing request from world Anglican leaders for a moratorium on consecrating openly gay bishops.
Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno said in a statement Sunday that he was "pleased by the wide diversity" of the nominees. Separately, the Diocese of Minnesota on Saturday announced that a lesbian was among its three candidates for bishop. That election is set for October 31.
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.
"We face a multitude of false teachings, which like an intrusive vine, is threatening the Episcopal Church," Lawrence said. "I have called this the false Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity because I see a common pattern in how the core doctrines of our faith are being systematically deconstructed."
In 2006, the Diocese of South Carolina and two others opposing consecration of gay bishops voted to reject the authority of the national church's presiding bishop, but stopped short of a full break with the church.
But this June, four breakaway conservative dioceses formed a rival national province to the Episcopal Church called the Anglican Church in North America.
Lawrence called on South Carolina parishes to discuss the issues facing the church before sending delegates to an Oct. 24 convention in Mount Pleasant.
He said while some would suggest cutting ties with the national church, others would caution patience.
"While I have no immediate solution to the challenges we face, it is certainly neither a hasty departure nor a paralyzed passivity I counsel," he said. "Either of these I believe, regardless of what godly wisdom they may be for others, would be for us a false peace and a fatal security."
He said the diocese needs a place to both survive and thrive.
"There is also a need to find ways to support conservative parishes and missions in dioceses where there is isolation or worse," he said. "I would like to encourage congregations in this diocese to create missional relationships with 'orthodox' congregations isolated across North America."
Lawrence also said he would work with any parish feeling it no longer wants to stay in the conservative South Carolina diocese.
"This is not my desire for any parish," he said, but added "pastoral sensitivity suggests I should give space to those who feel they need it."
The 2.3 million-member Episcopal church is the U.S. branch Anglican Communion, a 77 million-member communion that is the third-largest group of churches worldwide, behind the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches.
Thursday, Aug. 13, 2009
By BRUCE SMITH - Associated Press Writer
CHARLESTON, S.C. -- The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, increasingly disenchanted with the direction of the national Episcopal Church, on Thursday called a convention to discuss the future of the conservative diocese.
"Frankly, I don't know how to say this in any other way but to tell you that this is a call to action; of mobilization of clergy, parishes and laity," the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence said in a speech released after he delivered it to clergy representing 75 parishes in the lower and eastern part of the state.
Last month, the national church, during its California convention, authorized bishops to bless same-sex unions. The Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, in 2003.
The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, increasingly disenchanted with the direction of the national Episcopal Church, on Thursday called a convention to discuss the future of the conservative diocese.
"Frankly, I don't know how to say this in any other way but to tell you that this is a call to action; of mobilization of clergy, parishes and laity," the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence said in a speech released after he delivered it to clergy representing 75 parishes in the lower and eastern part of the state.
Last month, the national church, during its California convention, authorized bishops to bless same-sex unions. The Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, in 2003.
Just three weeks after the Episcopal Church lifted a de facto moratorium on approving gay bishops, a Chicago priest in a committed same-sex relationship has been named one of three nominees for Bishop of Minnesota.
The Rev. Bonnie Perry, rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in the Ravenswood neighborhood, announced the nomination to parishioners in a statement on Sunday. A certified kayak instructor, she is out of the country on a long-planned kayaking trip and unavailable for comment.
"As we all continue to discern God's call, I pray that we will bear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ that changes people's lives and proclaims the profound inclusivity and hospitality of God," she told parishioners in her statement.
Two Episcopal priests in same-gender relationships are among the nominees for assistant bishop of Los Angeles, officials said Sunday.
The Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco and the Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool of Maryland will be among six candidates on the ballot when lay people and clergy vote in December, despite a long-standing request from world Anglican leaders for a moratorium on consecrating openly gay bishops.
Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno said in a statement Sunday that he was "pleased by the wide diversity" of the nominees. Separately, the Diocese of Minnesota on Saturday announced that a lesbian was among its three candidates for bishop. That election is set for October 31.
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.
"We face a multitude of false teachings, which like an intrusive vine, is threatening the Episcopal Church," Lawrence said. "I have called this the false Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity because I see a common pattern in how the core doctrines of our faith are being systematically deconstructed."
In 2006, the Diocese of South Carolina and two others opposing consecration of gay bishops voted to reject the authority of the national church's presiding bishop, but stopped short of a full break with the church.
But this June, four breakaway conservative dioceses formed a rival national province to the Episcopal Church called the Anglican Church in North America.
Lawrence called on South Carolina parishes to discuss the issues facing the church before sending delegates to an Oct. 24 convention in Mount Pleasant.
He said while some would suggest cutting ties with the national church, others would caution patience.
"While I have no immediate solution to the challenges we face, it is certainly neither a hasty departure nor a paralyzed passivity I counsel," he said. "Either of these I believe, regardless of what godly wisdom they may be for others, would be for us a false peace and a fatal security."
He said the diocese needs a place to both survive and thrive.
"There is also a need to find ways to support conservative parishes and missions in dioceses where there is isolation or worse," he said. "I would like to encourage congregations in this diocese to create missional relationships with 'orthodox' congregations isolated across North America."
Lawrence also said he would work with any parish feeling it no longer wants to stay in the conservative South Carolina diocese.
"This is not my desire for any parish," he said, but added "pastoral sensitivity suggests I should give space to those who feel they need it."
The 2.3 million-member Episcopal church is the U.S. branch Anglican Communion, a 77 million-member communion that is the third-largest group of churches worldwide, behind the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches.
Mark Lawrence—Address to the Clergy of The Diocese of South Carolina—August 13, 2009
Posted by Kendall Harmon at TitusOneNine:
Among the many doctrines of our Faith to which I might ask you to turn your thoughts this morning it is first to that wonderful doctrine of God’s Providence. It was to this doctrine that my distant predecessor, The Rt. Reverend Robert Smith, first bishop of South Carolina, turned when he addressed the Colonial Assembly which gathered at St. Philips Church in the early months of 1775 as the winds of war were blowing on the eve of the American Revolution. Of course he was not at that time a bishop. There were no bishops on these shores, though Anglicanism was well into its second century on this continent. Nor was he a bishop when he returned to Charleston from imprisonment and banishment in 1783 to give his homecoming sermon, where once again he spoke of an “overruling Providence”. As perhaps you know, his banishment to a northern colony was due to his having taken words and arms against his former king and country—and having thrown in his lot with his adopted home, he risked and lost everything. He was taken to Philadelphia bereaved of wife (she had recently died), and bereft of home and parish. But on that public occasion in February 1775, before he had ever fired a musket towards a British troop, this unlikely patriot declared his deepest allegiance:
“We form schemes of happiness and deceive ourselves with a weak imagination of security, without ever taking God into the question; no wonder then if our hopes prove abortive, and the conceits of our vain minds end in disappointment and sorrow. For we are inclined to attribute our prosperity to the wisdom of our own councils, and the arm of our own flesh, we become forgetful of him from whom our strength and wisdom are derived; and are then betrayed into that fatal security, which ends in shame, in misery and ruin.”
Is it not towards such false peace or fatal security that we are tempted too often and too soon to fling ourselves?
I believe for us to discern God’s purpose and role for this diocese in this current challenge, and then to live it out faithfully, will involve each of us in more struggles and suffering than we have yet invested—for we have invested as yet, so little. This is not a challenge for a bishop or even a Standing Committee to face alone. None of us can afford to keep the members of our parishes uninformed of the challenges that lie ahead. Consequently, since I see struggle and suffering before each of us, it is towards God’s beneficent providence I chose first to turn our attention this morning. And where can we find a text to so focus our thoughts on this strengthening doctrine than that which is found in the prophet Isaiah—spoken to those in exile?
“Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown, scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth when he blows on them, and they wither, and the tempest carries them off like stubble.” (Isaiah 40:21-24)
It is under such a godly Providence that we live—and it is under this godly providence, whether we act or merely stand firm in prayerful posture, that we “shall mount up with wings like eagles, [we] shall run and not be weary, [we] shall walk and not faint.”
In our present situation some would counsel us that it is past time to cut our moorings from The Episcopal Church and take refuge in a harbor without the pluralism and false teachings that surround us in both the secular culture and within our Church; others speak to us of the need for patience, to “let the Instruments of Unity do their work”—that now is not yet the time to act. Still others seem paralyzed; though no less distressed than us by the developments within our Church, they seem to take a posture of insular denial of what is inexorably coming upon us all. While I have no immediate solution to the challenges we face—it is certainly neither a hasty departure nor a paralyzed passivity I counsel. Either of these I believe, regardless of what godly wisdom they may be for others, would be for us a false peace and a “fatal security” which in time (and brief at that) would only betray us. Others in their given circumstances must do what they believe God has called them to do.
One must remember, however, that it is an ever changing landscape in Anglicanism today so there is a need for dynamism lest one becomes too passive, and for provisionality ‘lest one should not notice the engagement has moved on to a new field of action.
The false Gospel of an Indiscriminate Inclusivity
It is perfectly understandable to me that many among us may look at the developments during the last several decades and believe it is The Episcopal Church (TEC) that is our problem. Those of us who refer to ourselves as reasserters, conservatives, Anglo-Catholics or Evangelicals, or sometimes under the sweeping moniker of “orthodox” have often felt ourselves driven, if not out, then to the margins of this Church. We refer sometimes with derision to the Presiding Bishop (whether Bps Browning, Griswold or Jefferts Schori). We speak of 815, the “National” Church, the General Convention, as problems we have to react to, and believe we know what it is we are fighting, or are in conflict with. Sometimes it all comes under the title of TEC. Never realizing perhaps that here at least in South Carolina we are the Church: The Episcopal Church. It is only as I’ve allowed my Lord to remove the anger toward these “institutions” of the Church that I can recognize with greater clarity what it is I need to engage—and even fight against.
When the apostle Paul heard that the churches of Galatia (Gal 1:2) were being misled by a “new” gospel, turning away from Christ and his grace it was not the churches themselves he attacked. Certainly he spoke firmly when he penned or dictated the words “O foolish Galatians! who has bewitched you…..” Or stated in those opening verses of the letter “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” His sharp words addressed the false teaching and those who preached it. (Galatians 1:6—9). So too in our present context it is not The Episcopal Church that is the problem, it is those who have cloaked it with so many strands of false doctrine that we can well wonder if indeed it can be salvaged. Like an invading vine unnatural to the habitat that has covered a once elegant, old growth forest with what to some looks like a gracious vine it is in fact decorative destruction. What may look like a flower may be bramble.
We face a multitude of false teachings, which like an intrusive vine, is threatening The Episcopal Church as we have inherited and received it from our ancestors. I have called this the false Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity because I see a common pattern in how the core doctrines of our faith are being systematically deconstructed. I must by necessity be brief and cannot give any of these concerns the attention they deserve.
• The Trinity. One of the doctrines under barrage in our Church is an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. At the last three General Conventions I have been concerned about the lack of Eucharists according to the rites in the Book of Common Prayer. Even this I might be able to overlook if the rites that were employed were not so devoid of references to God the Father. In more than a few of these worship services the only reference to God the Father actually in the liturgy was the Lord’s Prayer. In the name of inclusion there’s the perception by some (a variant of radical feminism I suppose) that the references to the Father, and the pronoun “he” is some lingering patriarchal holdover. Yet it has always intrigued me that in all of the Hebrew Scriptures there are only a handful of references to God as Father. If one wants to locate the authority of the Church to worship God as Father one need look no further than Jesus himself. It was he who called God “Abba” and taught the disciples to prayer “Our Father.” Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything? As many of you know there is more here than I have time to explore this morning.
• Uniqueness of Christ. In my opinion the current Presiding Bishop has repeatedly been irresponsible with her comments regarding the doctrine of the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ. This will not surprise you, for I said as much to her when she visited us shortly after my consecration. In answering questions about the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ she has repeatedly suggested that it is not up to her to decide what the mechanism is God uses to save people. But, quite to the contrary, it is her responsibility as a bishop of the Church to proclaim the saving work of Jesus Christ and to teach what it is the Scriptures and the Church teach. Anything less from us who are bishops is an abdication of our teaching office. Otherwise how will the world know to whom to come? How will the unschooled within the Church know what they should believe? I do not cite this to be controversial but to reference the pervasiveness of this inclusive gospel that would, in its attempt to include all people and all religions, fail to rightly delight in, celebrate and worship him before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord. It does not honor another religion to not be forthright about one’s own. As the English Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali observed , “Fudging important issues and attempting a superficial harmonization gives a sense of unity that is untrue and … prevents real differences from being acknowledged and discussed.” And we haven’t time to discuss brief swipes toward confessional approaches to the faith except to ask—wasn’t the Lordship of Christ the first confession of the faithful—even in the face of Caesar’s claim to Lordship? Did not St. Paul teach that if we confess with our lips and believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is Lord we shall be saved? Does not the baptismal rite require such a formulaic statement of the individual before the assembled body who witness it? Such statements, unfortunately, make it necessary for us to correct rather than to support leadership.
• Scriptural Authority. This is such a comprehensive dimension of our present crisis in the church that one hardly knows where to begin. But one can hardly do better than St. Ambrose’s statement that “the whole of Holy Scripture be a feast for the soul.” How seldom one hears upon us who are bishops in Tec such glowing statements about the Bible. In my experience all too many of our bishops and priests seem to mine the scriptures for minerals to use in vain idolatries. There is too little confidence expressed in its trustworthiness; the authority and uniqueness of revelation. Indeed, as J.V. Langmead-Casserly once put it, “We have developed a method of studying the Word of God from which a Word of God never comes.” Too often supposed conundrums or difficulties are brought up, seemingly in order to detract from traditional understandings, never considering the damage to the faithful’s trust in God and his Word. Ridiculous arguments such as shellfish and mixed fabrics are dragged out (long reconciled by the Fathers of the Church, as well as the Anglican Reformers) in order to confuse the ill-taught or the untutored in theology. And those who are intellectually sophisticated, schooled in many academic disciplines, but dreadfully untaught in the Bible and theology, are, through little fault of their own, except for naively trusting generations of slothful priests and bishops, are led astray. We must be willing to speak out against this.
• Baptismal Theology detached from Biblical and Catholic doctrine. The phrase heard frequently at General Convention 2009 was “All the sacraments for all the Baptized”. One suspects that great Catholic teacher of the 4th Century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem would have been unconvinced for he wrote tellingly of Simon Magus, “he was baptized, but not enlightened. His body was dipped in water, but admitted not the Spirit to illuminate his heart. His body went down and came up; but his soul was not buried together with Christ nor with him raised.” (see Acts 8:9-24) Nevertheless, this inadequate baptismal theology was used to argue for the full inclusion of partnered GLBT persons to all the orders of the Church—deacons, priests and bishops. What it singularly misses is the straightforward teaching of the catechism, not to mention of the New Testament’s “teaching that baptism is a dying to self and sin and a rising to new life in Christ.” (N.T. Wright) Even if one would turn to the simplicity of the catechism one would encounter this question and answer: Q. What is required of us at Baptism? A. It is required that we renounce Satan, repent of our sins, and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Since when has baptism been the ticket to ordination in the Church? The Archbishop’s perceptive comment in section 8 of “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” is pertinent here.
• Human Sexuality. While it has been a clever device of some in recent years to refer to the varied approach to marriage in the different epochs of biblical history, often done in ways that are intended to bring more confusion rather than clarity, (ignoring that well honored hermeneutic of interpreting the less clear passages of Holy Scripture by the clearer, or not interpreting one text in such a way that it is repugnant to another) we are back with that tendency of ordained leaders of the Church and professors of religion to confound the faithful rather than to instruct—it has been used repeatedly in this current debate regarding Human Sexuality and the establishment of an inclusive moral equivalency of GLBT sexual unions with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and a woman.
• Constitution & Canons—Common Life. These, and other examples that could be cited, are illustrative of this “new gospel” of Indiscriminate Inclusivity that began with a denigration of the Holy Scriptures, then, step by step has brought the very core teachings of the Christian faith under its distorting and destructive sway. Thus, if the Scriptures should teach something contrary to this “gospel’s” most recent incarnation, (take for instance the full inclusion of GLBT) then the Scripture’s broad themes or individual passages, which plainly oppose current understanding of same-sex genital behavior, must be deconstructed. And if the bonds of affection within the Worldwide Anglican Communion are a hindrance to this gospel of inclusivity then the moral authority and role of the Instruments of Unity are downplayed. Most recently at GC’09 when the BCP’s marriage service, rubrics, and catechism, as well as the Constitution & Canons speak of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, therein conflicting with this inclusive “gospel”, resolution CO56 was passed contrary to our own order of governance and common life—thus one by one, the Holy Scriptures, the teachings of the Church, the Anglican Communion, the Ecumenical relationships with the other bodies of the Church Catholic, and now even our own Book of Common Prayer and Constitutions & Canons are subjugated to this “new” gospel. It is a foreign vine like kudzu draping the old growth forest of Episcopalianism with decorative destruction.
As I wrote in my post-Convention Letter to the Clergy ”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 not in my opinion the right action for this diocese to retreat from a thorough engagement with this destructive “new” gospel. As the prophet Ezekiel was called by the Lord to be a Watchman, to sound the alarm of judgment—to warn Israel to turn from her wickedness and live. We are called to speak forthrightly to The Episcopal Church and others, but even more specifically to the thousands of everyday Episcopalians who do not yet know the fullness of this present cultural captivity of the Church. Clearly this is not about the virtue of being “excluding”; it is about being rightly discerning about what is morally and spiritually appropriate. As the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests the Church’s life cannot be “wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal”.
Quite beyond this challenge within our Church this “gospel of indiscriminate inclusion” is as much a movement of the larger European and North American culture as it is a movement within the church. Thus, if one should seek to get away from it by leaving TEC, joining some other denomination, or continuing Anglican body (and please know, I do not say this critically of those who have chosen or felt called to leave) it will not free us from having to engage this challenge. As I’ve said on more than one occasion, this indiscriminant inclusivity is coming to a neighborhood near you. If you are in TEC and resisting this aggressive march you are already on the front lines. If you have a stomach to engage the battle you are rightly situated. It is now a matter of whether one is prepared to engage the challenge or not. We may prefer a false peace or fatal security but don’t think for a minute this challenge will not find us.
Our Present Strategy: Four Guiding Principles
The Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Sufficiency of Holy Scripture:
The first principle I wish to affirm in our diocesan life is that the Church lives its life under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and under and upon the authority of Holy Scripture. As Article XX in the Articles of Religion states, “…it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” (BCP p. 871) Since so many within our diocese may have been confused or disturbed by the newspaper and journal reports of the actions of General Convention 2009, and through reading the very resolutions D025 and C056 themselves, as well as the various contradictory statements by leaders in this Church interpreting what these resolutions mean, the Standing Committee and I are proposing that a Special Meeting of Convention (Diocesan Constitution Art.II sec.2) be called for Saturday, October 24th to deal with several concerns that need to be addressed. One such concern is what may be actually understood by the candidate for ordination as he or she makes the Oath of Conformity, and what the worshiping congregation will in the present climate understand by such a vow. When the ordinand pledges himself to “… solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.” and variations thereof, “in accordance to the canons of this Church…” does that imply adherence to these recent resolutions of GC’09? The Standing Committee and I are proposing a resolution for Convention to approve the reading of a letter prior to the spoken vow, and attached with the signed document of conformity, at every ordination in this diocese, thereby making clear what the Church has historically meant by such an oath—explicating what the Book of Common Prayer means by loyalty “to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” (All quotations above may be found on p. 526 and 538 of the BCP)
The Appropriateness of Godly Boundaries—Withdrawal:
Secondly, there is a need to establish appropriate boundaries and differentiation. Why? There is a need for this Diocese and the faithful across TEC to recognize that the actions of General Convention 2009 in adopting resolutions D025 and C056 along with going contrary to 1) Holy Scripture, 2) tradition—that is 2000 years of the Churches interpretation of these very scriptures—understood as the catholic principle of the consensus of the faithful, 3) the mind of the Anglican Communion as expressed in the resolutions of successive Lambeth Conferences and the considered conversation of Lambeth 2008, The Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates as well as the expressed hopes of the Archbishop himself, quite staggeringly also went against 4) even TEC’s own BCP, Catechism, and Constitution & Canons. It is my contention that a resolution adopted by a legislative body, contrary to the Constitution & Canons of that body, by its very adoption is made null and void. Such an institution is in violation of its own principles of governance. Therefore we cannot recognize the actions of GC”09 in passing resolutions DO25 and CO56 and believe that any diocese or bishop which allows partnered gay or lesbian persons to be ordained in holy orders, or allows blessings of same sex unions or “marriages” is in violation of the Canons. Frankly, it is rather staggering that many in the HOB after arguing in DO25 that we needed to return to being guided by our canons in regard to the ordination process instead of BO33, that this same convention then gave permission for bishops to disregard those very canons’ teaching toward marriage. I have personally witnessed the House of Bishops deposing sitting bishops for what they believe was an indiscreet disregard of the Church’s Constitution & Canons. Now hardly a year later the same governing body votes to give certain bishops the permission to do so!
This begs the question—how an institution, having jettisoned what for 2000 years has been the understood teaching of Holy Scripture and collective wisdom of Christendom, and taken refuge in its vaunted polity as expressed in its Constitution & Canons, can allow itself to proceed without first changing those canons? Two reasons: 1) The agenda of Inclusivity is viewed by many to be of such overriding importance as an issue of justice that it subjugates everything under its rubrics. 2) The level of conformity is so staggering that only a few would seem capable of resisting its pressure. And too often, even then the resistance is “This will not fly back home” rather than “I believe this is theologically wrong”. The Standing Committee and bishop will be proposing a resolution to come before the special convention that this diocese begin withdrawing from all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions. Let no one think this is a denial of the vows a priest or bishop makes to participate in the councils of governance. This is not a flight into isolation; nor is it an abandonment of duty, but the protest of conscience. It is recognition that the actions of GC’09 were in such blatant disregard and violation of Holy Scripture, the bonds of affection, and our own Constitution & Canons that one is led by reasoned conviction to undertake an intrepid resistance to the tyranny of the majority over judicious authority; therein erring both in Faith and Order.
Domestic Engagement for Relief and Mission:
Thirdly, I have noted in my Post-Convention Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese that we need to find a place not only to survive, but to thrive, and that this needs to be faithful, relational and structural. But this is not merely for our sake, but for others. I have been in conversation with bishops of other dioceses in TEC which find themselves in similar positions of isolation. We have discussed the possibility of developing gatherings of bishops, clergy, and laity for the express purpose of encouragement, education and mission. These gatherings in different regions of the country could bring internationally recognized Christian leaders from across the Anglican Communion to address such things as Holy Scripture, Christian doctrine, issues of pressing concern within the church, as well as the ever important work of ministry, evangelism, mission and church planting. These Dioceses in Missional Relationship I believe can create an environment which will lead to positive growth and concerted actions not merely for future survival but more importantly for growth and expansion.
There is also a need to find ways to support conservative parishes and missions in dioceses where there is isolation or worse. I would like to encourage congregations in this diocese to create missional relationships with “orthodox” congregations isolated across North America. There, consequently, is a need for the laity in South Carolina to be awakened and mobilized for engagement. This includes but is not limited to courses in theology which enables them to articulated their faith in the face of an aggressive displacement biblical and catholic teaching—not only in order to evangelize the lost, but to encourage the laity across the church who are surrounded by teaching that is clearly contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let me say it quite candidly, there may be effective initiatives the laity can undertake that would not be possible for the clergy in this present climate.
The Emergence of 21st Century Anglicanism:
Fourthly, we need to be guided by the principle that we are called to help shape an emerging Anglicanism that is sufficient of the 21st Century. The Archbishop in his recent “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” rightly noted that “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.” He went on to note, “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.” Indeed, I believe it not only “may”; I believe it will. You have heard me say on several occasions, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Well, I believe we should not waste this crisis—neither the ecclesiastical crisis nor the attending economic one. And certainly we should not waste it by taking refuge in a false peace that expresses itself in a retreat into an insular parochialism or a “fatal security” which for us, at least now, would be an escape. We have the opportunity to help shape the emergence of a truly global Anglicanism—Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age. I believe we have a unique role to play within the Anglican Communion. If at present we play that role by being in but not of the mainstream of TEC is it any less important? We passed at our Diocesan Convention in March a resolution which asserted our authority as a diocese to sign onto the Anglican Covenant. The final section read,
“Be it further resolved, that as the Diocese of South Carolina did choose at its Diocesan Convention in 1785, to organize as a diocese, (one of the first seven dioceses in these United States to so organize in that year), and to send delegates to the first General Conventions to organize the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and thereby freely associate its clerical and lay members with the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society—presently known as The Episcopal Church; so this same Diocese does also assert its authority to freely embrace such a Covenant in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to seek to remain a constituent member of the Anglican Communion should the Instruments of Unity allow such diocesan association.”
The Archbishop has expressed in section 25 of “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” his strong hope that “elements” [dioceses?] will adopt the Covenant. I believe we ought to sign on to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant as it presently stands in all four sections. (If it means we need to withdraw from a lawsuit we withdraw from a lawsuit). Therefore we need to begin the process of studying the Ridley Draft in every deanery and parish and be prepared to vote on it either in the special convention in October or, if that’s too ambitious a time frame, no later than our Annual Diocesan Convention in March 2010.
You need to know that the Anglican Communion Development Committee has already had its first meeting and will begin this fall to vigorously establish relationships with a broad array of Provinces across the Communion. You have heard me speak of this often, including during my Bishop’s Address last March. This still strikes me as one of the most important activities we should pursue. We can work with several of the Provinces within the Communion, and, if they are so inclined to partner with us, we should work with GAFCON and ACNA from within TEC to further gospel initiatives.
I believe we are as financially strong, and as spiritually and theologically unified as any conservative diocese left in TEC. We have I believe the resources to focus on the mission and ministry within the diocese of South Carolina as well as working within TEC to shore up and encourage the faithful; and at the same time to help shape the emerging Anglicanism of the 21st Century. Admittedly, this is a tall order. Though accurate statistics are hard to come by I believe there are still more theologically orthodox believers still inside of TEC than have left. Yet they seem increasingly isolated, with few leaders to encourage them. I believe we have a moral and spiritual call/obligation to stay in the fight with those still in TEC who look to us for hope; and to stay for as long as it is within our consciences to do so. On this last caveat, clearly the clock for many of us is loudly ticking. Few of us doubt there will be a strong push to make what is now de facto, de jure in GC2012. Along with this the number of partnered GLBT priests—and quite likely bishops will continue to increase (given the recent nominees in Episcopal elections in Minnesota and Los Angeles)—putting facts on the ground which the rest of us have to react to or deal with as best we can. As events unfold it will be necessary for us to put risky facts on the ground as well.
Concluding Thoughts
But before I conclude I need to address a sensitive issue. Should a parish find it needs to be served by alternative Episcopal care I will work with them toward that end. Please know this is not my desire for any parish. It would grieve me because I have enjoyed my relationship with every congregation in this great Diocese of South Carolina. Still these are challenging times, and if I am called to lead in such an assertive manner as I have suggested here, pastoral sensitivity suggests I should give space to those who feel they need it. I hope all can recognize in the things I have addressed above the three marks of the church recognized in Evangelical Anglicanism—1) Proclamation of the Word of God; 2) the sacraments duly administered; 3) order and discipline (Art. XIX)—yet there is that fourth mark (that to which Bishop and Martyr Nicholas Ridley referred, echoing of course St. Paul in I Corinthians 13; Galatians 5:22 and nurtured in the life of the church by the Holy Spirit), 4) the mark of charity, without which we are noisy gongs and clanging cymbals. And then for most of us there’s the one I just mentioned, 5) the beneficence of the historic episcopate.
I must address another thing under the rubric of love—and in this I follow the lead of Lambeth 1.10, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I trust with the Church Catholic around the world: we are not to be in this Diocese about the business of encouraging prejudice or denying the dignity of any person, including, but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, or Transgender. As those who know me well will acknowledge, it grieves me that so much of the battle has been waged here, and if the full story were to be told I believe that many who understand themselves through these categories wish it were not as well. No, we have no business fostering unexamined prejudice; so few of us are free from scars of sexual brokenness. Rather, we are constrained by the love of Christ to be primarily about the task of proclaiming the Gospel—calling all people to repentance—ourselves included; administering the sacraments; encouraging faithfulness in the body of Christ; and through the power of the Holy Spirit walking with charity in the world.
It is an increasingly fluid landscape in which we are called to do our work and at times seems to change from week to week as developments take place on several fronts. While our principles may stay consistent our strategy must be dynamic and provisional. To this end the Standing Committee and I are calling for a Special Convention of this diocese to be held on Saturday, October 24th at Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant. As bishop I am asking every parish and mission to call a congregational meeting to broadly engage these matters and to inform the delegates who will represent them at this upcoming convention. I am also asking every deanery to engage these challenges at a clericus level and in deanery meetings for clergy and lay delegates. Frankly, I don’t know how to say this in any other way but to tell you that this is a call to action; of mobilization of clergy, parishes and laity. What I have stated here is only a start—the turning of the ship. While striving to stay as intact as possible—we need believers who are informed, engaged, missional and faithful.
For now our task is clear: As some within TEC are busy cutting the cords of fellowship with the larger Church through the unilateral actions of General Convention expanding policies which further tear the fabric of the Communion; our task will be to weave and braid missional relationships which strengthen far flung dioceses and provinces in the work of the gospel. As some in TEC find a hopeless refuge in the narrower restrictions of denominational autonomy, we shall find hope in a deeper and generous catholicity. In our pursuit of these principles I remind you of where I began in this address—Bishop Smith’s eschewing of a fatal security which he feared would end “in shame, in misery and ruin.” He refused such a comfortable course and in time it led him to risk—and to lose everything. This may one day come to us. For now what lies before us is to engage this challenge with all the will and resources of strong and growing diocese. With the clarity of God’s call, the courage to walk in step with the Spirit, and the confidence of an overruling Providence in, with and through Christ, we shall not only endure, but prevail. I leave now with this—we cannot choose to follow God without following what God has chosen for us. So, “Lead kindly, Light.” Amen.
Among the many doctrines of our Faith to which I might ask you to turn your thoughts this morning it is first to that wonderful doctrine of God’s Providence. It was to this doctrine that my distant predecessor, The Rt. Reverend Robert Smith, first bishop of South Carolina, turned when he addressed the Colonial Assembly which gathered at St. Philips Church in the early months of 1775 as the winds of war were blowing on the eve of the American Revolution. Of course he was not at that time a bishop. There were no bishops on these shores, though Anglicanism was well into its second century on this continent. Nor was he a bishop when he returned to Charleston from imprisonment and banishment in 1783 to give his homecoming sermon, where once again he spoke of an “overruling Providence”. As perhaps you know, his banishment to a northern colony was due to his having taken words and arms against his former king and country—and having thrown in his lot with his adopted home, he risked and lost everything. He was taken to Philadelphia bereaved of wife (she had recently died), and bereft of home and parish. But on that public occasion in February 1775, before he had ever fired a musket towards a British troop, this unlikely patriot declared his deepest allegiance:
“We form schemes of happiness and deceive ourselves with a weak imagination of security, without ever taking God into the question; no wonder then if our hopes prove abortive, and the conceits of our vain minds end in disappointment and sorrow. For we are inclined to attribute our prosperity to the wisdom of our own councils, and the arm of our own flesh, we become forgetful of him from whom our strength and wisdom are derived; and are then betrayed into that fatal security, which ends in shame, in misery and ruin.”
Is it not towards such false peace or fatal security that we are tempted too often and too soon to fling ourselves?
I believe for us to discern God’s purpose and role for this diocese in this current challenge, and then to live it out faithfully, will involve each of us in more struggles and suffering than we have yet invested—for we have invested as yet, so little. This is not a challenge for a bishop or even a Standing Committee to face alone. None of us can afford to keep the members of our parishes uninformed of the challenges that lie ahead. Consequently, since I see struggle and suffering before each of us, it is towards God’s beneficent providence I chose first to turn our attention this morning. And where can we find a text to so focus our thoughts on this strengthening doctrine than that which is found in the prophet Isaiah—spoken to those in exile?
“Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown, scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth when he blows on them, and they wither, and the tempest carries them off like stubble.” (Isaiah 40:21-24)
It is under such a godly Providence that we live—and it is under this godly providence, whether we act or merely stand firm in prayerful posture, that we “shall mount up with wings like eagles, [we] shall run and not be weary, [we] shall walk and not faint.”
In our present situation some would counsel us that it is past time to cut our moorings from The Episcopal Church and take refuge in a harbor without the pluralism and false teachings that surround us in both the secular culture and within our Church; others speak to us of the need for patience, to “let the Instruments of Unity do their work”—that now is not yet the time to act. Still others seem paralyzed; though no less distressed than us by the developments within our Church, they seem to take a posture of insular denial of what is inexorably coming upon us all. While I have no immediate solution to the challenges we face—it is certainly neither a hasty departure nor a paralyzed passivity I counsel. Either of these I believe, regardless of what godly wisdom they may be for others, would be for us a false peace and a “fatal security” which in time (and brief at that) would only betray us. Others in their given circumstances must do what they believe God has called them to do.
One must remember, however, that it is an ever changing landscape in Anglicanism today so there is a need for dynamism lest one becomes too passive, and for provisionality ‘lest one should not notice the engagement has moved on to a new field of action.
The false Gospel of an Indiscriminate Inclusivity
It is perfectly understandable to me that many among us may look at the developments during the last several decades and believe it is The Episcopal Church (TEC) that is our problem. Those of us who refer to ourselves as reasserters, conservatives, Anglo-Catholics or Evangelicals, or sometimes under the sweeping moniker of “orthodox” have often felt ourselves driven, if not out, then to the margins of this Church. We refer sometimes with derision to the Presiding Bishop (whether Bps Browning, Griswold or Jefferts Schori). We speak of 815, the “National” Church, the General Convention, as problems we have to react to, and believe we know what it is we are fighting, or are in conflict with. Sometimes it all comes under the title of TEC. Never realizing perhaps that here at least in South Carolina we are the Church: The Episcopal Church. It is only as I’ve allowed my Lord to remove the anger toward these “institutions” of the Church that I can recognize with greater clarity what it is I need to engage—and even fight against.
When the apostle Paul heard that the churches of Galatia (Gal 1:2) were being misled by a “new” gospel, turning away from Christ and his grace it was not the churches themselves he attacked. Certainly he spoke firmly when he penned or dictated the words “O foolish Galatians! who has bewitched you…..” Or stated in those opening verses of the letter “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” His sharp words addressed the false teaching and those who preached it. (Galatians 1:6—9). So too in our present context it is not The Episcopal Church that is the problem, it is those who have cloaked it with so many strands of false doctrine that we can well wonder if indeed it can be salvaged. Like an invading vine unnatural to the habitat that has covered a once elegant, old growth forest with what to some looks like a gracious vine it is in fact decorative destruction. What may look like a flower may be bramble.
We face a multitude of false teachings, which like an intrusive vine, is threatening The Episcopal Church as we have inherited and received it from our ancestors. I have called this the false Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity because I see a common pattern in how the core doctrines of our faith are being systematically deconstructed. I must by necessity be brief and cannot give any of these concerns the attention they deserve.
• The Trinity. One of the doctrines under barrage in our Church is an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. At the last three General Conventions I have been concerned about the lack of Eucharists according to the rites in the Book of Common Prayer. Even this I might be able to overlook if the rites that were employed were not so devoid of references to God the Father. In more than a few of these worship services the only reference to God the Father actually in the liturgy was the Lord’s Prayer. In the name of inclusion there’s the perception by some (a variant of radical feminism I suppose) that the references to the Father, and the pronoun “he” is some lingering patriarchal holdover. Yet it has always intrigued me that in all of the Hebrew Scriptures there are only a handful of references to God as Father. If one wants to locate the authority of the Church to worship God as Father one need look no further than Jesus himself. It was he who called God “Abba” and taught the disciples to prayer “Our Father.” Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything? As many of you know there is more here than I have time to explore this morning.
• Uniqueness of Christ. In my opinion the current Presiding Bishop has repeatedly been irresponsible with her comments regarding the doctrine of the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ. This will not surprise you, for I said as much to her when she visited us shortly after my consecration. In answering questions about the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ she has repeatedly suggested that it is not up to her to decide what the mechanism is God uses to save people. But, quite to the contrary, it is her responsibility as a bishop of the Church to proclaim the saving work of Jesus Christ and to teach what it is the Scriptures and the Church teach. Anything less from us who are bishops is an abdication of our teaching office. Otherwise how will the world know to whom to come? How will the unschooled within the Church know what they should believe? I do not cite this to be controversial but to reference the pervasiveness of this inclusive gospel that would, in its attempt to include all people and all religions, fail to rightly delight in, celebrate and worship him before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord. It does not honor another religion to not be forthright about one’s own. As the English Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali observed , “Fudging important issues and attempting a superficial harmonization gives a sense of unity that is untrue and … prevents real differences from being acknowledged and discussed.” And we haven’t time to discuss brief swipes toward confessional approaches to the faith except to ask—wasn’t the Lordship of Christ the first confession of the faithful—even in the face of Caesar’s claim to Lordship? Did not St. Paul teach that if we confess with our lips and believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is Lord we shall be saved? Does not the baptismal rite require such a formulaic statement of the individual before the assembled body who witness it? Such statements, unfortunately, make it necessary for us to correct rather than to support leadership.
• Scriptural Authority. This is such a comprehensive dimension of our present crisis in the church that one hardly knows where to begin. But one can hardly do better than St. Ambrose’s statement that “the whole of Holy Scripture be a feast for the soul.” How seldom one hears upon us who are bishops in Tec such glowing statements about the Bible. In my experience all too many of our bishops and priests seem to mine the scriptures for minerals to use in vain idolatries. There is too little confidence expressed in its trustworthiness; the authority and uniqueness of revelation. Indeed, as J.V. Langmead-Casserly once put it, “We have developed a method of studying the Word of God from which a Word of God never comes.” Too often supposed conundrums or difficulties are brought up, seemingly in order to detract from traditional understandings, never considering the damage to the faithful’s trust in God and his Word. Ridiculous arguments such as shellfish and mixed fabrics are dragged out (long reconciled by the Fathers of the Church, as well as the Anglican Reformers) in order to confuse the ill-taught or the untutored in theology. And those who are intellectually sophisticated, schooled in many academic disciplines, but dreadfully untaught in the Bible and theology, are, through little fault of their own, except for naively trusting generations of slothful priests and bishops, are led astray. We must be willing to speak out against this.
• Baptismal Theology detached from Biblical and Catholic doctrine. The phrase heard frequently at General Convention 2009 was “All the sacraments for all the Baptized”. One suspects that great Catholic teacher of the 4th Century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem would have been unconvinced for he wrote tellingly of Simon Magus, “he was baptized, but not enlightened. His body was dipped in water, but admitted not the Spirit to illuminate his heart. His body went down and came up; but his soul was not buried together with Christ nor with him raised.” (see Acts 8:9-24) Nevertheless, this inadequate baptismal theology was used to argue for the full inclusion of partnered GLBT persons to all the orders of the Church—deacons, priests and bishops. What it singularly misses is the straightforward teaching of the catechism, not to mention of the New Testament’s “teaching that baptism is a dying to self and sin and a rising to new life in Christ.” (N.T. Wright) Even if one would turn to the simplicity of the catechism one would encounter this question and answer: Q. What is required of us at Baptism? A. It is required that we renounce Satan, repent of our sins, and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Since when has baptism been the ticket to ordination in the Church? The Archbishop’s perceptive comment in section 8 of “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” is pertinent here.
• Human Sexuality. While it has been a clever device of some in recent years to refer to the varied approach to marriage in the different epochs of biblical history, often done in ways that are intended to bring more confusion rather than clarity, (ignoring that well honored hermeneutic of interpreting the less clear passages of Holy Scripture by the clearer, or not interpreting one text in such a way that it is repugnant to another) we are back with that tendency of ordained leaders of the Church and professors of religion to confound the faithful rather than to instruct—it has been used repeatedly in this current debate regarding Human Sexuality and the establishment of an inclusive moral equivalency of GLBT sexual unions with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and a woman.
• Constitution & Canons—Common Life. These, and other examples that could be cited, are illustrative of this “new gospel” of Indiscriminate Inclusivity that began with a denigration of the Holy Scriptures, then, step by step has brought the very core teachings of the Christian faith under its distorting and destructive sway. Thus, if the Scriptures should teach something contrary to this “gospel’s” most recent incarnation, (take for instance the full inclusion of GLBT) then the Scripture’s broad themes or individual passages, which plainly oppose current understanding of same-sex genital behavior, must be deconstructed. And if the bonds of affection within the Worldwide Anglican Communion are a hindrance to this gospel of inclusivity then the moral authority and role of the Instruments of Unity are downplayed. Most recently at GC’09 when the BCP’s marriage service, rubrics, and catechism, as well as the Constitution & Canons speak of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, therein conflicting with this inclusive “gospel”, resolution CO56 was passed contrary to our own order of governance and common life—thus one by one, the Holy Scriptures, the teachings of the Church, the Anglican Communion, the Ecumenical relationships with the other bodies of the Church Catholic, and now even our own Book of Common Prayer and Constitutions & Canons are subjugated to this “new” gospel. It is a foreign vine like kudzu draping the old growth forest of Episcopalianism with decorative destruction.
As I wrote in my post-Convention Letter to the Clergy ”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 not in my opinion the right action for this diocese to retreat from a thorough engagement with this destructive “new” gospel. As the prophet Ezekiel was called by the Lord to be a Watchman, to sound the alarm of judgment—to warn Israel to turn from her wickedness and live. We are called to speak forthrightly to The Episcopal Church and others, but even more specifically to the thousands of everyday Episcopalians who do not yet know the fullness of this present cultural captivity of the Church. Clearly this is not about the virtue of being “excluding”; it is about being rightly discerning about what is morally and spiritually appropriate. As the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests the Church’s life cannot be “wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal”.
Quite beyond this challenge within our Church this “gospel of indiscriminate inclusion” is as much a movement of the larger European and North American culture as it is a movement within the church. Thus, if one should seek to get away from it by leaving TEC, joining some other denomination, or continuing Anglican body (and please know, I do not say this critically of those who have chosen or felt called to leave) it will not free us from having to engage this challenge. As I’ve said on more than one occasion, this indiscriminant inclusivity is coming to a neighborhood near you. If you are in TEC and resisting this aggressive march you are already on the front lines. If you have a stomach to engage the battle you are rightly situated. It is now a matter of whether one is prepared to engage the challenge or not. We may prefer a false peace or fatal security but don’t think for a minute this challenge will not find us.
Our Present Strategy: Four Guiding Principles
The Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Sufficiency of Holy Scripture:
The first principle I wish to affirm in our diocesan life is that the Church lives its life under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and under and upon the authority of Holy Scripture. As Article XX in the Articles of Religion states, “…it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” (BCP p. 871) Since so many within our diocese may have been confused or disturbed by the newspaper and journal reports of the actions of General Convention 2009, and through reading the very resolutions D025 and C056 themselves, as well as the various contradictory statements by leaders in this Church interpreting what these resolutions mean, the Standing Committee and I are proposing that a Special Meeting of Convention (Diocesan Constitution Art.II sec.2) be called for Saturday, October 24th to deal with several concerns that need to be addressed. One such concern is what may be actually understood by the candidate for ordination as he or she makes the Oath of Conformity, and what the worshiping congregation will in the present climate understand by such a vow. When the ordinand pledges himself to “… solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.” and variations thereof, “in accordance to the canons of this Church…” does that imply adherence to these recent resolutions of GC’09? The Standing Committee and I are proposing a resolution for Convention to approve the reading of a letter prior to the spoken vow, and attached with the signed document of conformity, at every ordination in this diocese, thereby making clear what the Church has historically meant by such an oath—explicating what the Book of Common Prayer means by loyalty “to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” (All quotations above may be found on p. 526 and 538 of the BCP)
The Appropriateness of Godly Boundaries—Withdrawal:
Secondly, there is a need to establish appropriate boundaries and differentiation. Why? There is a need for this Diocese and the faithful across TEC to recognize that the actions of General Convention 2009 in adopting resolutions D025 and C056 along with going contrary to 1) Holy Scripture, 2) tradition—that is 2000 years of the Churches interpretation of these very scriptures—understood as the catholic principle of the consensus of the faithful, 3) the mind of the Anglican Communion as expressed in the resolutions of successive Lambeth Conferences and the considered conversation of Lambeth 2008, The Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates as well as the expressed hopes of the Archbishop himself, quite staggeringly also went against 4) even TEC’s own BCP, Catechism, and Constitution & Canons. It is my contention that a resolution adopted by a legislative body, contrary to the Constitution & Canons of that body, by its very adoption is made null and void. Such an institution is in violation of its own principles of governance. Therefore we cannot recognize the actions of GC”09 in passing resolutions DO25 and CO56 and believe that any diocese or bishop which allows partnered gay or lesbian persons to be ordained in holy orders, or allows blessings of same sex unions or “marriages” is in violation of the Canons. Frankly, it is rather staggering that many in the HOB after arguing in DO25 that we needed to return to being guided by our canons in regard to the ordination process instead of BO33, that this same convention then gave permission for bishops to disregard those very canons’ teaching toward marriage. I have personally witnessed the House of Bishops deposing sitting bishops for what they believe was an indiscreet disregard of the Church’s Constitution & Canons. Now hardly a year later the same governing body votes to give certain bishops the permission to do so!
This begs the question—how an institution, having jettisoned what for 2000 years has been the understood teaching of Holy Scripture and collective wisdom of Christendom, and taken refuge in its vaunted polity as expressed in its Constitution & Canons, can allow itself to proceed without first changing those canons? Two reasons: 1) The agenda of Inclusivity is viewed by many to be of such overriding importance as an issue of justice that it subjugates everything under its rubrics. 2) The level of conformity is so staggering that only a few would seem capable of resisting its pressure. And too often, even then the resistance is “This will not fly back home” rather than “I believe this is theologically wrong”. The Standing Committee and bishop will be proposing a resolution to come before the special convention that this diocese begin withdrawing from all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions. Let no one think this is a denial of the vows a priest or bishop makes to participate in the councils of governance. This is not a flight into isolation; nor is it an abandonment of duty, but the protest of conscience. It is recognition that the actions of GC’09 were in such blatant disregard and violation of Holy Scripture, the bonds of affection, and our own Constitution & Canons that one is led by reasoned conviction to undertake an intrepid resistance to the tyranny of the majority over judicious authority; therein erring both in Faith and Order.
Domestic Engagement for Relief and Mission:
Thirdly, I have noted in my Post-Convention Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese that we need to find a place not only to survive, but to thrive, and that this needs to be faithful, relational and structural. But this is not merely for our sake, but for others. I have been in conversation with bishops of other dioceses in TEC which find themselves in similar positions of isolation. We have discussed the possibility of developing gatherings of bishops, clergy, and laity for the express purpose of encouragement, education and mission. These gatherings in different regions of the country could bring internationally recognized Christian leaders from across the Anglican Communion to address such things as Holy Scripture, Christian doctrine, issues of pressing concern within the church, as well as the ever important work of ministry, evangelism, mission and church planting. These Dioceses in Missional Relationship I believe can create an environment which will lead to positive growth and concerted actions not merely for future survival but more importantly for growth and expansion.
There is also a need to find ways to support conservative parishes and missions in dioceses where there is isolation or worse. I would like to encourage congregations in this diocese to create missional relationships with “orthodox” congregations isolated across North America. There, consequently, is a need for the laity in South Carolina to be awakened and mobilized for engagement. This includes but is not limited to courses in theology which enables them to articulated their faith in the face of an aggressive displacement biblical and catholic teaching—not only in order to evangelize the lost, but to encourage the laity across the church who are surrounded by teaching that is clearly contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let me say it quite candidly, there may be effective initiatives the laity can undertake that would not be possible for the clergy in this present climate.
The Emergence of 21st Century Anglicanism:
Fourthly, we need to be guided by the principle that we are called to help shape an emerging Anglicanism that is sufficient of the 21st Century. The Archbishop in his recent “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” rightly noted that “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.” He went on to note, “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.” Indeed, I believe it not only “may”; I believe it will. You have heard me say on several occasions, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Well, I believe we should not waste this crisis—neither the ecclesiastical crisis nor the attending economic one. And certainly we should not waste it by taking refuge in a false peace that expresses itself in a retreat into an insular parochialism or a “fatal security” which for us, at least now, would be an escape. We have the opportunity to help shape the emergence of a truly global Anglicanism—Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age. I believe we have a unique role to play within the Anglican Communion. If at present we play that role by being in but not of the mainstream of TEC is it any less important? We passed at our Diocesan Convention in March a resolution which asserted our authority as a diocese to sign onto the Anglican Covenant. The final section read,
“Be it further resolved, that as the Diocese of South Carolina did choose at its Diocesan Convention in 1785, to organize as a diocese, (one of the first seven dioceses in these United States to so organize in that year), and to send delegates to the first General Conventions to organize the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and thereby freely associate its clerical and lay members with the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society—presently known as The Episcopal Church; so this same Diocese does also assert its authority to freely embrace such a Covenant in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to seek to remain a constituent member of the Anglican Communion should the Instruments of Unity allow such diocesan association.”
The Archbishop has expressed in section 25 of “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” his strong hope that “elements” [dioceses?] will adopt the Covenant. I believe we ought to sign on to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant as it presently stands in all four sections. (If it means we need to withdraw from a lawsuit we withdraw from a lawsuit). Therefore we need to begin the process of studying the Ridley Draft in every deanery and parish and be prepared to vote on it either in the special convention in October or, if that’s too ambitious a time frame, no later than our Annual Diocesan Convention in March 2010.
You need to know that the Anglican Communion Development Committee has already had its first meeting and will begin this fall to vigorously establish relationships with a broad array of Provinces across the Communion. You have heard me speak of this often, including during my Bishop’s Address last March. This still strikes me as one of the most important activities we should pursue. We can work with several of the Provinces within the Communion, and, if they are so inclined to partner with us, we should work with GAFCON and ACNA from within TEC to further gospel initiatives.
I believe we are as financially strong, and as spiritually and theologically unified as any conservative diocese left in TEC. We have I believe the resources to focus on the mission and ministry within the diocese of South Carolina as well as working within TEC to shore up and encourage the faithful; and at the same time to help shape the emerging Anglicanism of the 21st Century. Admittedly, this is a tall order. Though accurate statistics are hard to come by I believe there are still more theologically orthodox believers still inside of TEC than have left. Yet they seem increasingly isolated, with few leaders to encourage them. I believe we have a moral and spiritual call/obligation to stay in the fight with those still in TEC who look to us for hope; and to stay for as long as it is within our consciences to do so. On this last caveat, clearly the clock for many of us is loudly ticking. Few of us doubt there will be a strong push to make what is now de facto, de jure in GC2012. Along with this the number of partnered GLBT priests—and quite likely bishops will continue to increase (given the recent nominees in Episcopal elections in Minnesota and Los Angeles)—putting facts on the ground which the rest of us have to react to or deal with as best we can. As events unfold it will be necessary for us to put risky facts on the ground as well.
Concluding Thoughts
But before I conclude I need to address a sensitive issue. Should a parish find it needs to be served by alternative Episcopal care I will work with them toward that end. Please know this is not my desire for any parish. It would grieve me because I have enjoyed my relationship with every congregation in this great Diocese of South Carolina. Still these are challenging times, and if I am called to lead in such an assertive manner as I have suggested here, pastoral sensitivity suggests I should give space to those who feel they need it. I hope all can recognize in the things I have addressed above the three marks of the church recognized in Evangelical Anglicanism—1) Proclamation of the Word of God; 2) the sacraments duly administered; 3) order and discipline (Art. XIX)—yet there is that fourth mark (that to which Bishop and Martyr Nicholas Ridley referred, echoing of course St. Paul in I Corinthians 13; Galatians 5:22 and nurtured in the life of the church by the Holy Spirit), 4) the mark of charity, without which we are noisy gongs and clanging cymbals. And then for most of us there’s the one I just mentioned, 5) the beneficence of the historic episcopate.
I must address another thing under the rubric of love—and in this I follow the lead of Lambeth 1.10, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I trust with the Church Catholic around the world: we are not to be in this Diocese about the business of encouraging prejudice or denying the dignity of any person, including, but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, or Transgender. As those who know me well will acknowledge, it grieves me that so much of the battle has been waged here, and if the full story were to be told I believe that many who understand themselves through these categories wish it were not as well. No, we have no business fostering unexamined prejudice; so few of us are free from scars of sexual brokenness. Rather, we are constrained by the love of Christ to be primarily about the task of proclaiming the Gospel—calling all people to repentance—ourselves included; administering the sacraments; encouraging faithfulness in the body of Christ; and through the power of the Holy Spirit walking with charity in the world.
It is an increasingly fluid landscape in which we are called to do our work and at times seems to change from week to week as developments take place on several fronts. While our principles may stay consistent our strategy must be dynamic and provisional. To this end the Standing Committee and I are calling for a Special Convention of this diocese to be held on Saturday, October 24th at Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant. As bishop I am asking every parish and mission to call a congregational meeting to broadly engage these matters and to inform the delegates who will represent them at this upcoming convention. I am also asking every deanery to engage these challenges at a clericus level and in deanery meetings for clergy and lay delegates. Frankly, I don’t know how to say this in any other way but to tell you that this is a call to action; of mobilization of clergy, parishes and laity. What I have stated here is only a start—the turning of the ship. While striving to stay as intact as possible—we need believers who are informed, engaged, missional and faithful.
For now our task is clear: As some within TEC are busy cutting the cords of fellowship with the larger Church through the unilateral actions of General Convention expanding policies which further tear the fabric of the Communion; our task will be to weave and braid missional relationships which strengthen far flung dioceses and provinces in the work of the gospel. As some in TEC find a hopeless refuge in the narrower restrictions of denominational autonomy, we shall find hope in a deeper and generous catholicity. In our pursuit of these principles I remind you of where I began in this address—Bishop Smith’s eschewing of a fatal security which he feared would end “in shame, in misery and ruin.” He refused such a comfortable course and in time it led him to risk—and to lose everything. This may one day come to us. For now what lies before us is to engage this challenge with all the will and resources of strong and growing diocese. With the clarity of God’s call, the courage to walk in step with the Spirit, and the confidence of an overruling Providence in, with and through Christ, we shall not only endure, but prevail. I leave now with this—we cannot choose to follow God without following what God has chosen for us. So, “Lead kindly, Light.” Amen.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Presiding Bishop steps in to prevent church sales
From Religious Intelligence via TitusOneNine:
Tuesday, 11th August 2009. 11:37am
By: George Conger.
American dioceses may not sell parish properties to breakaway groups, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote in a letter to the US House of Bishops last week.
Presiding Bishop steps in to prevent church sales
Bishop Jefferts Schori stated the church expected a “reasonable and fair” deal on any property settlement and “that we do not make settlements that encourage religious bodies who seek to replace The Episcopal Church.”
This means, the Presiding Bishop said, that “property settlements need to include a clause that forbids, for a period of at least five years, the presence of bishops on the property who are not members of [the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops], unless they are invited by the diocesan bishop for purposes which do not subvert mission and ministry in the name of [the Episcopal Church.]”
The Presiding Bishop added she understood that some American bishops might wish to permit Anglican bishops from overseas to “preach, preside, confirm, or even ordain, but that diocesan permission cannot encourage anything that purports to set up or participate in another jurisdiction.”
These principals arose as the “consensus” view of her Council of Advice, Bishop Jefferts Schori said, in a meeting before General Convention.
She added that these rules would be relaxed if the breakaway groups “gain clarity about their own identity” such that “if and when they engage a positive missional stance that doesn’t seek to replace The Episcopal Church, I do believe we can enter into ecumenical agreements that will make some of the foregoing moot.”
It is unclear by what authority the Presiding Bishop can dictate property policies to the Episcopal Church as she is not a metropolitan or archbishop, and the canons are silent as to these injunctions.
Bishop Jefferts Schori’s views come in direct opposition to those of her predecessors, who historically held that parish property disputes are internal diocesan matters, not subject to the review or oversight of the presiding bishop.
Speaking to the Diocese of Western Louisiana on May 11, 2006, former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said the interpretation of the national church’s property canons was a diocesan matter, and that the national church only became involved in parish property disputes if invited by the local bishop and diocesan standing committees.
The Presiding Bishop’s legal advice may not be enforceable in many US states, as contracts may not incorporate illegal provisions within their terms. The US Constitution and many state constitutions prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion --- making a ban on a bishop a dodgy legal stratagem, American contract lawyers tell Religious Intelligence.
Tuesday, 11th August 2009. 11:37am
By: George Conger.
American dioceses may not sell parish properties to breakaway groups, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote in a letter to the US House of Bishops last week.
Presiding Bishop steps in to prevent church sales
Bishop Jefferts Schori stated the church expected a “reasonable and fair” deal on any property settlement and “that we do not make settlements that encourage religious bodies who seek to replace The Episcopal Church.”
This means, the Presiding Bishop said, that “property settlements need to include a clause that forbids, for a period of at least five years, the presence of bishops on the property who are not members of [the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops], unless they are invited by the diocesan bishop for purposes which do not subvert mission and ministry in the name of [the Episcopal Church.]”
The Presiding Bishop added she understood that some American bishops might wish to permit Anglican bishops from overseas to “preach, preside, confirm, or even ordain, but that diocesan permission cannot encourage anything that purports to set up or participate in another jurisdiction.”
These principals arose as the “consensus” view of her Council of Advice, Bishop Jefferts Schori said, in a meeting before General Convention.
She added that these rules would be relaxed if the breakaway groups “gain clarity about their own identity” such that “if and when they engage a positive missional stance that doesn’t seek to replace The Episcopal Church, I do believe we can enter into ecumenical agreements that will make some of the foregoing moot.”
It is unclear by what authority the Presiding Bishop can dictate property policies to the Episcopal Church as she is not a metropolitan or archbishop, and the canons are silent as to these injunctions.
Bishop Jefferts Schori’s views come in direct opposition to those of her predecessors, who historically held that parish property disputes are internal diocesan matters, not subject to the review or oversight of the presiding bishop.
Speaking to the Diocese of Western Louisiana on May 11, 2006, former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said the interpretation of the national church’s property canons was a diocesan matter, and that the national church only became involved in parish property disputes if invited by the local bishop and diocesan standing committees.
The Presiding Bishop’s legal advice may not be enforceable in many US states, as contracts may not incorporate illegal provisions within their terms. The US Constitution and many state constitutions prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion --- making a ban on a bishop a dodgy legal stratagem, American contract lawyers tell Religious Intelligence.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Did Luther really say, "Sin boldly!"
From Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, New Rochelle, NY:
Yes, but one cannot understand what he was saying at all without the rest of the sentence "...but believe more bolder still." To see what he was speaking about we need to look at the letter from which these bold words are lifted. He wrote in the translation we have here, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world." He wrote this to his colleague Philipp Melachthon from his hiding place, the Wartburg Castle, in 1521.
Read the whole context in:
A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon
Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg
(Segment)
Translated by
Erika Bullmann Flores
from: _Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften_
Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed.
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.),
Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.
Of course, you can only know and absolve those sins which have been
confessed to you; sins which have not been confessed to you, you
neither need to know nor can you absolve them. That is reaching too
high, dear gentlemen."
You cannot convince me that the same is true for the vows made by
priests and monks. For I am very concerned about the fact that the
order of priesthood was instituted by God as a free one. Not so that
of the monks who chose their position voluntarily, even though I have
almost come to the conclusion that those who have entered into that
state at an age prior to their manhood, or are currently at that
stage, may secede with a clear conscience. I am hesitant, however,
with a judgment about those who have been in this state for a long
time and have grown old in it.
2. By the way, St. Paul very freely speaks about the priests (1.Tim:
4, ff), that devils have forbidden them to marry; and St. Paul's
voice is the voice of the divine majesty. Therefore, I do not doubt
that they must depend on him to such a degree that even though they
agreed to this interdiction of the devil at the time, now--having
realized with whom they made their contract--they can cheerfully
break this contract.
3. This interdiction by the devil, which is clearly shown by God's
Word, urges and compels me to sanction the actions of the Bishop of
Kemberg. For God does not lie nor deceive when He says that this is
an interdiction from the devil. If a contract has been made with the
devil it must not endure since it was made in godless error against
God and was damned and repudiated by God. For He says very clearly
(1. Tim. 4:1 Vulg.) that those spirits are in error who are the
originators of the interdictions.
4. Why do you hesitate to join this divine judgment against the gates
of hell? That is not how it was with the oath of the children of
Israel which they gave to the Gibeons. They had it in their laws
that they must offer peace or accept peace offered to them, and
accept into their midst proselytes and those who adhered to their
customs. All this took place. Nothing happened there against the
Lord or by the advice of spirits. For even though in the beginning
they murmured, later on they approved.
5. In addition, consider that the state of being unmarried is only a
human statute and can be readily lifted. Therefore any Christian can
do this. I would make this statement even if the interdiction had
not come from a devil, but from a devout person. However, because
there is no such statement by God concerning the monks, I am
therefore not certain that I should make the same pronouncement
concerning them. For I would not dare to presume, neither advice
another to do so. Would God that we could do this, though, in order
to prevent someone from becoming a monk, or leaving his order during
the years of his virility. For we are to avoid vexations if there is
no relevant scriptural passage available to us, even when dealing
with things which are permitted.
6. Good old Carlstadt is also citing St. Paul (1 Tim.5:9-11), to let
go of the younger widows and select 60-year-olds, wish to God this
could be demonstrated. Quite easily someone might say that the
Apostle referred to the future, while in reference to the past (V.12)
they are condemned because they have broken their first troth.
Therefore this expression has come to naught and cannot be a
dependable basis for the conscience. For that is what we are
searching for. Moreover, this reasoning that it is better to be
married than to burn with vain desire (1 Cor.7:9), or to prevent the
sins of immorality (1 Cor.7:2), by entering into marriage while
committing the sin of the broken troth, that is nothing but common-
sense. We want the scripture and the witness of God's will. Who
knows if the one who is very enthusiastic today will still be so
tomorrow?
7. I would not have allowed marriage for priests for the sole reason
of "burning" had not St. Paul called this interdiction devilish and
hypocritical, condemned by God. Even without the burning he urged
that this unmarried status be cast aside simply for the fear of God.
However, it is necessary to discuss these things more thoroughly. For
I too would love to come to the aid of the monks and nuns. I very
much pity these wretched human beings, these young men and girls who
suffer defilement and burning.
8. Concerning the two elements of the Holy Supper I will not give an
example, but give testimony with Christ's words. Carlstadt does not
show that those who have received only one element have sinned, or
not sinned. I am concerned that Christ did not command either one of
the two, just as He does not command baptism if the tyrant or the
world withhold the water. So also the violence of persecution
separates men and women, which God forbids to separate, neither do
they agree to be separated. Therefore, neither do godfearing hearts
agree that they should be robbed of one of the elements. However,
those who do agree and approve: who can deny that these are not
Christians but Papists who are sinning.
9. There HE does not demand it, and here the tyrant oppresses, I
therefore cannot agree that those who receive only one element are
sinning. For who can exert power to take something when the tyrant
is not willing? Therefore it is only common-sense which observes
here that Christ's institution is not adhered to. Scripture makes no
definition by which we could declare this act a sin. It is Christ's
institution, given in freedom, which cannot be incarcerated as a
whole or in part.
10. It happened to Donatus, the martyr, where several people could
not participate because the cup broke or the wine was spilled. What
if this happens and there is no other wine available? There are other
similar situations. In short, because Scripture does not speak of sin
here, I therefore say there is no sin involved.
11. I am quite pleased, though, that you are re-establishing Christ's
method. For it was just that which I planned to take up with you
first of all upon my return to you. For now we recognize this
tyranny and can oppose it, in order not to be forced to receive only
one of the elements.
12. From here on I will no longer conduct private mass. Rather we
should pray God to give us more of His Spirit. For I am expecting
that the Lord will soon ravish Germany--which she deserves because of
her unbelief, godlessness and hate of the Gospel. However, we shall
be blamed for this chastisement, as we are made out to be heretics
who have provoked God to this action. We shall be scorned by the
people and disdained by the nation. Those, however, will make
excuses for their sins, through which He will manifest that the hard-
hearted do not become godly neither by mercy nor wrath. Let it
happen, let the will of the Lord be done. Amen!
13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only
imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We,
however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that
through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think
such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
On the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521
Yes, but one cannot understand what he was saying at all without the rest of the sentence "...but believe more bolder still." To see what he was speaking about we need to look at the letter from which these bold words are lifted. He wrote in the translation we have here, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world." He wrote this to his colleague Philipp Melachthon from his hiding place, the Wartburg Castle, in 1521.
Read the whole context in:
A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon
Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg
(Segment)
Translated by
Erika Bullmann Flores
from: _Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften_
Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed.
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.),
Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.
Of course, you can only know and absolve those sins which have been
confessed to you; sins which have not been confessed to you, you
neither need to know nor can you absolve them. That is reaching too
high, dear gentlemen."
You cannot convince me that the same is true for the vows made by
priests and monks. For I am very concerned about the fact that the
order of priesthood was instituted by God as a free one. Not so that
of the monks who chose their position voluntarily, even though I have
almost come to the conclusion that those who have entered into that
state at an age prior to their manhood, or are currently at that
stage, may secede with a clear conscience. I am hesitant, however,
with a judgment about those who have been in this state for a long
time and have grown old in it.
2. By the way, St. Paul very freely speaks about the priests (1.Tim:
4, ff), that devils have forbidden them to marry; and St. Paul's
voice is the voice of the divine majesty. Therefore, I do not doubt
that they must depend on him to such a degree that even though they
agreed to this interdiction of the devil at the time, now--having
realized with whom they made their contract--they can cheerfully
break this contract.
3. This interdiction by the devil, which is clearly shown by God's
Word, urges and compels me to sanction the actions of the Bishop of
Kemberg. For God does not lie nor deceive when He says that this is
an interdiction from the devil. If a contract has been made with the
devil it must not endure since it was made in godless error against
God and was damned and repudiated by God. For He says very clearly
(1. Tim. 4:1 Vulg.) that those spirits are in error who are the
originators of the interdictions.
4. Why do you hesitate to join this divine judgment against the gates
of hell? That is not how it was with the oath of the children of
Israel which they gave to the Gibeons. They had it in their laws
that they must offer peace or accept peace offered to them, and
accept into their midst proselytes and those who adhered to their
customs. All this took place. Nothing happened there against the
Lord or by the advice of spirits. For even though in the beginning
they murmured, later on they approved.
5. In addition, consider that the state of being unmarried is only a
human statute and can be readily lifted. Therefore any Christian can
do this. I would make this statement even if the interdiction had
not come from a devil, but from a devout person. However, because
there is no such statement by God concerning the monks, I am
therefore not certain that I should make the same pronouncement
concerning them. For I would not dare to presume, neither advice
another to do so. Would God that we could do this, though, in order
to prevent someone from becoming a monk, or leaving his order during
the years of his virility. For we are to avoid vexations if there is
no relevant scriptural passage available to us, even when dealing
with things which are permitted.
6. Good old Carlstadt is also citing St. Paul (1 Tim.5:9-11), to let
go of the younger widows and select 60-year-olds, wish to God this
could be demonstrated. Quite easily someone might say that the
Apostle referred to the future, while in reference to the past (V.12)
they are condemned because they have broken their first troth.
Therefore this expression has come to naught and cannot be a
dependable basis for the conscience. For that is what we are
searching for. Moreover, this reasoning that it is better to be
married than to burn with vain desire (1 Cor.7:9), or to prevent the
sins of immorality (1 Cor.7:2), by entering into marriage while
committing the sin of the broken troth, that is nothing but common-
sense. We want the scripture and the witness of God's will. Who
knows if the one who is very enthusiastic today will still be so
tomorrow?
7. I would not have allowed marriage for priests for the sole reason
of "burning" had not St. Paul called this interdiction devilish and
hypocritical, condemned by God. Even without the burning he urged
that this unmarried status be cast aside simply for the fear of God.
However, it is necessary to discuss these things more thoroughly. For
I too would love to come to the aid of the monks and nuns. I very
much pity these wretched human beings, these young men and girls who
suffer defilement and burning.
8. Concerning the two elements of the Holy Supper I will not give an
example, but give testimony with Christ's words. Carlstadt does not
show that those who have received only one element have sinned, or
not sinned. I am concerned that Christ did not command either one of
the two, just as He does not command baptism if the tyrant or the
world withhold the water. So also the violence of persecution
separates men and women, which God forbids to separate, neither do
they agree to be separated. Therefore, neither do godfearing hearts
agree that they should be robbed of one of the elements. However,
those who do agree and approve: who can deny that these are not
Christians but Papists who are sinning.
9. There HE does not demand it, and here the tyrant oppresses, I
therefore cannot agree that those who receive only one element are
sinning. For who can exert power to take something when the tyrant
is not willing? Therefore it is only common-sense which observes
here that Christ's institution is not adhered to. Scripture makes no
definition by which we could declare this act a sin. It is Christ's
institution, given in freedom, which cannot be incarcerated as a
whole or in part.
10. It happened to Donatus, the martyr, where several people could
not participate because the cup broke or the wine was spilled. What
if this happens and there is no other wine available? There are other
similar situations. In short, because Scripture does not speak of sin
here, I therefore say there is no sin involved.
11. I am quite pleased, though, that you are re-establishing Christ's
method. For it was just that which I planned to take up with you
first of all upon my return to you. For now we recognize this
tyranny and can oppose it, in order not to be forced to receive only
one of the elements.
12. From here on I will no longer conduct private mass. Rather we
should pray God to give us more of His Spirit. For I am expecting
that the Lord will soon ravish Germany--which she deserves because of
her unbelief, godlessness and hate of the Gospel. However, we shall
be blamed for this chastisement, as we are made out to be heretics
who have provoked God to this action. We shall be scorned by the
people and disdained by the nation. Those, however, will make
excuses for their sins, through which He will manifest that the hard-
hearted do not become godly neither by mercy nor wrath. Let it
happen, let the will of the Lord be done. Amen!
13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only
imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We,
however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that
through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think
such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
On the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521
Leading for Unity: An Evangelical Articulation of the Unity of the Church in Preparation for Diocesan Clergy Day
From Awakening Grace (blog) via TitusOneNine:
8/12/2009
Leading for Unity
by the Revs Iain Boyd and Robert Sturdy
Over the past few months, because of various events (Gafcon, ACNA, GenCon 09’) the issue of the unity of the church viewed through the lens of an Anglican context has come up with increasing regularity. In the conversations we have had with fellow priests and even in statements from men and women serving at a very high level of leadership in the diocese we have noted two things. The first thing we would note is that while the individuals themselves are, for the most part trained theologians and men and women of great theological depth and Biblical faithfulness they have failed to publicly reflect with any great depth on the situations we are now presented with. The second thing we have noticed about the discussion of the unity of the church in an Anglican context is that the evangelical understanding of the unity of the church is poorly represented amongst the highest levels of leadership in the Diocese of S.C.
Our desire in presenting this is to facilitate a discussion on some very difficult matters. We also wish to form the discussion along certain lines that we do not believe have played a significant enough role in the corporate discernment of the Diocese. We wish to form this discussion first and foremost not in terms of any one theological tradition, but rather we wish to center this discussion within the confines of the Biblical witness of the church in the New Testament. We understand that our theological tradition will no doubt inform our reading of the New Testament, nevertheless we seek first and foremost to honor God by submitting to his Word as best as we are able before entering into any discussion based on Anglican tradition. This leads to our next point. We wish to demonstrate the understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism as it applied to the multiple expressions of Christian churches in England during the period of the Reformation. As it will be seen, we do not present an understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism that is at odds with the Biblical witness, but rather one that fits quite comfortably within it.
It is our honest intention to honor Christ by humbly submitting this reflection. We wish to contribute to the current discernment that up until now has only been done by a select few. The format of this paper will be an overview of both parts followed by an extended discussion on both Christian unity in the N.T. as well as how it was understood in early Anglicanism.
An Overview:
The Anglican Church allows for more diversity of opinion on matters of unity and the catholic faith than is commonly proclaimed today. It is important that as the Diocese of South Carolina discerns a way forward an evangelical ecclesiology be allowed a place at the table.
This paper considers the nature of Christian unity from two perspectives:
1. Scripture
2. Early Anglicanism
Overview of Part I: A Picture of the Unity of the Church in the New Testament
In John 17:13-23 Jesus prays for the unity of the Church. He prays for those who will receive not the apostolic structure, but the apostolic word (John 17:20). The church is apostolic, then, as it receives the faith of the apostles, not any laying on of hands.
This apostolicity is not centered on any one person (i.e. Peter). Moreover, when one of the apostles begins to walk inconsistently with the Gospel, he is rebuked. (Galatians 2:11-14)
Thus the role of the apostolic office was not to pass on an institution, but a faith.
Where the word of the apostles is preached and believed there exist the people who Jesus prayed would be one with Himself as well as one with each other. Two examples of this principle can be given in Acts ch. 11
1. Acts 11:1-18 Peter reports on the conversion of Cornelius. Without apostolic authority, Cornelius was filled with the Spirit and began speaking in tongues. What was the means by which Cornelius came to faith and was filled with the Spirit? Through Peter’s preaching.
2. Acts 11:19-30 Baranabas goes to see the church in Antioch and finds Christians there who had come to faith through the preaching of the scattered church from Jerusalem. These preachers were not recognized as apostles. Yet, Barnabas finds that God has shown grace to them so he extends the hand of fellowship. It is important to note that God’s grace was not conditional upon Barnabas extending his hand, but rather preceded it.
Therefore it is the reception of the Apostles teaching through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that causes believers in the New Testament to extend fellowship with one another and physically (and in time institutionally) express a spiritual unity that is already present.
The New Testament not only speaks of unity, it also speaks of situations where unity is not possible. 2 John 9-11 shows that where continuance of the apostles teaching fails, unity must fail. Moreover, 2 Cor 6:14-18 urges the church not to be yoked with unbelievers. Presumably, those unbelievers are members of the church who have abdicated the faith.
With this in mind, one can only wonder why the Diocese of South Carolina has failed to meaningfully extend the hand of fellowship to the ACNA.
While we recognize that the Diocese of SC has in the past repudiated actions taken by the General Convention of TEC, one wonders if the Biblical principles outlined above have been applied thoroughly to our present, most difficult situation.
Overview of Part II: Christian Unity and Early Anglicanism
The predominate voices in the discussions reacting to GenCon 09 all tend towards a catholic ecclesiology. Is the ecclesiology of historic Anglicanism exclusively catholic?
In order to explore this we looked at three sources
1. The Thirty Nine Articles
2. John Jewel An Apology of the Church of England
3. Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity
The Thirty Nine Articles are silent on the issue of apostolic succession. They mention the threefold order of ministry, but do not hold it as necessary for the nature of the church.
The 39 Articles define the church by the proper preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments.
John Jewel gives an apology to the Roman Church for the Church of England.
In that apology, Jewel never uses apostolic succession as a sign that they are a valid truth, although he repudiates it as such elsewhere.
Jewel consistently defines the church not by ecclesiastical structure but by the proclamation of apostolic faith.
Richard Hooker writes in favor of the Church of England as it was organized under Elizabeth I in opposition to the puritans who wished for further reform.
In his apology, Hooker defines the church by apostolic faith. Although structure is important for Hooker, what structure is not a matter essential for it to be a Christian Church. Hooker openly states that Christian unity is a unity of essence shared by all those who worship the one and only God and are filled with His spirit.
Thus for the 39 Articles, Jewel, and Hooker, catholicity is not a matter of bishops or apostolic succession, but rather a spiritual unity enjoyed by those who are united to Christ by faith.
This paper calls for our actions and our speech to recognize the spiritual unity we share with the ACNA as part of the true catholic church. It also calls us to recognize that bishops don’t necessarily make a church. When we define catholicity by the structure of our church, we deny the validity of our brothers and sisters in Christ of other denominations, and we become not Catholics, but schismatics.
Part I: A Picture of the Unity of the Church in the New Testament
“But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17.13-23 ESV)
In any discussion on Christian unity, the above passage from John’s Gospel is no doubt destined to play a critical role. After all, in the solemnity of Jesus’ final meal with his disciples before the crucifixion who can fail to feel the heavy weight of the words of the Savior fall not only on our minds but on our hearts? We must ask who is Jesus praying for? What is the unity he envisions when he says “that they may all be one”? How can they be “perfectly one”?
The first thing to note is who Jesus prays for. John 17.13 says “I do not ask for these only.” It is clear that Jesus is praying first and foremost for the twelve disciples (John 17.9-12). He is praying for those who have been called out of the world by Jesus the Christ (John 17.6). The theme of being called out of the world by the Christ, or Messiah of God is a theme well reflected in the New Testament. Just as in John’s Gospel it is not sufficient to say simply that we have έκκλησία (assembly) but one must add του θεου (of God) or του κυρίου (of the Lord). Therefore the N.T. focuses not merely on the assembly, but upon who has called the people to assemble. Paul will drive the point further when he writes έκκλησία του θεου έν χριστώ Ίησου (1 Thess 2.14, see also 2 Thes 1.1, 1 Cor 1.2).
The increasing Messianic flavor of the έκκλησία in the writings of Paul helps us understand why Jesus begins first by praying for the twelve disciples. The twelve disciples were after all to become the twelve Apostles who were to reconstitute the twelve tribes of Israel within the έκκλησία of the New Covenant (Jer 31.21). The transition from disciple to Apostle rests principally upon the vindication of Jesus as the Messiah through few and specific post-resurrection appearances. That the vindication of Jesus as Messiah through his resurrection from the dead is of principal importance in apostleship is a point which Paul makes in 1 Cor 15.3-11 where he applies this standard not only to himself but to all the Apostles.
The Apostles of the New Testament are made one through their common experience and belief of Jesus as God’s Messiah. Their unity is not centered around any one person (such as Peter), or any one city (such as Jerusalem), or any one ethnic group (such as the Jews). Rather, what matters most is the fellowship of those called to assemble by God in the name of Jesus the Messiah. This is nowhere more evident than Gal 1.11-2.14. In it we read that “the Gospel preached to me (Paul) is not man’s Gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1.11-12). This Gospel was submitted to “those who seemed influential…in order to make sure I (Paul) was not running the race in vain” (Gal 2.2). Though Paul’s Gospel was submitted to “those who seemed influential” it is important to note that “what they were makes no difference since God shows no partiality” (Gal 2.6). Here we see that there are issues at stake regarding Christian unity that transcend the influence and leadership of the Apostles, even the Apostles in Jerusalem. What is the issue that transcends the influence and leadership of the Apostles? Paul writes “conduct that is not in step with the truth of the Gospel” (2.14). In fact, Paul confronted Peter “so that the truth of the Gospel could be preserved” (Gal 2.5)
The principle role of the Apostles was not to preserve an institutional succession therefore, but the succession of the Gospel. Paul clearly shows that institutional unity must suffer if it comes into conflict with the preservation of the Gospel. Now we see why Jesus begins his prayer with the twelve. They are the vehicles for the proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah and it is the substance of their proclamation which is the primary substance of their unity. Here is the main concern of unity within the Church in the New Testament, as we shall see when we return to John’s Gospel. Jesus prays to the Father “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word” (John 17.20). A survey of ch. 17 reveals that the word proclaimed by Jesus to the twelve is of tremendous importance for the vitality of the Apostles as well as their unity among themselves as well as their unity to God (John 17.6, 17.8, 17,7). But now we see that this is not only important for the unity of the Apostles but is also important for the unity of the church that will be formed by the preaching of the Apostles. “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me, through their word” (John 17.20). Just as the unity of the Apostles was kept by the integrity of the word proclaimed, so too is the future unity of the church kept by those who believe through the word. This is a unity not formed by “influential persons” (Gal 2.6), nor is it a unity of place, but a unity of belief through the word as Jesus makes clear “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me, through their word, that they (those who believe through the word of the Apostles) may all be one” (John 17.20). We see further down that their unity is not only a unity based upon the conviction that Jesus is the Messiah, but we also see that they possess unity that the world may believe Jesus is the Messiah. “The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me” (John 17.23).
Where the word of the apostles is preached and believed there exist the people who Jesus prayed would be one with himself as well as one with each other. Two examples of this principle can be recognized in two different episodes reported in Acts ch. 11.
“Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” But Peter began and explained it to them in order: “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’ This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11.1-18)
The above episode is a continuation of an event recorded first in Acts ch. 10. In it, Peter, under the direction of God goes to the Gentile Cornelius to extend the ministry of the Gospel beyond the borders of Israel. Cornelius and several other Gentiles hear the word of the Lord and are immediately filled with the Holy Spirit (10.44). This episode caused friction in the church in Jerusalem, who had not yet come to believe that Gentiles could also be incorporated into the New Covenant. What is important for us in this discussion is to notice how the church in Jerusalem came to recognize Cornelius and the other gentile Christians as members of the New Covenant and why they extended fellowship to this new body of the believers. Peter proclaims to the church in Jerusalem “As I began to speak” (Acts 11.15). What was Peter speaking? The content of the proclamation can be found in Acts 10.34-43, but it is essentially that Jesus is God’s chosen Messiah, crucified and raised from the dead. He will come to judge the world and forgiveness of sins can be had in his name. Returning to Peter’s speech to the church in Jerusalem we see “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11.15). Peter then asks “If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11.17). The force of Peter’s argument was overwhelmingly persuasive to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11.18). But what exactly was the argument? The argument is essentially that once the Gentiles believed God gave them the Holy Spirit. It is important to note that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentile believers before the church in Jerusalem had the opportunity to receive them into fellowship. The gift of the Holy Spirit is not conditional upon the approval of the Apostles or upon an individual congregation, or even upon an association of congregations. Rather it is dependent upon God as Peter notes “who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” The second important point to note is that the Gentile believers become like the church in Jerusalem before the church in Jerusalem has the opportunity to recognize them. Peter says “the Holy Spirit fell on them (the Gentile believers) just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11.15). If the Gentile believers were made one with God through the Holy Spirit, and the Jerusalem believers were made one with God through the Holy Spirit, are they not then one in Christ even before they recognize their essential unity?
A similar example can be found in the following paragraphs, as Luke no doubt sets up this narrative beginning early in ch. 10. In ch. 11.19-24 we read:
“Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord” (Acts 11.19-24)
Again, notice how the church in Jerusalem sends Barnabas who recognizes what God has already done in Antioch. Once Barnabas “saw the grace of God” he immediately extends fellowship to the church in Antioch. Notice that Barnabas is not able to give the grace of God to the Antiochene Christians by extending fellowship, but he extends fellowship because he recognizes the grace of God to already be present.
Therefore it is the reception of the Apostles teaching through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that causes believers in the New Testament to extend fellowship with one another and physically (and in time institutionally) express a spiritual unity that is already present. But does the New Testament envision a possibility that would cause believers not to receive someone? Does the New Testament envision an occurrence that would cause two persons who both claim the name Christian not to receive one another? Surprisingly, the same John who recorded Jesus’ passionate prayer for unity is also the same man who gives us the clearest direction on when we must not extend the hand of fellowship to those who bear the name Christian. In 2 John 9-11 we read:
“Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”
Again, the emphasis is upon the Apostles teaching. It is important to notice that this passage deals not with the reception of the Apostles teaching but rather upon maintaining the Apostles teaching. John’s stunning implication is that those who do not “abide in the teaching of Christ” do not have God (2 John 9). If they do not have God, then they are not one with him nor can they be considered one with the church (John 17.23). This is presumably regardless of any formal ecclesiastical affiliation. Notice that structure, location, or affiliation has no bearing on whether or not believers are meant to extend the hand of fellowship. Rather, we are instructed not to extend fellowship to those who do “not abide in the teaching of Christ.”
This concern is reflected outside of John and can be found in 2nd Cor 6.14-18. In this passage we read:
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”
The word “unequally yoked” in the Greek is ‘ετερόζυγος. At the time it meant the mating of animals under a different species, like an ass and an ox. Paul’s contribution to the discussion on Christian unity is useful at this point. The unbelievers in the above passage are not un-evangelized pagans but most likely church leaders who have failed to meet the test of faithfulness (2 Cor 13.5). Paul compares church leaders who do not hold to the Apostle’s teaching to a different species than the church holds to the Apostle’s teaching. It is clear that according to Paul, a structural unity can exist between unbelievers and believers even if the spiritual unity is not present. Nevertheless, Paul exhorts the believers not to maintain the structural unity if it is not based upon the spiritual reality.
Conclusion to Part I:
How then do we lead for unity? From the perspective of the New Testament we should recognize that there is a unity which transcends institutional, geographical, and personal affiliations. This unity is found in the reception of the Apostles’ teaching by faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit which comes from God. Wherever the Apostles’ teaching is held by faith and the Holy Spirit dwells there exist believers who are one with God and therefore one with each other. This unity exists regardless of denominational affiliation and can and does exist outside of Apostolic succession. With these criteria in mind, one can only wonder why the Diocese of South Carolina has failed to meaningfully extend the hand of fellowship to the ACNA.
Conversely, where the Apostles teaching is not honored there we are told quite frankly that the Holy Spirit does not dwell and thus no true unity may even exist. We are instructed not to keep fellowship with people who do not honor the teaching of the Apostles because by their actions they prove they do not have the Holy Spirit. While we recognize that the Diocese of South Carolina has in the past repudiated actions taken by the General Convention of TEC, one wonders if the Biblical principles outlined above regarding discipline and unity have been applied thoroughly enough to our present situation.
We can lead for unity in a way that honors the New Testament by cherishing unity that exists cross denominationally under the confession of Jesus as the Christ. We ought not to make the mistake of looking only to outward symbols, whether they are bishops, councils, conventions or communions but rather look to the Apostles teaching as the standard by which the Church is recognized in the world. What then of denominations? We can be thankful for a good and Godly heritage in the Anglican Communion that honors the notions set forth in the above paragraphs of this paper (as we will later show). We can be thankful for confessing brothers and sisters both globally and at home and the fellowship we share with them and the Father. We can be particularly thankful for the fellowship we share with confessing Anglicans at home and abroad. We can also be thankful for confessing bishops who maintain the unity of the church not by their office alone, but by their office and the clear proclamation of the Gospel. However we should be wary of any fellowship based upon bishops, councils, conventions and even communions where the Lordship of Jesus Christ is not seen to be honored. To proclaim unity where the Lordship of Jesus Christ is not recognized is to masquerade a lie as the truth and proclaim a structural unity but not a spiritual unity.
While these conclusions may seem to many to be decidedly “un-Anglican” I believe the following section of this paper will prove that the early Anglican Reformers held convictions regarding the catholicity of the church surprisingly similar to those espoused in the above paragraphs.
Part II: Early Anglicanism and the Unity of the Church
The General Convention of The Episcopal Church has taken actions which make our common life difficult, and in fact necessitate some change in the way we relate. The question that lies before us is complicated and cannot be taken lightly. Many faithful people may find themselves called to respond in different ways. As Dean Robert Munday has said recently,
“God may lead many to move to a purer fellowship or a “safer” place. But there is also the example of Joseph, who was sold into slavery in Egypt. When he was freed, he could have gone home to be with his family and those who worshiped the true and living God anytime he wanted. But God had planted him in Egypt, and he remained until he died, in order that good might come of it and that God’s people would be blessed.”[1]
It is therefore not the intention of this paper to dictate how the faithful should react to the actions of TEC. Rather, it is my desire to lay the groundwork for how we think through one aspect of the situation, namely the idea of catholicity.
For years, many of our Orthodox brethren have found remaining in TEC untenable. This has led to a slow bleed of Orthodox clergy, parishes, and parishioners from The Episcopal Church. As this has developed, Bishops and Archbishops from all over the world have extended to them the right hand of fellowship and the umbrella of pastoral care. As it became clear that in TEC the trend towards revisionism was irreversible, these separate groups reunited under a common desire to faithfully preserve and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In a monumental event of Christian unification, the splintering in the American Episcopal Church over theological revision which had been happening for over 100 years was ended! Finally, groups with a common theology and a common mission were able to set aside their differences and reunite under a common banner, the Anglican Church of North America.
What now is the Diocese of South Carolina to do? At the core of that decision making process is the question of where God is calling us to minister. Will God call us to faithfully fulfill our mission within the structures of The Episcopal Church or apart from it? It would seem that this decision is very difficult. And yet, many have made the question easier than it should be. It would seem that for many in our Diocese there simply is no choice. There is no choice, because they refuse to acknowledge the validity of our brothers and sisters in the ACNA. The objections of orthodox Episcopalians to recognize the ACNA all seem to revolve around issues of catholicity. Before we begin to discuss the soundness of the ACNA in a church which values catholicity, we need to first define how it is that our church defines catholicity. It is the aim of this paper to briefly articulate the historical understanding of catholicity in the foundations of the Anglican Church and then apply them to our current situation.
If you ask the average informed lay person what it means when we as Anglicans lay claim to catholicity, you are likely to get some reference to how we worship, our liturgy, the frequency of Holy Communion. If you ask a priest, you are more likely to hear about our structure, the three fold order of ministry, and especially bishops in apostolic succession. The question arises, is this how early Anglicans viewed Catholicity? In other words, does Anglicanism mark the Church as that society which is governed by Deacons, Priests, and Bishops ordained under apostolic succession in communion with a historic see (The Archbishop of Canterbury for example)?
At first glance, it would seem so. We have bishops. We have Apostolic Succession. And we have an archbishop. If we were to stop our examination there, I believe we would be greatly misled as to what the architects of the Anglican Church thought about what the church is. In order to uncover the ecclesiology of our church, the question we need to be asking is not, “how does our church look,” but rather, “how has ecclesiology been expressed historically in the Anglican Church?” In order to address that question, we will look primarily at three sources, The Articles of Religion, John Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England, and Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.
First let me explain why these sources are so important for our task. Under Henry VIII, the future shape of the Church in England was very tenuous. Henry was a devout Catholic prior to his divorce from Catherine of Aragon even writing tracts defending catholic doctrines. Following the departure of the Church of England out from under the Pope’s leadership, however, several Anglican bishops arose who held decidedly Protestant views. The result was that the Church of England was in a constant pendulum swing between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Henry VIII was succeeded first by his son Edward VI, who reigned from 1547 to 1553, and then Mary I, who reigned from 1553 to 1558. Edward acceded to the throne as a young boy. Edward’s youth left it open for the Protestant bishops to take control and force reform on the Church of England. During Edward’s reign, the Church of England reached the pinnacle of Calvinistic Reform. After Edward’s death, Mary took control and forced the church in the opposite direction. Thus from its separation from Rome in the 1530’s until the end of Queen Mary’s reign, the identity of the Anglican Church was up in the air.
Elizabeth’s reign, then, saw the solidification of an Anglican identity pitted against Rome on the one hand and the disestablished church on the other. It was to be a church of decidedly Protestant Doctrine under a traditional ecclesiastical structure. Strikingly, the Church of England is one of the only Protestant bodies to retain both the threefold order of ministry and apostolic succession. Was it then in the mind of the Anglican Reformers that these elements were essential to the nature of the Church?
First we turn to the Articles of Religion. This confession functioned as the official theology of the Church of England well into its inception. In fact, English clergy still legally have to ascribe to the Articles, yet there are many who simply pay them lip service. If we are to discover what the classical ecclesiology of the Anglican Church is, it would help us to examine the Anglican Church’s classical statement of faith.
Surprisingly, the 39 Articles are silent in reference to apostolic succession and they only briefly mention ordering the church with bishops, priests, and deacons. The Articles do however give a definition of the Church. Article XIX states “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”[2] It could be debated that this only refers to the local church and not to the church catholic. But compare it to the Belgic Confession, the oldest of Reformed confessions drafted in 1561, just two years prior to the drafting of the 39 Articles. Article 27 on the Holy Catholic Church states “We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church– a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.”[3] Note the similarity. The church (catholic, not local) here is defined as a congregation under the lordship of Jesus. In other words, the church is united not by its ecclesiastical structure but the proclamation of Jesus.
This similarity runs through almost all of the Reformed confessions of the 16th century. While some differences occur, time and time again the Church catholic is defined as the gathering of the faithful. In its article on “Of The Catholic and Holy Church of God, and of The One Only Head of The Church”, the Second Helvetic Confession defines the church in this way, “The Church is an assembly of the faithful called or gathered out of the world; a communion, I say, of all saints, namely, of those who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God in Christ the Savior, by the Word and holy Spirit, and who by faith are partakers of all benefits which are freely offered through Christ.” The 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith states that the church “as it is visible to us, is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world, by the Word and the Spirit of God, to the visible profession of the faith of the Gospel, being baptized into the faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement, in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances, commanded by Christ their head and King.” In almost the same wording as the 39 articles, the Augsburg Confession states, “the Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” While there are some differences between these confessions, the point stands that the definition of the church in the 39 Articles definitely comes from the same theological trajectory as the Reformed Churches. Now contrast that with the Council of Trent’s statement on the threefold order of ministry. “If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.”[4] Why, if the framers of the Church of England held a catholic ecclesiology, does their definition of the church more closely resemble those of the Reformation confessions than any catholic definition? It would be logical to conclude that the Anglican Reformers had no sense that Apostolic Succession was necessary for the life of the Church.
We get more insight into how Anglicans identified themselves in opposition to the Roman Church in the works of John Jewel. Jewel’s An Apology of the Church of England is the first systematic apology for the Church of England written against the Roman Catholics. In part II of his apology, Jewel affirms several catholic doctrines to show that the Church of England is not some new sect, but rather has continuity with the past. And yet it is striking, as he seeks to convince the Roman Catholics that the Church of England is part of the true Catholic Church, he does not once make reference to the church’s apostolic succession. Rather, Jewel insists that the Anglican Church is the Church because the word is rightly preached there. The Romans accused them of letting any man be a priest or minister. Jewel points out that the Church of England lawfully appoints ministers, but did not mention their apostolic succession.[5] He even cites the fact that the Church of England is ordered with bishops, priests, and deacons, “Furthermore, (we believe) that there be divers degrees of ministers in the church, whereof some be deacons, some priests, some bishops, to whom is committed the office to instruct the people and the whole charge and setting forth of religion.”[6] And yet although it would give credence to his argument he refuses to mention apostolic succession.
Not only does he fail to use the remaining apostolic succession in the Church of England as a proof of her validity, he actually speaks against it as a sign of authenticity. Justo Gonzalez says, “even after the Elizabethan settlement, Jewel responded to Catholic arguments: ‘Succession, you say, is the chief way for any Christian man to avoid anti-christ. I grant you, if you mean succession of doctrine!”[7] Jewel seems to be little concerned with any Episcopal succession from the apostles besides that of the faith once delivered.
Moreover, it can be easily gleaned from Jewel’s work that the church is defined not by structure, but by faith. He challenges the Roman Church to produce some sign by which they can prove that they are the church. “I wis it is not so hard a matter to find out God’s church, if a man will seek it earnestly and diligently,” he says, “For the church of God is set upon a high and glistering place, in the top of an hill, and built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.”[8] By the apostles and prophets he makes clear he means the Scriptures. It is not only the Bible, but right doctrine which is essential to the church. He quotes St Cyprian saying, “for,’ saith he, ‘that is not peace but war; neither is he joined unto the church which is severed from the Gospel.”[9] And again Jewel states, “God’s grace is promised to a good mind and to one that feareth God, not unto sees and successions.”[10] Thus it is easy to surmise that John Jewel, as official spokesmen for the budding Church of England, did not define the church by the order of her ministry but by the rightness of her doctrine.
Jewel is not the only Elizabethan writing on the church in those days. We must also look to Richard Hooker. Hooker followed John Jewel and held a similar task. Hooker was charged with defending the Church of England against many of her Puritan critics. The puritan party was so named because of their desire to reform the Church of England more deeply. One of the chief issues they took with the Established Church was the threefold order of ministry. Many Puritans criticized the Episcopacy as un-biblical and papalistic. Much of Hooker’s work is consumed with defending the order of ministry against assaults from the Puritans.
Hooker’s work, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, is of a marked more gentle and charitable tone than Jewel’s. Hooker accedes much to the Puritans, even at some points acknowledging that Presbyterian government is an acceptable biblical model of church governance.[11] In fact, it would appear that Hooker’s argument for Episcopal orders is very simply this, it works for us! It is a principle of the English Reformation that the Church does not have to look exactly the same everywhere. Thus, Hooker accuses the puritans of only desiring to remove themselves as far as possible from the Pope. He says, “But a greater inconvenience it bred, that every later endeavoured to be certain degrees more removed from conformity with the church of Rome, than the rest before had been: whereupon grew marvelous great dissimilitudes, and by reason thereof, jealousies, heart-burnings, jars, and discords amongst them.”[12] Thus, Hookers apology to the puritans is not that the Episcopal church is a more valid church than the Presbyterian church because of their catholic orders. Rather, Hooker pleads with the puritans to allow a diversity of opinion allowed in the structure of the church.[13]
In fact, Hooker works hard to prove that church order is not essential to the nature of the church. He states that the whole debate is “of outward things appertaining to the Church of Christ, than of any thing wherein the nature and being of the Church consisteth…”[14] In other words, the order of the church (other than that there should be some order)[15] is not essential to the church’s existence. In fact, Hooker goes to great lengths to establish that there is a difference in degree of importance between matters of faith and matters of order.[16] He does so, because his definition of the Church is conditional not upon order, but upon doctrine.
Hooker not only defines the church, he also works to define Christian unity. According to Hooker, the Catholic Church exists in the unity between the several different societies of churches. Thus, “so the Catholic Church is in like sort divided into a number of distinct Societies, every of which is termed a Church within itself.”[17] All throughout the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Hooker shows that he considers the Lutheran churches in Germany and the Huguenot churches in France to be true Churches in unity with the Catholic Church. He does so because he holds that these societies are unified in that they hold one faith, they worship the same God, and individuals are admitted into the Church in the same baptism. “The unity of which visible body and Church of Christ consisteth in that uniformity which all several persons thereunto belonging have, by reason of that one Lord whose servants they all profess themselves, that one Faith which they all acknowledge, that one Baptism wherewith they are all initiated. The visible Church of Jesus Christ is therefore one, in outward profession of those things, which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity.” Throughout his apology, Hooker never once mentions either the office of bishop or the succession from the apostles as essential either to the nature of the church or its unity.
Part II: Conclusion
Thus it can be plainly shown that early in the Anglican Church an ecclesiology was developed, proclaimed, and made official which has fallen out of vogue in many corners of the Anglican world. It is obvious that for the framers of the Church of England, the church was defined by the faith that was proclaimed. Not only that, but Christian unity was explicitly linked not to any particular order or office in the church, but rather to the spiritual unity of being united to Christ by faith.
One more point must be made about this period in the churches history. It is plainly noted that no author in the Church of England during the Elizabethan period (and few until the Oxford Movement of the 1840’s) ever envisioned that any of the other Reformed churches were any less of a church than the church of England. It is curious then that in all of our deliberations we would fail to acknowledge a church which carries apostolic succession, a three-fold order of ministry, holds the Creeds as a sufficient statement of faith, and reveres the Scriptures as the Word of God. To fail to extend the hand of fellowship to the ACNA because we disagree with some aspects of their ordering appears from this viewpoint to be an act, not of unity, but of disunity.
Again, it is not our purpose here to propose or dictate any way forward. It is not even our purpose here to propose any departure from The Episcopal Church. Our purpose is simply to articulate a sincere reservation in taking actions which appear to reward a church which is in the process of abdicating more of the Christian faith every time it meets together and which appear to punish a church which is seeking to be faithful to the same Lord that we serve. If Christian unity is a matter of spiritual union between those who have been reborn, and if the Catholic Church is in fact the congregation of the faithful across the world and through the ages, we are already ontologically united with the ACNA by virtue of our “one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all.”[18] Why do we then continue to lie about what God has made us by failing to recognize our brothers and sisters in Christ?
[1] http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2009/07/decompressing.html
[2] http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
[3] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html
[4] http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct23.html, Council of Trent Canons 23rd session canon 6.
[5] John Jewel, An Apology of the Church of England, ed. J.E. Booty, (New York: Church Publishing Incorporated, 2002), p. 26.
[6] Jewel, 24
[7] Justo Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century, vol III, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975) p. 193.
[8] Jewel, 76.
[9] Jewel, 137.
[10] Jewel, 128.
[11]Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), p. 80.
[12] Hooker, 81.
[13] “The one way they cannot as much as pretend, that all the parts of their own discipline are in Scripture: and the other way their mouths are stopped, when they would plead against all other forms besides their own; seeing the general principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one, but sundry may equally be consonant unto the general axioms of the Scripture.” Hooker, 298
[14] Hooker, 283.
[15] “And of such properties common unto all societies Christian, it may not be denied that one of the very chiefest is Ecclesiastical Polity… Even so the necessity of polity and regiment in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain from to be necessary in them all.” Hooker, 297.
[16] “For if matters of discipline be rightly by them distinguished from matters of doctrine, why not matters of government by us as reasonably set against matters of faith?” Hooker, 300.
[17] Hooker, 296.
[18] Ephesians 4:5-6.
8/12/2009
Leading for Unity
by the Revs Iain Boyd and Robert Sturdy
Over the past few months, because of various events (Gafcon, ACNA, GenCon 09’) the issue of the unity of the church viewed through the lens of an Anglican context has come up with increasing regularity. In the conversations we have had with fellow priests and even in statements from men and women serving at a very high level of leadership in the diocese we have noted two things. The first thing we would note is that while the individuals themselves are, for the most part trained theologians and men and women of great theological depth and Biblical faithfulness they have failed to publicly reflect with any great depth on the situations we are now presented with. The second thing we have noticed about the discussion of the unity of the church in an Anglican context is that the evangelical understanding of the unity of the church is poorly represented amongst the highest levels of leadership in the Diocese of S.C.
Our desire in presenting this is to facilitate a discussion on some very difficult matters. We also wish to form the discussion along certain lines that we do not believe have played a significant enough role in the corporate discernment of the Diocese. We wish to form this discussion first and foremost not in terms of any one theological tradition, but rather we wish to center this discussion within the confines of the Biblical witness of the church in the New Testament. We understand that our theological tradition will no doubt inform our reading of the New Testament, nevertheless we seek first and foremost to honor God by submitting to his Word as best as we are able before entering into any discussion based on Anglican tradition. This leads to our next point. We wish to demonstrate the understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism as it applied to the multiple expressions of Christian churches in England during the period of the Reformation. As it will be seen, we do not present an understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism that is at odds with the Biblical witness, but rather one that fits quite comfortably within it.
It is our honest intention to honor Christ by humbly submitting this reflection. We wish to contribute to the current discernment that up until now has only been done by a select few. The format of this paper will be an overview of both parts followed by an extended discussion on both Christian unity in the N.T. as well as how it was understood in early Anglicanism.
An Overview:
The Anglican Church allows for more diversity of opinion on matters of unity and the catholic faith than is commonly proclaimed today. It is important that as the Diocese of South Carolina discerns a way forward an evangelical ecclesiology be allowed a place at the table.
This paper considers the nature of Christian unity from two perspectives:
1. Scripture
2. Early Anglicanism
Overview of Part I: A Picture of the Unity of the Church in the New Testament
In John 17:13-23 Jesus prays for the unity of the Church. He prays for those who will receive not the apostolic structure, but the apostolic word (John 17:20). The church is apostolic, then, as it receives the faith of the apostles, not any laying on of hands.
This apostolicity is not centered on any one person (i.e. Peter). Moreover, when one of the apostles begins to walk inconsistently with the Gospel, he is rebuked. (Galatians 2:11-14)
Thus the role of the apostolic office was not to pass on an institution, but a faith.
Where the word of the apostles is preached and believed there exist the people who Jesus prayed would be one with Himself as well as one with each other. Two examples of this principle can be given in Acts ch. 11
1. Acts 11:1-18 Peter reports on the conversion of Cornelius. Without apostolic authority, Cornelius was filled with the Spirit and began speaking in tongues. What was the means by which Cornelius came to faith and was filled with the Spirit? Through Peter’s preaching.
2. Acts 11:19-30 Baranabas goes to see the church in Antioch and finds Christians there who had come to faith through the preaching of the scattered church from Jerusalem. These preachers were not recognized as apostles. Yet, Barnabas finds that God has shown grace to them so he extends the hand of fellowship. It is important to note that God’s grace was not conditional upon Barnabas extending his hand, but rather preceded it.
Therefore it is the reception of the Apostles teaching through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that causes believers in the New Testament to extend fellowship with one another and physically (and in time institutionally) express a spiritual unity that is already present.
The New Testament not only speaks of unity, it also speaks of situations where unity is not possible. 2 John 9-11 shows that where continuance of the apostles teaching fails, unity must fail. Moreover, 2 Cor 6:14-18 urges the church not to be yoked with unbelievers. Presumably, those unbelievers are members of the church who have abdicated the faith.
With this in mind, one can only wonder why the Diocese of South Carolina has failed to meaningfully extend the hand of fellowship to the ACNA.
While we recognize that the Diocese of SC has in the past repudiated actions taken by the General Convention of TEC, one wonders if the Biblical principles outlined above have been applied thoroughly to our present, most difficult situation.
Overview of Part II: Christian Unity and Early Anglicanism
The predominate voices in the discussions reacting to GenCon 09 all tend towards a catholic ecclesiology. Is the ecclesiology of historic Anglicanism exclusively catholic?
In order to explore this we looked at three sources
1. The Thirty Nine Articles
2. John Jewel An Apology of the Church of England
3. Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity
The Thirty Nine Articles are silent on the issue of apostolic succession. They mention the threefold order of ministry, but do not hold it as necessary for the nature of the church.
The 39 Articles define the church by the proper preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments.
John Jewel gives an apology to the Roman Church for the Church of England.
In that apology, Jewel never uses apostolic succession as a sign that they are a valid truth, although he repudiates it as such elsewhere.
Jewel consistently defines the church not by ecclesiastical structure but by the proclamation of apostolic faith.
Richard Hooker writes in favor of the Church of England as it was organized under Elizabeth I in opposition to the puritans who wished for further reform.
In his apology, Hooker defines the church by apostolic faith. Although structure is important for Hooker, what structure is not a matter essential for it to be a Christian Church. Hooker openly states that Christian unity is a unity of essence shared by all those who worship the one and only God and are filled with His spirit.
Thus for the 39 Articles, Jewel, and Hooker, catholicity is not a matter of bishops or apostolic succession, but rather a spiritual unity enjoyed by those who are united to Christ by faith.
This paper calls for our actions and our speech to recognize the spiritual unity we share with the ACNA as part of the true catholic church. It also calls us to recognize that bishops don’t necessarily make a church. When we define catholicity by the structure of our church, we deny the validity of our brothers and sisters in Christ of other denominations, and we become not Catholics, but schismatics.
Part I: A Picture of the Unity of the Church in the New Testament
“But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17.13-23 ESV)
In any discussion on Christian unity, the above passage from John’s Gospel is no doubt destined to play a critical role. After all, in the solemnity of Jesus’ final meal with his disciples before the crucifixion who can fail to feel the heavy weight of the words of the Savior fall not only on our minds but on our hearts? We must ask who is Jesus praying for? What is the unity he envisions when he says “that they may all be one”? How can they be “perfectly one”?
The first thing to note is who Jesus prays for. John 17.13 says “I do not ask for these only.” It is clear that Jesus is praying first and foremost for the twelve disciples (John 17.9-12). He is praying for those who have been called out of the world by Jesus the Christ (John 17.6). The theme of being called out of the world by the Christ, or Messiah of God is a theme well reflected in the New Testament. Just as in John’s Gospel it is not sufficient to say simply that we have έκκλησία (assembly) but one must add του θεου (of God) or του κυρίου (of the Lord). Therefore the N.T. focuses not merely on the assembly, but upon who has called the people to assemble. Paul will drive the point further when he writes έκκλησία του θεου έν χριστώ Ίησου (1 Thess 2.14, see also 2 Thes 1.1, 1 Cor 1.2).
The increasing Messianic flavor of the έκκλησία in the writings of Paul helps us understand why Jesus begins first by praying for the twelve disciples. The twelve disciples were after all to become the twelve Apostles who were to reconstitute the twelve tribes of Israel within the έκκλησία of the New Covenant (Jer 31.21). The transition from disciple to Apostle rests principally upon the vindication of Jesus as the Messiah through few and specific post-resurrection appearances. That the vindication of Jesus as Messiah through his resurrection from the dead is of principal importance in apostleship is a point which Paul makes in 1 Cor 15.3-11 where he applies this standard not only to himself but to all the Apostles.
The Apostles of the New Testament are made one through their common experience and belief of Jesus as God’s Messiah. Their unity is not centered around any one person (such as Peter), or any one city (such as Jerusalem), or any one ethnic group (such as the Jews). Rather, what matters most is the fellowship of those called to assemble by God in the name of Jesus the Messiah. This is nowhere more evident than Gal 1.11-2.14. In it we read that “the Gospel preached to me (Paul) is not man’s Gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1.11-12). This Gospel was submitted to “those who seemed influential…in order to make sure I (Paul) was not running the race in vain” (Gal 2.2). Though Paul’s Gospel was submitted to “those who seemed influential” it is important to note that “what they were makes no difference since God shows no partiality” (Gal 2.6). Here we see that there are issues at stake regarding Christian unity that transcend the influence and leadership of the Apostles, even the Apostles in Jerusalem. What is the issue that transcends the influence and leadership of the Apostles? Paul writes “conduct that is not in step with the truth of the Gospel” (2.14). In fact, Paul confronted Peter “so that the truth of the Gospel could be preserved” (Gal 2.5)
The principle role of the Apostles was not to preserve an institutional succession therefore, but the succession of the Gospel. Paul clearly shows that institutional unity must suffer if it comes into conflict with the preservation of the Gospel. Now we see why Jesus begins his prayer with the twelve. They are the vehicles for the proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah and it is the substance of their proclamation which is the primary substance of their unity. Here is the main concern of unity within the Church in the New Testament, as we shall see when we return to John’s Gospel. Jesus prays to the Father “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word” (John 17.20). A survey of ch. 17 reveals that the word proclaimed by Jesus to the twelve is of tremendous importance for the vitality of the Apostles as well as their unity among themselves as well as their unity to God (John 17.6, 17.8, 17,7). But now we see that this is not only important for the unity of the Apostles but is also important for the unity of the church that will be formed by the preaching of the Apostles. “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me, through their word” (John 17.20). Just as the unity of the Apostles was kept by the integrity of the word proclaimed, so too is the future unity of the church kept by those who believe through the word. This is a unity not formed by “influential persons” (Gal 2.6), nor is it a unity of place, but a unity of belief through the word as Jesus makes clear “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me, through their word, that they (those who believe through the word of the Apostles) may all be one” (John 17.20). We see further down that their unity is not only a unity based upon the conviction that Jesus is the Messiah, but we also see that they possess unity that the world may believe Jesus is the Messiah. “The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me” (John 17.23).
Where the word of the apostles is preached and believed there exist the people who Jesus prayed would be one with himself as well as one with each other. Two examples of this principle can be recognized in two different episodes reported in Acts ch. 11.
“Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” But Peter began and explained it to them in order: “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’ This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11.1-18)
The above episode is a continuation of an event recorded first in Acts ch. 10. In it, Peter, under the direction of God goes to the Gentile Cornelius to extend the ministry of the Gospel beyond the borders of Israel. Cornelius and several other Gentiles hear the word of the Lord and are immediately filled with the Holy Spirit (10.44). This episode caused friction in the church in Jerusalem, who had not yet come to believe that Gentiles could also be incorporated into the New Covenant. What is important for us in this discussion is to notice how the church in Jerusalem came to recognize Cornelius and the other gentile Christians as members of the New Covenant and why they extended fellowship to this new body of the believers. Peter proclaims to the church in Jerusalem “As I began to speak” (Acts 11.15). What was Peter speaking? The content of the proclamation can be found in Acts 10.34-43, but it is essentially that Jesus is God’s chosen Messiah, crucified and raised from the dead. He will come to judge the world and forgiveness of sins can be had in his name. Returning to Peter’s speech to the church in Jerusalem we see “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11.15). Peter then asks “If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11.17). The force of Peter’s argument was overwhelmingly persuasive to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11.18). But what exactly was the argument? The argument is essentially that once the Gentiles believed God gave them the Holy Spirit. It is important to note that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentile believers before the church in Jerusalem had the opportunity to receive them into fellowship. The gift of the Holy Spirit is not conditional upon the approval of the Apostles or upon an individual congregation, or even upon an association of congregations. Rather it is dependent upon God as Peter notes “who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” The second important point to note is that the Gentile believers become like the church in Jerusalem before the church in Jerusalem has the opportunity to recognize them. Peter says “the Holy Spirit fell on them (the Gentile believers) just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11.15). If the Gentile believers were made one with God through the Holy Spirit, and the Jerusalem believers were made one with God through the Holy Spirit, are they not then one in Christ even before they recognize their essential unity?
A similar example can be found in the following paragraphs, as Luke no doubt sets up this narrative beginning early in ch. 10. In ch. 11.19-24 we read:
“Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord” (Acts 11.19-24)
Again, notice how the church in Jerusalem sends Barnabas who recognizes what God has already done in Antioch. Once Barnabas “saw the grace of God” he immediately extends fellowship to the church in Antioch. Notice that Barnabas is not able to give the grace of God to the Antiochene Christians by extending fellowship, but he extends fellowship because he recognizes the grace of God to already be present.
Therefore it is the reception of the Apostles teaching through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that causes believers in the New Testament to extend fellowship with one another and physically (and in time institutionally) express a spiritual unity that is already present. But does the New Testament envision a possibility that would cause believers not to receive someone? Does the New Testament envision an occurrence that would cause two persons who both claim the name Christian not to receive one another? Surprisingly, the same John who recorded Jesus’ passionate prayer for unity is also the same man who gives us the clearest direction on when we must not extend the hand of fellowship to those who bear the name Christian. In 2 John 9-11 we read:
“Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”
Again, the emphasis is upon the Apostles teaching. It is important to notice that this passage deals not with the reception of the Apostles teaching but rather upon maintaining the Apostles teaching. John’s stunning implication is that those who do not “abide in the teaching of Christ” do not have God (2 John 9). If they do not have God, then they are not one with him nor can they be considered one with the church (John 17.23). This is presumably regardless of any formal ecclesiastical affiliation. Notice that structure, location, or affiliation has no bearing on whether or not believers are meant to extend the hand of fellowship. Rather, we are instructed not to extend fellowship to those who do “not abide in the teaching of Christ.”
This concern is reflected outside of John and can be found in 2nd Cor 6.14-18. In this passage we read:
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”
The word “unequally yoked” in the Greek is ‘ετερόζυγος. At the time it meant the mating of animals under a different species, like an ass and an ox. Paul’s contribution to the discussion on Christian unity is useful at this point. The unbelievers in the above passage are not un-evangelized pagans but most likely church leaders who have failed to meet the test of faithfulness (2 Cor 13.5). Paul compares church leaders who do not hold to the Apostle’s teaching to a different species than the church holds to the Apostle’s teaching. It is clear that according to Paul, a structural unity can exist between unbelievers and believers even if the spiritual unity is not present. Nevertheless, Paul exhorts the believers not to maintain the structural unity if it is not based upon the spiritual reality.
Conclusion to Part I:
How then do we lead for unity? From the perspective of the New Testament we should recognize that there is a unity which transcends institutional, geographical, and personal affiliations. This unity is found in the reception of the Apostles’ teaching by faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit which comes from God. Wherever the Apostles’ teaching is held by faith and the Holy Spirit dwells there exist believers who are one with God and therefore one with each other. This unity exists regardless of denominational affiliation and can and does exist outside of Apostolic succession. With these criteria in mind, one can only wonder why the Diocese of South Carolina has failed to meaningfully extend the hand of fellowship to the ACNA.
Conversely, where the Apostles teaching is not honored there we are told quite frankly that the Holy Spirit does not dwell and thus no true unity may even exist. We are instructed not to keep fellowship with people who do not honor the teaching of the Apostles because by their actions they prove they do not have the Holy Spirit. While we recognize that the Diocese of South Carolina has in the past repudiated actions taken by the General Convention of TEC, one wonders if the Biblical principles outlined above regarding discipline and unity have been applied thoroughly enough to our present situation.
We can lead for unity in a way that honors the New Testament by cherishing unity that exists cross denominationally under the confession of Jesus as the Christ. We ought not to make the mistake of looking only to outward symbols, whether they are bishops, councils, conventions or communions but rather look to the Apostles teaching as the standard by which the Church is recognized in the world. What then of denominations? We can be thankful for a good and Godly heritage in the Anglican Communion that honors the notions set forth in the above paragraphs of this paper (as we will later show). We can be thankful for confessing brothers and sisters both globally and at home and the fellowship we share with them and the Father. We can be particularly thankful for the fellowship we share with confessing Anglicans at home and abroad. We can also be thankful for confessing bishops who maintain the unity of the church not by their office alone, but by their office and the clear proclamation of the Gospel. However we should be wary of any fellowship based upon bishops, councils, conventions and even communions where the Lordship of Jesus Christ is not seen to be honored. To proclaim unity where the Lordship of Jesus Christ is not recognized is to masquerade a lie as the truth and proclaim a structural unity but not a spiritual unity.
While these conclusions may seem to many to be decidedly “un-Anglican” I believe the following section of this paper will prove that the early Anglican Reformers held convictions regarding the catholicity of the church surprisingly similar to those espoused in the above paragraphs.
Part II: Early Anglicanism and the Unity of the Church
The General Convention of The Episcopal Church has taken actions which make our common life difficult, and in fact necessitate some change in the way we relate. The question that lies before us is complicated and cannot be taken lightly. Many faithful people may find themselves called to respond in different ways. As Dean Robert Munday has said recently,
“God may lead many to move to a purer fellowship or a “safer” place. But there is also the example of Joseph, who was sold into slavery in Egypt. When he was freed, he could have gone home to be with his family and those who worshiped the true and living God anytime he wanted. But God had planted him in Egypt, and he remained until he died, in order that good might come of it and that God’s people would be blessed.”[1]
It is therefore not the intention of this paper to dictate how the faithful should react to the actions of TEC. Rather, it is my desire to lay the groundwork for how we think through one aspect of the situation, namely the idea of catholicity.
For years, many of our Orthodox brethren have found remaining in TEC untenable. This has led to a slow bleed of Orthodox clergy, parishes, and parishioners from The Episcopal Church. As this has developed, Bishops and Archbishops from all over the world have extended to them the right hand of fellowship and the umbrella of pastoral care. As it became clear that in TEC the trend towards revisionism was irreversible, these separate groups reunited under a common desire to faithfully preserve and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In a monumental event of Christian unification, the splintering in the American Episcopal Church over theological revision which had been happening for over 100 years was ended! Finally, groups with a common theology and a common mission were able to set aside their differences and reunite under a common banner, the Anglican Church of North America.
What now is the Diocese of South Carolina to do? At the core of that decision making process is the question of where God is calling us to minister. Will God call us to faithfully fulfill our mission within the structures of The Episcopal Church or apart from it? It would seem that this decision is very difficult. And yet, many have made the question easier than it should be. It would seem that for many in our Diocese there simply is no choice. There is no choice, because they refuse to acknowledge the validity of our brothers and sisters in the ACNA. The objections of orthodox Episcopalians to recognize the ACNA all seem to revolve around issues of catholicity. Before we begin to discuss the soundness of the ACNA in a church which values catholicity, we need to first define how it is that our church defines catholicity. It is the aim of this paper to briefly articulate the historical understanding of catholicity in the foundations of the Anglican Church and then apply them to our current situation.
If you ask the average informed lay person what it means when we as Anglicans lay claim to catholicity, you are likely to get some reference to how we worship, our liturgy, the frequency of Holy Communion. If you ask a priest, you are more likely to hear about our structure, the three fold order of ministry, and especially bishops in apostolic succession. The question arises, is this how early Anglicans viewed Catholicity? In other words, does Anglicanism mark the Church as that society which is governed by Deacons, Priests, and Bishops ordained under apostolic succession in communion with a historic see (The Archbishop of Canterbury for example)?
At first glance, it would seem so. We have bishops. We have Apostolic Succession. And we have an archbishop. If we were to stop our examination there, I believe we would be greatly misled as to what the architects of the Anglican Church thought about what the church is. In order to uncover the ecclesiology of our church, the question we need to be asking is not, “how does our church look,” but rather, “how has ecclesiology been expressed historically in the Anglican Church?” In order to address that question, we will look primarily at three sources, The Articles of Religion, John Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England, and Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.
First let me explain why these sources are so important for our task. Under Henry VIII, the future shape of the Church in England was very tenuous. Henry was a devout Catholic prior to his divorce from Catherine of Aragon even writing tracts defending catholic doctrines. Following the departure of the Church of England out from under the Pope’s leadership, however, several Anglican bishops arose who held decidedly Protestant views. The result was that the Church of England was in a constant pendulum swing between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Henry VIII was succeeded first by his son Edward VI, who reigned from 1547 to 1553, and then Mary I, who reigned from 1553 to 1558. Edward acceded to the throne as a young boy. Edward’s youth left it open for the Protestant bishops to take control and force reform on the Church of England. During Edward’s reign, the Church of England reached the pinnacle of Calvinistic Reform. After Edward’s death, Mary took control and forced the church in the opposite direction. Thus from its separation from Rome in the 1530’s until the end of Queen Mary’s reign, the identity of the Anglican Church was up in the air.
Elizabeth’s reign, then, saw the solidification of an Anglican identity pitted against Rome on the one hand and the disestablished church on the other. It was to be a church of decidedly Protestant Doctrine under a traditional ecclesiastical structure. Strikingly, the Church of England is one of the only Protestant bodies to retain both the threefold order of ministry and apostolic succession. Was it then in the mind of the Anglican Reformers that these elements were essential to the nature of the Church?
First we turn to the Articles of Religion. This confession functioned as the official theology of the Church of England well into its inception. In fact, English clergy still legally have to ascribe to the Articles, yet there are many who simply pay them lip service. If we are to discover what the classical ecclesiology of the Anglican Church is, it would help us to examine the Anglican Church’s classical statement of faith.
Surprisingly, the 39 Articles are silent in reference to apostolic succession and they only briefly mention ordering the church with bishops, priests, and deacons. The Articles do however give a definition of the Church. Article XIX states “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”[2] It could be debated that this only refers to the local church and not to the church catholic. But compare it to the Belgic Confession, the oldest of Reformed confessions drafted in 1561, just two years prior to the drafting of the 39 Articles. Article 27 on the Holy Catholic Church states “We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church– a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.”[3] Note the similarity. The church (catholic, not local) here is defined as a congregation under the lordship of Jesus. In other words, the church is united not by its ecclesiastical structure but the proclamation of Jesus.
This similarity runs through almost all of the Reformed confessions of the 16th century. While some differences occur, time and time again the Church catholic is defined as the gathering of the faithful. In its article on “Of The Catholic and Holy Church of God, and of The One Only Head of The Church”, the Second Helvetic Confession defines the church in this way, “The Church is an assembly of the faithful called or gathered out of the world; a communion, I say, of all saints, namely, of those who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God in Christ the Savior, by the Word and holy Spirit, and who by faith are partakers of all benefits which are freely offered through Christ.” The 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith states that the church “as it is visible to us, is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world, by the Word and the Spirit of God, to the visible profession of the faith of the Gospel, being baptized into the faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement, in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances, commanded by Christ their head and King.” In almost the same wording as the 39 articles, the Augsburg Confession states, “the Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” While there are some differences between these confessions, the point stands that the definition of the church in the 39 Articles definitely comes from the same theological trajectory as the Reformed Churches. Now contrast that with the Council of Trent’s statement on the threefold order of ministry. “If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.”[4] Why, if the framers of the Church of England held a catholic ecclesiology, does their definition of the church more closely resemble those of the Reformation confessions than any catholic definition? It would be logical to conclude that the Anglican Reformers had no sense that Apostolic Succession was necessary for the life of the Church.
We get more insight into how Anglicans identified themselves in opposition to the Roman Church in the works of John Jewel. Jewel’s An Apology of the Church of England is the first systematic apology for the Church of England written against the Roman Catholics. In part II of his apology, Jewel affirms several catholic doctrines to show that the Church of England is not some new sect, but rather has continuity with the past. And yet it is striking, as he seeks to convince the Roman Catholics that the Church of England is part of the true Catholic Church, he does not once make reference to the church’s apostolic succession. Rather, Jewel insists that the Anglican Church is the Church because the word is rightly preached there. The Romans accused them of letting any man be a priest or minister. Jewel points out that the Church of England lawfully appoints ministers, but did not mention their apostolic succession.[5] He even cites the fact that the Church of England is ordered with bishops, priests, and deacons, “Furthermore, (we believe) that there be divers degrees of ministers in the church, whereof some be deacons, some priests, some bishops, to whom is committed the office to instruct the people and the whole charge and setting forth of religion.”[6] And yet although it would give credence to his argument he refuses to mention apostolic succession.
Not only does he fail to use the remaining apostolic succession in the Church of England as a proof of her validity, he actually speaks against it as a sign of authenticity. Justo Gonzalez says, “even after the Elizabethan settlement, Jewel responded to Catholic arguments: ‘Succession, you say, is the chief way for any Christian man to avoid anti-christ. I grant you, if you mean succession of doctrine!”[7] Jewel seems to be little concerned with any Episcopal succession from the apostles besides that of the faith once delivered.
Moreover, it can be easily gleaned from Jewel’s work that the church is defined not by structure, but by faith. He challenges the Roman Church to produce some sign by which they can prove that they are the church. “I wis it is not so hard a matter to find out God’s church, if a man will seek it earnestly and diligently,” he says, “For the church of God is set upon a high and glistering place, in the top of an hill, and built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.”[8] By the apostles and prophets he makes clear he means the Scriptures. It is not only the Bible, but right doctrine which is essential to the church. He quotes St Cyprian saying, “for,’ saith he, ‘that is not peace but war; neither is he joined unto the church which is severed from the Gospel.”[9] And again Jewel states, “God’s grace is promised to a good mind and to one that feareth God, not unto sees and successions.”[10] Thus it is easy to surmise that John Jewel, as official spokesmen for the budding Church of England, did not define the church by the order of her ministry but by the rightness of her doctrine.
Jewel is not the only Elizabethan writing on the church in those days. We must also look to Richard Hooker. Hooker followed John Jewel and held a similar task. Hooker was charged with defending the Church of England against many of her Puritan critics. The puritan party was so named because of their desire to reform the Church of England more deeply. One of the chief issues they took with the Established Church was the threefold order of ministry. Many Puritans criticized the Episcopacy as un-biblical and papalistic. Much of Hooker’s work is consumed with defending the order of ministry against assaults from the Puritans.
Hooker’s work, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, is of a marked more gentle and charitable tone than Jewel’s. Hooker accedes much to the Puritans, even at some points acknowledging that Presbyterian government is an acceptable biblical model of church governance.[11] In fact, it would appear that Hooker’s argument for Episcopal orders is very simply this, it works for us! It is a principle of the English Reformation that the Church does not have to look exactly the same everywhere. Thus, Hooker accuses the puritans of only desiring to remove themselves as far as possible from the Pope. He says, “But a greater inconvenience it bred, that every later endeavoured to be certain degrees more removed from conformity with the church of Rome, than the rest before had been: whereupon grew marvelous great dissimilitudes, and by reason thereof, jealousies, heart-burnings, jars, and discords amongst them.”[12] Thus, Hookers apology to the puritans is not that the Episcopal church is a more valid church than the Presbyterian church because of their catholic orders. Rather, Hooker pleads with the puritans to allow a diversity of opinion allowed in the structure of the church.[13]
In fact, Hooker works hard to prove that church order is not essential to the nature of the church. He states that the whole debate is “of outward things appertaining to the Church of Christ, than of any thing wherein the nature and being of the Church consisteth…”[14] In other words, the order of the church (other than that there should be some order)[15] is not essential to the church’s existence. In fact, Hooker goes to great lengths to establish that there is a difference in degree of importance between matters of faith and matters of order.[16] He does so, because his definition of the Church is conditional not upon order, but upon doctrine.
Hooker not only defines the church, he also works to define Christian unity. According to Hooker, the Catholic Church exists in the unity between the several different societies of churches. Thus, “so the Catholic Church is in like sort divided into a number of distinct Societies, every of which is termed a Church within itself.”[17] All throughout the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Hooker shows that he considers the Lutheran churches in Germany and the Huguenot churches in France to be true Churches in unity with the Catholic Church. He does so because he holds that these societies are unified in that they hold one faith, they worship the same God, and individuals are admitted into the Church in the same baptism. “The unity of which visible body and Church of Christ consisteth in that uniformity which all several persons thereunto belonging have, by reason of that one Lord whose servants they all profess themselves, that one Faith which they all acknowledge, that one Baptism wherewith they are all initiated. The visible Church of Jesus Christ is therefore one, in outward profession of those things, which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity.” Throughout his apology, Hooker never once mentions either the office of bishop or the succession from the apostles as essential either to the nature of the church or its unity.
Part II: Conclusion
Thus it can be plainly shown that early in the Anglican Church an ecclesiology was developed, proclaimed, and made official which has fallen out of vogue in many corners of the Anglican world. It is obvious that for the framers of the Church of England, the church was defined by the faith that was proclaimed. Not only that, but Christian unity was explicitly linked not to any particular order or office in the church, but rather to the spiritual unity of being united to Christ by faith.
One more point must be made about this period in the churches history. It is plainly noted that no author in the Church of England during the Elizabethan period (and few until the Oxford Movement of the 1840’s) ever envisioned that any of the other Reformed churches were any less of a church than the church of England. It is curious then that in all of our deliberations we would fail to acknowledge a church which carries apostolic succession, a three-fold order of ministry, holds the Creeds as a sufficient statement of faith, and reveres the Scriptures as the Word of God. To fail to extend the hand of fellowship to the ACNA because we disagree with some aspects of their ordering appears from this viewpoint to be an act, not of unity, but of disunity.
Again, it is not our purpose here to propose or dictate any way forward. It is not even our purpose here to propose any departure from The Episcopal Church. Our purpose is simply to articulate a sincere reservation in taking actions which appear to reward a church which is in the process of abdicating more of the Christian faith every time it meets together and which appear to punish a church which is seeking to be faithful to the same Lord that we serve. If Christian unity is a matter of spiritual union between those who have been reborn, and if the Catholic Church is in fact the congregation of the faithful across the world and through the ages, we are already ontologically united with the ACNA by virtue of our “one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all.”[18] Why do we then continue to lie about what God has made us by failing to recognize our brothers and sisters in Christ?
[1] http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2009/07/decompressing.html
[2] http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
[3] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html
[4] http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct23.html, Council of Trent Canons 23rd session canon 6.
[5] John Jewel, An Apology of the Church of England, ed. J.E. Booty, (New York: Church Publishing Incorporated, 2002), p. 26.
[6] Jewel, 24
[7] Justo Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century, vol III, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975) p. 193.
[8] Jewel, 76.
[9] Jewel, 137.
[10] Jewel, 128.
[11]Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), p. 80.
[12] Hooker, 81.
[13] “The one way they cannot as much as pretend, that all the parts of their own discipline are in Scripture: and the other way their mouths are stopped, when they would plead against all other forms besides their own; seeing the general principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one, but sundry may equally be consonant unto the general axioms of the Scripture.” Hooker, 298
[14] Hooker, 283.
[15] “And of such properties common unto all societies Christian, it may not be denied that one of the very chiefest is Ecclesiastical Polity… Even so the necessity of polity and regiment in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain from to be necessary in them all.” Hooker, 297.
[16] “For if matters of discipline be rightly by them distinguished from matters of doctrine, why not matters of government by us as reasonably set against matters of faith?” Hooker, 300.
[17] Hooker, 296.
[18] Ephesians 4:5-6.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Perceptions, intentions and lies
At General Convention and since GC09 the liberal hegemony in pecusa has been saying that they have broken no moratoriums and that nothing has changed in pecusa. This is an outright lie that has been promulgated by none other than the Bishop of Central NY. Two candidates for bishop in California and one in Minnesota are active homosexuals by their own accounts. The official stance of pecusa is that no moratorium is broken until one of the active homosexuals is elected. Unfortunately for pecusa the Anglican Communion does not play word games to the extent that pecusa does. The Anglican Communion, as represented by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other primates and bishops, recognizes that pecusa is moving further away from communion standards. pecusa has violated the Windsor standards, the Dar es Salaam statement and is standing against Lambeth 1.10, which is the communion understanding of biblical sexuality. The ABC appears ready to implement the two level program that he has spoken about during the Anglican crisis that began in 2003 because of pecusa actions. We will see if the Diocese of L.A. and the Diocese of Minnesota will exercise "gracious restraint" in their episcopal elections. Even so, the Anglican Communion sees that pecusa is proceeding with the gay agenda and has thus moved away from any reasonable communion agenda. pecusa will be relegated to second class status; it is only a matter of when.
New Anglican row looming as gays and lesbians shortlisted in bishop elections
From Religious Intelligence via TitusOneNine:
Tuesday, 11th August 2009. 11:33am
By: George Conger.
The Episcopal Church’s split with the Anglican Communion widened this week as two dioceses announced slates of candidates for the episcopate that include three gay and lesbian clergy.
New Anglican row looming as gays and lesbians shortlisted in bishop elections
The news comes less than a week after the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams held that gay clergy were out of bounds for Anglican Churches. It was improper for any member of the clergy to be “living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond,” Dr Williams said, adding that the homosexual or unchaste heterosexual “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.”
On Aug 1 the Diocese of Minnesota released its list of approved candidates standing for election on Oct 30: the Rev Bonnie Perry, rector of All Saints’ Church, Chicago; the Rev Mariann Edgar Budde, rector of St John’s Church, Minneapolis, and the Rev Brian Prior, rector of the Church of the Resurrection, Spokane Valley, Washington.
In her autobiographical statement Ms Perry stated she lived with her partner of 22 years, the Rev Susan Harlow, a minister of the United Church of Christ. She conceded that in the “current worldwide Anglican climate it may be very difficult for me, an out, partnered lesbian, to be elected” but thanked the diocese for the invitation to test her vocation to the episcopate. Minnesota’s other two candidates stated that while they were not gay, they supported the full inclusion of gays and lesbians into the church. Ms Budde stated her parish offers “sacramental blessings of relationships, support[s] gay and lesbian candidates for ordination, and GLBT members exercise ministry throughout the congregation."
Mr Prior, vice-president of the House of Deputies of the General Convention, stated he also supported the inclusion of gays in the church, and it was not until he “began serving in the larger church that I became painfully aware of the level of homophobia, sexism, racism, ageism and bigotry in both our church and the larger culture.”
On Aug 2, the Diocese of Los Angeles announced that six priests had been selected to stand for election for the diocese’s two suffragan bishop spots. The nominees included two priests of Guatemalan background, the Rev Silvestre Romero, rector, St Philip's Church in San Jose, Calif., and the Rev Martin Vasquez, vicar, St George's Church in Hawthorne, Calif; two women priests from within the Diocese of Los Angeles, the Rev Canon Diane Jardine Bruce, rector, St Clement's by-the-Sea Church in San Clemente, and the Rev Zelda Kennedy, associate for pastoral care at All Saints Church in Pasadena; and California; and two clergy from outside the diocese, the Rev Canon Mary Glasspool, canon to the ordinary of the Diocese of Maryland and the Rev John Kirkley, rector of St John the Evangelist in San Francisco --- both of whom identify themselves as being gay.
In a statement released with the list of nominees Los Angeles Bishop J Jon Bruno stated he had interviewed each of the nominees. “I affirm each and every one of these candidates and am pleased at the wide diversity they offer this Diocese.” The election is scheduled for Dec 4.
The president of Integrity --- the gay pressure group within the Episcopal Church --- applauded the nominations. “The Diocese of Minnesota is leading the way for the rest of The Episcopal Church," said the Rev Susan Russell on Aug 1, "as they move us forward into a future where the resolutions we passed at our recent General Convention become a reality."
Citing last month’s decision by General Convention in Resolution D025 to end the moratorium on gay bishops, Ms Russell stated she was pleased the Episcopal Church had now “put a sad chapter of discrimination against the LGBT baptized behind us."
On Aug 2, Ms Russell said the Los Angeles decision was “another sign that the 'season of fasting' at the expense of the vocations of gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church is at an end."
Speaking at a July 18 press conference at the close of General Convention, US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori denied the Episcopal Church had abandoned the moratoria on gay bishops and blessings. She stated her “understanding” was that “we reaffirmed the tenets of this church, that the discernment process is open to all people.”
During the debate on resolution D025 permitting gay bishops, the Bishop of Kentucky, the Rt Rev Edwin Gulick stated the “passing of the resolution will not end the moratorium.”
Distinguishing between intentions and actions, Bishop Gulick said the moratorium would be broken when the Episcopal Church consecrated a new gay bishop. He then turned to the Presiding Bishop and asked if this was not so. Bishop Jefferts Schori said that was “my understanding of it. We have been asked to exercise restraint, and we have done so.”
On July 18, Bishop Jefferts Schori stated the moratoria on gay bishops and blessings that had been agreed by the instruments of unity: the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates, the Lambeth Conference and the Archbishop of Canterbury had not been rescinded by General Convention. “Effectively a moratorium remains until it is ended,” she said.
Pressed to account for the negative responses from the Bishop of Durham and other overseas church leaders, Bishop Bruno said “we can’t do anything about their perceptions.”
Tuesday, 11th August 2009. 11:33am
By: George Conger.
The Episcopal Church’s split with the Anglican Communion widened this week as two dioceses announced slates of candidates for the episcopate that include three gay and lesbian clergy.
New Anglican row looming as gays and lesbians shortlisted in bishop elections
The news comes less than a week after the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams held that gay clergy were out of bounds for Anglican Churches. It was improper for any member of the clergy to be “living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond,” Dr Williams said, adding that the homosexual or unchaste heterosexual “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.”
On Aug 1 the Diocese of Minnesota released its list of approved candidates standing for election on Oct 30: the Rev Bonnie Perry, rector of All Saints’ Church, Chicago; the Rev Mariann Edgar Budde, rector of St John’s Church, Minneapolis, and the Rev Brian Prior, rector of the Church of the Resurrection, Spokane Valley, Washington.
In her autobiographical statement Ms Perry stated she lived with her partner of 22 years, the Rev Susan Harlow, a minister of the United Church of Christ. She conceded that in the “current worldwide Anglican climate it may be very difficult for me, an out, partnered lesbian, to be elected” but thanked the diocese for the invitation to test her vocation to the episcopate. Minnesota’s other two candidates stated that while they were not gay, they supported the full inclusion of gays and lesbians into the church. Ms Budde stated her parish offers “sacramental blessings of relationships, support[s] gay and lesbian candidates for ordination, and GLBT members exercise ministry throughout the congregation."
Mr Prior, vice-president of the House of Deputies of the General Convention, stated he also supported the inclusion of gays in the church, and it was not until he “began serving in the larger church that I became painfully aware of the level of homophobia, sexism, racism, ageism and bigotry in both our church and the larger culture.”
On Aug 2, the Diocese of Los Angeles announced that six priests had been selected to stand for election for the diocese’s two suffragan bishop spots. The nominees included two priests of Guatemalan background, the Rev Silvestre Romero, rector, St Philip's Church in San Jose, Calif., and the Rev Martin Vasquez, vicar, St George's Church in Hawthorne, Calif; two women priests from within the Diocese of Los Angeles, the Rev Canon Diane Jardine Bruce, rector, St Clement's by-the-Sea Church in San Clemente, and the Rev Zelda Kennedy, associate for pastoral care at All Saints Church in Pasadena; and California; and two clergy from outside the diocese, the Rev Canon Mary Glasspool, canon to the ordinary of the Diocese of Maryland and the Rev John Kirkley, rector of St John the Evangelist in San Francisco --- both of whom identify themselves as being gay.
In a statement released with the list of nominees Los Angeles Bishop J Jon Bruno stated he had interviewed each of the nominees. “I affirm each and every one of these candidates and am pleased at the wide diversity they offer this Diocese.” The election is scheduled for Dec 4.
The president of Integrity --- the gay pressure group within the Episcopal Church --- applauded the nominations. “The Diocese of Minnesota is leading the way for the rest of The Episcopal Church," said the Rev Susan Russell on Aug 1, "as they move us forward into a future where the resolutions we passed at our recent General Convention become a reality."
Citing last month’s decision by General Convention in Resolution D025 to end the moratorium on gay bishops, Ms Russell stated she was pleased the Episcopal Church had now “put a sad chapter of discrimination against the LGBT baptized behind us."
On Aug 2, Ms Russell said the Los Angeles decision was “another sign that the 'season of fasting' at the expense of the vocations of gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church is at an end."
Speaking at a July 18 press conference at the close of General Convention, US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori denied the Episcopal Church had abandoned the moratoria on gay bishops and blessings. She stated her “understanding” was that “we reaffirmed the tenets of this church, that the discernment process is open to all people.”
During the debate on resolution D025 permitting gay bishops, the Bishop of Kentucky, the Rt Rev Edwin Gulick stated the “passing of the resolution will not end the moratorium.”
Distinguishing between intentions and actions, Bishop Gulick said the moratorium would be broken when the Episcopal Church consecrated a new gay bishop. He then turned to the Presiding Bishop and asked if this was not so. Bishop Jefferts Schori said that was “my understanding of it. We have been asked to exercise restraint, and we have done so.”
On July 18, Bishop Jefferts Schori stated the moratoria on gay bishops and blessings that had been agreed by the instruments of unity: the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates, the Lambeth Conference and the Archbishop of Canterbury had not been rescinded by General Convention. “Effectively a moratorium remains until it is ended,” she said.
Pressed to account for the negative responses from the Bishop of Durham and other overseas church leaders, Bishop Bruno said “we can’t do anything about their perceptions.”
Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina Ponders its Future
New Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 10, 2009
Is the Bishop of South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence planning to take his diocese out of The Episcopal Church? Word has it that Lawrence has been in "substantive talks" with Archbishop Robert Duncan of The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). But Lawrence has commented (in the past) that he is concerned about whether ACNA has a sufficient "catholic ecclesiology" -- by which he means that he is not sure it is sufficiently united. It looks to him more like a loose federation than "one body".
It is not, apparently, the direction he is expected to take the diocese. Sources tell VOL that when Lawrence meets with the clergy of his Diocese on Thursday, he will propose that his diocese push to be on the first level of the "two level, two tier" approach advocated by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Anglican Communion. He will also advocate closer ties with the Anglican Communion Institute's (ACI) approach of staying in TEC as the denomination's loyal opposition.
However, as an orthodox TEC bishop told VOL, the unity proposed by ACI theologians on the basis of mutual affection and diversity, but not doctrine, is not good news.
Lawrence may well propose that the Diocese of South Carolina be an orthodox diocese on the first level of the Anglican Communion - Rowan Williams' two levels idea, but not the second level, said the source.
His diocese is divided on the issue of staying or leaving TEC. Some on the Standing Committee want him to leave TEC, which he cannot do because of the enormous litigation that would tear up the diocese along with its parishes, a number of which would like to see the diocese leave TEC.
Lawrence has been decidedly outspoken about The Episcopal Church under the leadership of Katharine Jefferts Schori. Prior to attending GC2009, he said that the time had passed for engaging in political maneuvering to try to defeat the revisionist agenda, and that he did not intend to waste his energy doing so in Anaheim.
He was accurate in his appraisal as to what transpired. Two resolutions were passed allowing for the possibility of consecrating more LGBT bishops thus effectively setting aside the B033 moratoria, and laying the groundwork for the formal adoption of same-sex marriage rites.
In an interview with AnglicanTV, Lawrence stated, "It seems to me that on the far side of General Convention 2009, the Diocese of South Carolina must find a place to stand and a place to thrive that is relational and structural, and we shall find that place to stand and that place to thrive. We will find a way forward in the midst of all of this and God will strengthen us for the challenges at hand. I am almost eager for the opportunity that lies ahead of us."
Following GC2009 Lawrence wrote a letter to the clergy of the Diocese - http://tinyurl.com/mjld99 - with this analysis:
"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."
The Bishop concluded his letter by 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."
A number of clergy recently put out a statement of their own under the title, "Where We Stand".
"Recent events in the American Episcopal Church have sparked strong reactions from people in nearly every Christian denomination. Even here in the Beaufort, Bluffton, and Hilton Head communities, many people have weighed in with comments both pro and con.
"Given the Episcopal Church's unique place in American history, and the fact that many of its recent decisions (particularly those regarding human sexuality) call into question long-standing Christian beliefs, none of this is particularly surprising. Issues of such substance naturally transcend denominational boundaries.
"Therefore, it is important for the members of these communities to know that we, the leadership of The Parish Church of St. Helena, The Church of the Cross, and St. Luke's Episcopal Church, disassociate ourselves from the actions of the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church held in July 2009. During its deliberations, that body denied the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testaments), overturned the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, and refused to abstain from the ordination of persons whose manner of life violates Christian tenets in practice for almost 2,000 years. These are actions we cannot condone.
"Instead, we will continue to stand where the vast majority of the world's 77 million Anglicans stand and where the Anglican Church has always stood. We will continue to be faithful to the Scriptures and to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has ever been sufficient to heal the sick, restore sight to the blind, and raise those dead in their trespasses and sins to the new life of grace-a Gospel that we remain convinced still has the power to do these things today.
"As always, the doors of these parish churches are open to everyone. We all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. The church is not a place for those who have managed to "get their act together;" it is a hospital for sinners, of whom we are chief."
Below are signatories to this statement:
THE VESTRIES
Cindy Collins
John Gray Jane Hincher
Maude Hornsby
Jane Manos
Ann McDuff
Steve Melvin
Gail Mullen
Bob Mullen Melba Outlaw
Peter Payne
Jan Pringle
Sharon Sanders
Charley Webb
Bill Thompson
Stew Brown
Ray Cook
Burt Harding
Natalie Mann
Ken Miller
Al Stahl
Linda Wakefield
Lisa Arraj
Mike Blackshire
John Brackett
Will Bridgers
Tom Conner
Marilyn Eitel
Judy Kirby
Brenda Lieberman
Connie Rathman
Mark Vanagel
David Warren
John Wigington
Gail Znachko
THE CLERGY
The Rev. Jeffrey Miller
The Rev. Mark Avera
The Rev. Andrew Pearson
The Rev. Chad Lawrence
The Rt. Rev. Alden Hathaway
The Rev. Charles Owens
The Rev. Chris Royer
The Rev. Greg Kronz
The Rev. Tom Hendrickson
The Rev. Kathie Phillips
THE CHURCHES
The Parish Church of St. Helena (Episcopal) Beaufort, SC
The Church of the Cross Bluffton, SC
St. Luke's Episcopal Church Hilton Head, SC
Whatever happens on Thursday the diocese will be locked forever in an ecclesiastical battle with the leadership of The Episcopal Church that will not go away if it stays. The bishop and the diocese may well vote to change the diocesan constitution, as the Diocese of Albany has done, to make sure that no one following him would be anything but orthodox. If Lawrence and his diocese remain in TEC and all monies are withheld from the national church, it still leaves him vulnerable until such time as the Archbishop of Canterbury offers a way forward for orthodox dioceses like South Carolina, Central Florida, Western Louisiana, Western Kansas, Albany et al to allow for a graceful exit with their properties. That is not going to happen any time soon, if ever.
END
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 10, 2009
Is the Bishop of South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence planning to take his diocese out of The Episcopal Church? Word has it that Lawrence has been in "substantive talks" with Archbishop Robert Duncan of The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). But Lawrence has commented (in the past) that he is concerned about whether ACNA has a sufficient "catholic ecclesiology" -- by which he means that he is not sure it is sufficiently united. It looks to him more like a loose federation than "one body".
It is not, apparently, the direction he is expected to take the diocese. Sources tell VOL that when Lawrence meets with the clergy of his Diocese on Thursday, he will propose that his diocese push to be on the first level of the "two level, two tier" approach advocated by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Anglican Communion. He will also advocate closer ties with the Anglican Communion Institute's (ACI) approach of staying in TEC as the denomination's loyal opposition.
However, as an orthodox TEC bishop told VOL, the unity proposed by ACI theologians on the basis of mutual affection and diversity, but not doctrine, is not good news.
Lawrence may well propose that the Diocese of South Carolina be an orthodox diocese on the first level of the Anglican Communion - Rowan Williams' two levels idea, but not the second level, said the source.
His diocese is divided on the issue of staying or leaving TEC. Some on the Standing Committee want him to leave TEC, which he cannot do because of the enormous litigation that would tear up the diocese along with its parishes, a number of which would like to see the diocese leave TEC.
Lawrence has been decidedly outspoken about The Episcopal Church under the leadership of Katharine Jefferts Schori. Prior to attending GC2009, he said that the time had passed for engaging in political maneuvering to try to defeat the revisionist agenda, and that he did not intend to waste his energy doing so in Anaheim.
He was accurate in his appraisal as to what transpired. Two resolutions were passed allowing for the possibility of consecrating more LGBT bishops thus effectively setting aside the B033 moratoria, and laying the groundwork for the formal adoption of same-sex marriage rites.
In an interview with AnglicanTV, Lawrence stated, "It seems to me that on the far side of General Convention 2009, the Diocese of South Carolina must find a place to stand and a place to thrive that is relational and structural, and we shall find that place to stand and that place to thrive. We will find a way forward in the midst of all of this and God will strengthen us for the challenges at hand. I am almost eager for the opportunity that lies ahead of us."
Following GC2009 Lawrence wrote a letter to the clergy of the Diocese - http://tinyurl.com/mjld99 - with this analysis:
"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."
The Bishop concluded his letter by 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."
A number of clergy recently put out a statement of their own under the title, "Where We Stand".
"Recent events in the American Episcopal Church have sparked strong reactions from people in nearly every Christian denomination. Even here in the Beaufort, Bluffton, and Hilton Head communities, many people have weighed in with comments both pro and con.
"Given the Episcopal Church's unique place in American history, and the fact that many of its recent decisions (particularly those regarding human sexuality) call into question long-standing Christian beliefs, none of this is particularly surprising. Issues of such substance naturally transcend denominational boundaries.
"Therefore, it is important for the members of these communities to know that we, the leadership of The Parish Church of St. Helena, The Church of the Cross, and St. Luke's Episcopal Church, disassociate ourselves from the actions of the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church held in July 2009. During its deliberations, that body denied the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testaments), overturned the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, and refused to abstain from the ordination of persons whose manner of life violates Christian tenets in practice for almost 2,000 years. These are actions we cannot condone.
"Instead, we will continue to stand where the vast majority of the world's 77 million Anglicans stand and where the Anglican Church has always stood. We will continue to be faithful to the Scriptures and to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has ever been sufficient to heal the sick, restore sight to the blind, and raise those dead in their trespasses and sins to the new life of grace-a Gospel that we remain convinced still has the power to do these things today.
"As always, the doors of these parish churches are open to everyone. We all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. The church is not a place for those who have managed to "get their act together;" it is a hospital for sinners, of whom we are chief."
Below are signatories to this statement:
THE VESTRIES
Cindy Collins
John Gray Jane Hincher
Maude Hornsby
Jane Manos
Ann McDuff
Steve Melvin
Gail Mullen
Bob Mullen Melba Outlaw
Peter Payne
Jan Pringle
Sharon Sanders
Charley Webb
Bill Thompson
Stew Brown
Ray Cook
Burt Harding
Natalie Mann
Ken Miller
Al Stahl
Linda Wakefield
Lisa Arraj
Mike Blackshire
John Brackett
Will Bridgers
Tom Conner
Marilyn Eitel
Judy Kirby
Brenda Lieberman
Connie Rathman
Mark Vanagel
David Warren
John Wigington
Gail Znachko
THE CLERGY
The Rev. Jeffrey Miller
The Rev. Mark Avera
The Rev. Andrew Pearson
The Rev. Chad Lawrence
The Rt. Rev. Alden Hathaway
The Rev. Charles Owens
The Rev. Chris Royer
The Rev. Greg Kronz
The Rev. Tom Hendrickson
The Rev. Kathie Phillips
THE CHURCHES
The Parish Church of St. Helena (Episcopal) Beaufort, SC
The Church of the Cross Bluffton, SC
St. Luke's Episcopal Church Hilton Head, SC
Whatever happens on Thursday the diocese will be locked forever in an ecclesiastical battle with the leadership of The Episcopal Church that will not go away if it stays. The bishop and the diocese may well vote to change the diocesan constitution, as the Diocese of Albany has done, to make sure that no one following him would be anything but orthodox. If Lawrence and his diocese remain in TEC and all monies are withheld from the national church, it still leaves him vulnerable until such time as the Archbishop of Canterbury offers a way forward for orthodox dioceses like South Carolina, Central Florida, Western Louisiana, Western Kansas, Albany et al to allow for a graceful exit with their properties. That is not going to happen any time soon, if ever.
END
Monday, August 10, 2009
Anti-intellectualism in pecusa
From The American Conservative via Covenant Communion:
The End of The Episcopal Church? Not Likely
Posted on August 5th, 2009
by Austin Bramwell
The past three weeks have been some of the most momentous in the history of the Anglicanism — by some reckonings, let us not forget, the second largest Christian denomination in the world.
To recap: The Anglican Communion — the global network of national churches symbolically headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury — has been splitting apart ever since The Episcopal Church (historically, the Anglican province in the United States) approved the consecration of a non-celibate gay bishop in 2003. In response, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the various Anglican Provinces called for an “Anglican Covenant” that would clarify the Provinces’ duties to one another. In the meantime, they asked TEC to refrain from blessing same-sex unions or consecrating bishops living in sexual relationships outside of marriage. Whether Anglicanism would survive as a global church hinged on whether TEC would honor these moratoria.
As of three weeks ago, we know the answer: No. TEC’s bishops voted overwhelmingly to approve resolutions (i) stating that individuals in same-sex unions may be called to “any ordained ministry” and (ii) calling for the development of liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions. Despite subsequent tergiversations from TEC, these resolutions constituted a frank repudiation of the Anglican Communion’s call for moratoria.
Two weeks later, the Archbishop of Canterbury issued a long statement announcing that efforts to hold Anglicans together had failed. The Archbishop now envisions a “two-tiered” Anglican church. One tier would be fully Anglican in the sense that member Provinces would be in full communion with one another and abide by the Anglican Covenant. The other tier would be in some as-yet-undefined sense less than fully Anglican – Anglican-identified, perhaps. TEC would clearly fall into the second tier.
Theologically, the outcome is sad but also encouraging. A more coherent Anglican church has emerged out of the crisis. Just a few years ago, even the most optimistic of those who conceive of Anglicanism as a third branch of the one Catholic church (the others being the Roman Catholic church and Eastern Orthodoxy) could not have imagined that the Anglican Provinces would move to strengthen their “instruments of communion” and bind themselves to a common Anglican Covenant. Anglicans have long had to experience their Catholic identity vicariously — that is, by preserving tenuous resemblances to the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches, whose claim to be Catholic is not in doubt. Now that vicarious experience is becoming more meaningful. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself argues that Covenant Provinces must, before making decisions, consult not only with each other but also with “ecumenical partners” (i.e., the Roman and other churches). The Vatican, meanwhile, has welcomed the emergence of a more unified Anglicanism. The Anglican Communion may yet become the “third branch” of the Catholic church that the Oxford Movement championed.
As for American Episcopalians, they can only experience their break with the Anglican Communion as exhilarating. For years, TEC prided itself, somewhat pretentiously, on its “Anglican comprehensiveness” – that is to say, its ability to tolerate a variety of approaches and doctrines within the same church. That tradition has now been superseded in favor of a new, dominant tradition of New Prophecy. Like some modern Pentecostals, TEC believes that God introduces new revelations into the world – for example, through congenital sexual appetites — that can supplant scripture, tradition and even reason. New Prophecy has quietly established itself as the official orthodoxy of TEC, most of whose dioceses have been waging a slow war of attrition against orthodox priests and parishes. Many, perhaps the majority of Episcopalians believe it would be positively sinful to remain affiliated with a global church that rejects New Prophecy. That TEC has taken such a courageous stand against the Anglican Communion fills them with joy.
TEC’s position is not at all dire. Despite its anti-intellectualism and declining membership, TEC will always be the public face of “Anglicanism” in the United States. Just look around Manhattan: Trinity Church in lower Manhattan sits reproachfully atop Wall Street like a patient hostess amidst unruly guests; the Church of the Heavenly Rest on Fifth Avenue crowns Carnegie Hill with two massive piers standing like the very pillars of best society. TEC is the church of Groton School in Massachusetts and St. Paul’s School in New Hampshire – to this day, potent reminders that the former Protestant Establishment never exactly disappeared. TEC visibly admonishes onlookers: We were here first. Even TEC’s New Prophecy is pitched almost exclusively to upper class whites.
Episcopalianism is now inconsistent with Anglicanism. Remarkably, Anglicanism is just another example of the immigrant experience in America – that is, the experience of standing on the outside looking in. TEC will always be there for those who feel that they truly belong. Whether it had any valid theological claims was always beside the point.
The End of The Episcopal Church? Not Likely
Posted on August 5th, 2009
by Austin Bramwell
The past three weeks have been some of the most momentous in the history of the Anglicanism — by some reckonings, let us not forget, the second largest Christian denomination in the world.
To recap: The Anglican Communion — the global network of national churches symbolically headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury — has been splitting apart ever since The Episcopal Church (historically, the Anglican province in the United States) approved the consecration of a non-celibate gay bishop in 2003. In response, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the various Anglican Provinces called for an “Anglican Covenant” that would clarify the Provinces’ duties to one another. In the meantime, they asked TEC to refrain from blessing same-sex unions or consecrating bishops living in sexual relationships outside of marriage. Whether Anglicanism would survive as a global church hinged on whether TEC would honor these moratoria.
As of three weeks ago, we know the answer: No. TEC’s bishops voted overwhelmingly to approve resolutions (i) stating that individuals in same-sex unions may be called to “any ordained ministry” and (ii) calling for the development of liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions. Despite subsequent tergiversations from TEC, these resolutions constituted a frank repudiation of the Anglican Communion’s call for moratoria.
Two weeks later, the Archbishop of Canterbury issued a long statement announcing that efforts to hold Anglicans together had failed. The Archbishop now envisions a “two-tiered” Anglican church. One tier would be fully Anglican in the sense that member Provinces would be in full communion with one another and abide by the Anglican Covenant. The other tier would be in some as-yet-undefined sense less than fully Anglican – Anglican-identified, perhaps. TEC would clearly fall into the second tier.
Theologically, the outcome is sad but also encouraging. A more coherent Anglican church has emerged out of the crisis. Just a few years ago, even the most optimistic of those who conceive of Anglicanism as a third branch of the one Catholic church (the others being the Roman Catholic church and Eastern Orthodoxy) could not have imagined that the Anglican Provinces would move to strengthen their “instruments of communion” and bind themselves to a common Anglican Covenant. Anglicans have long had to experience their Catholic identity vicariously — that is, by preserving tenuous resemblances to the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches, whose claim to be Catholic is not in doubt. Now that vicarious experience is becoming more meaningful. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself argues that Covenant Provinces must, before making decisions, consult not only with each other but also with “ecumenical partners” (i.e., the Roman and other churches). The Vatican, meanwhile, has welcomed the emergence of a more unified Anglicanism. The Anglican Communion may yet become the “third branch” of the Catholic church that the Oxford Movement championed.
As for American Episcopalians, they can only experience their break with the Anglican Communion as exhilarating. For years, TEC prided itself, somewhat pretentiously, on its “Anglican comprehensiveness” – that is to say, its ability to tolerate a variety of approaches and doctrines within the same church. That tradition has now been superseded in favor of a new, dominant tradition of New Prophecy. Like some modern Pentecostals, TEC believes that God introduces new revelations into the world – for example, through congenital sexual appetites — that can supplant scripture, tradition and even reason. New Prophecy has quietly established itself as the official orthodoxy of TEC, most of whose dioceses have been waging a slow war of attrition against orthodox priests and parishes. Many, perhaps the majority of Episcopalians believe it would be positively sinful to remain affiliated with a global church that rejects New Prophecy. That TEC has taken such a courageous stand against the Anglican Communion fills them with joy.
TEC’s position is not at all dire. Despite its anti-intellectualism and declining membership, TEC will always be the public face of “Anglicanism” in the United States. Just look around Manhattan: Trinity Church in lower Manhattan sits reproachfully atop Wall Street like a patient hostess amidst unruly guests; the Church of the Heavenly Rest on Fifth Avenue crowns Carnegie Hill with two massive piers standing like the very pillars of best society. TEC is the church of Groton School in Massachusetts and St. Paul’s School in New Hampshire – to this day, potent reminders that the former Protestant Establishment never exactly disappeared. TEC visibly admonishes onlookers: We were here first. Even TEC’s New Prophecy is pitched almost exclusively to upper class whites.
Episcopalianism is now inconsistent with Anglicanism. Remarkably, Anglicanism is just another example of the immigrant experience in America – that is, the experience of standing on the outside looking in. TEC will always be there for those who feel that they truly belong. Whether it had any valid theological claims was always beside the point.
Presiding Bishop Defies General Convention
From the Anglican Curmudgeon via TitusOneNine:
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
As General Convention 2009 called upon the leaders of the Episcopal Church (USA) to write the Queen of England and demand that she repudiate the centuries-old Doctrine of Discovery on which the British Empire was founded, the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, took a defiant stand to the contrary. Muddying the waters considerably, she proclaimed last week a new Doctrine of Discovery to which she announced ECUSA would adhere for the remainder of her term.
As originally announced by Popes Nicholas V, Martin V, Alexander VI and Leo X, and then applied under Spanish and British monarchs ranging from Henry VII to George III, the Doctrine of Discovery claimed for the Crown any land in the New World on which the (Spanish or) British flag was planted. English explorers such as John and Sebastian Cabot, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Drake and George Vancouver used the Doctrine as a means of extending British rule to North America on both the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. Colonies of English settlers did the rest, so that by 1780, Britain claimed the whole of the Atlantic seaboard for its own (although it was by then in a war with its Colonies), plus portions of the Pacific Coast from Vancouver Island on south, and the Sandwich Islands to boot.
The effect of the Doctrine of Discovery was to preclude any colonization by competing countries within the British territories. France, for example, was compelled to establish its territories by sailing up the St. Lawrence Seaway to found Quebec, and by sailing up the Mississippi to claim the Louisiana Territory.
General Convention 2009, in adopting Resolution D035, proclaimed the doctrine outmoded in this day and age, even though there has been no example of its application in recent times. The Resolution calls for the governing bodies of ECUSA to write a letter to the Queen of England, Elizabeth II:
Resolved, that The Episcopal Church . . . directs the appropriate representatives of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies . . . to write to Queen Elizabeth II, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, requesting that her Majesty disavow, and repudiate publicly, the claimed validity of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery . . .
It is, as already noted, unclear how or why the Queen should repudiate a doctrine which she herself has not personally espoused. Moreover, the Presiding Bishop has recently declared a new Episcopalian form of the Doctrine in a letter to the House of Bishops not yet published on the official ENS site, but released elsewhere. In her letter, she declares it her policy not to allow any Episcopalian Diocese or bishop to sell any of their parish property without a clause that would exclude the setting foot on it by any bishop or other clergy of another church in competition with ECUSA for a period of at least five years from the date of sale:
I will continue to uphold two basic principles in the work some of us face in dealing with former Episcopalians who claim rights to church property or assets. Our participation in God’s mission as leaders and stewards of The Episcopal Church means that we expect a reasonable and fair financial arrangement in any property settlement, and that we do not make settlements that encourage religious bodies who seek to replace The Episcopal Church.
Pragmatically, the latter means property settlements need to include a clause that forbids, for a period of at least five years, the presence of bishops on the property who are not members of this House, unless they are invited by the diocesan bishop for purposes which do not subvert mission and ministry in the name of this Church.
It is worthy to note how the Presiding Bishop simply assumes, without any discussion, that she has the authority to impose these requirements on the bishops responsible for the lawsuits brought by the various pseudo-dioceses (emphasis added):
I understand that other bishops, such as Anglican bishops in good standing (but not any who is involved in provincial border crossing) might be welcomed to preach, preside, confirm, or even ordain, but that diocesan permission cannot encourage anything that purports to set up or participate in another jurisdiction.
The lesson here is clear: if a group is one of the remnants left behind when its diocese voted to withdraw from the voluntary association which is the Episcopal Church (USA), that group, and the bishop it purported to elect, have no true authority over anything they might want to do, such as settle litigation with their opponents along Christian lines. Because the Presiding Bishop is causing the national church to pay their bills, whether directly or indirectly, it appears that (in her view) they have ceded all authority to her, and cannot do anything she does not want them to do. Without formally admitting them as full-fledged Dioceses, General Convention welcomed these new entities to their life in the new ECUSA, a life in which they of necessity allow the Presiding Bishop to use them as she deems will best support her claims of metropolitan authority over the entire Church.
The letter which Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori wrote to the House of Bishops has created considerable confusion among Church and colonial historians, to say nothing of canon law experts. To some, for example, it is unclear whether the Presiding Bishop is claiming to act as Supreme Governor of ECUSA, in the way that Queen Elizabeth II, whom she will ask to renounce the corresponding doctrine in Britain, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Some point out that ECUSA has no metropolitan, or Supreme Governor --- at least, in its Constitution as written. "But in recent years, and especially under Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, we are seeing promulgation of a second, unwritten Constitution," said Professor Oliver Cromwell of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Under that Constitution, the Presiding Bishop can be whoever she says she is. And for her request to the Queen to have equal dignity, thus making it worthy of the Queen's consideration, she would have to be a Supreme Governor of a Church in her own right."
Professor Cromwell spoke at a press conference called by the Office of the Presiding Bishop to address a number of inquiries it said had been received about the Presiding Bishop's recent letter to the House of Bishops. He assured reporters that the appropriate title which the Presiding Bishop would choose to use in addressing the Queen was still under careful consideration by the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice, which thus far has backed her every move to assume more power in the Church.
A reporter then asked Professor Cromwell: "But doesn't the new Episcopal Doctrine of Discovery, by which an Episcopal Church, once founded, is claimed for ECUSA for all time, undercut the Presiding Bishop's demand that the Queen renounce England's counterpart doctrine?" "Not in the least," Cromwell responded. "As the Presiding Bishop has stated it, the Episcopal Doctrine of Discovery applies only on soil that has been hallowed to the Episcopal Church. The British Doctrine, on the other hand, applied to any soil where any British citizen happened to plant the flag. In other words, we went through appropriate ceremonies, and called on God's blessing on this particular property for its intended use by ECUSA. All the British explorers did was stick a flag in the ground. And besides, the Episcopal Doctrine does not, as you stated, apply 'for all time.' God does not determine what the Episcopal Church (USA) shall do from time to time; only the Presiding Bishop does. The Doctrine, as she stated it, clearly applies only until ECUSA, or I mean, until the Presiding Bishop, decides a Diocese may sell it --- plus five years beyond that."
Professor Cromwell deferred to the Presiding Bishop's Special Legal Assistant for Real Property Matters, Mr. Henny Crumbsworth Phitingfor, Esq., to answer the question of whether the Presiding Bishop's Doctrine of Discovery violated laws prohibiting restraints on alienation. "As traditionally understood, no, we do not believe it does," he explained. "The usual form of unconstitutional restrictive covenant tried to prohibit whites, for example, from selling their property to African-Americans, or to Asians. Here we place no restriction whatsoever on who may buy the property. It's only on whom they allow to come onto the property."
"Does that mean that a Diocese could not sell its property to the Roman Catholic Church?" a reporter asked. "We do not see the Roman Catholic Church as competing in any way with us," Mr. Phitingfor answered. "They are on a different track, and do not attract the same kind of worshippers as we do."
"But isn't that still a violation of the Church's canons, especially when the clergy or bishop in question is from a province with whom ECUSA is in communion?" he was next asked. "Why, to what Canon are you referring?" he responded. The reporter (who is also an Episcopal priest) quoted Canon III.9.6, and read:
"No Priest shall preach, minister the Sacraments, or hold any public service, within the limits of any Diocese . . . without a license from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the Priest desires so to officiate. No Priest shall be denied such license on account of the Priest's race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age . . ."
"Ah, well, there you have it," replied Mr. Phitingfor. "You have answered your own question. You see, when we insist that no member of a competing Church, even one with which we are in communion, may set foot on one of our properties for at least five years after we sell it, we are not discriminating against that person on any of the bases listed in that Canon. We are discriminating against him on account of his religion, don't you see, because we see his religion as in competition with our religion. And there's nothing wrong with a Church discriminating on the basis of religion --- churches do that all the time."
"But not after you have sold the property," the reporter persisted. "If you have sold the property and still try to restrict the kind of people who may use it, aren't you engaging in discrimination that is forbidden by the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment -- which prohibit discriminating against anyone on the basis of their religion?"
"To be honest, we hadn't thought about that," Phitingfor replied. "We'll look into it, and if we find there's anything to it --- though frankly I don't see right now how that could be the case --- we'll put out a statement. But don't call us; we'll call you."
And with that exchange, the press conference was declared at an end.
Posted by A. S. Haley at 12:05 PM
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
As General Convention 2009 called upon the leaders of the Episcopal Church (USA) to write the Queen of England and demand that she repudiate the centuries-old Doctrine of Discovery on which the British Empire was founded, the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, took a defiant stand to the contrary. Muddying the waters considerably, she proclaimed last week a new Doctrine of Discovery to which she announced ECUSA would adhere for the remainder of her term.
As originally announced by Popes Nicholas V, Martin V, Alexander VI and Leo X, and then applied under Spanish and British monarchs ranging from Henry VII to George III, the Doctrine of Discovery claimed for the Crown any land in the New World on which the (Spanish or) British flag was planted. English explorers such as John and Sebastian Cabot, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Drake and George Vancouver used the Doctrine as a means of extending British rule to North America on both the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. Colonies of English settlers did the rest, so that by 1780, Britain claimed the whole of the Atlantic seaboard for its own (although it was by then in a war with its Colonies), plus portions of the Pacific Coast from Vancouver Island on south, and the Sandwich Islands to boot.
The effect of the Doctrine of Discovery was to preclude any colonization by competing countries within the British territories. France, for example, was compelled to establish its territories by sailing up the St. Lawrence Seaway to found Quebec, and by sailing up the Mississippi to claim the Louisiana Territory.
General Convention 2009, in adopting Resolution D035, proclaimed the doctrine outmoded in this day and age, even though there has been no example of its application in recent times. The Resolution calls for the governing bodies of ECUSA to write a letter to the Queen of England, Elizabeth II:
Resolved, that The Episcopal Church . . . directs the appropriate representatives of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies . . . to write to Queen Elizabeth II, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, requesting that her Majesty disavow, and repudiate publicly, the claimed validity of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery . . .
It is, as already noted, unclear how or why the Queen should repudiate a doctrine which she herself has not personally espoused. Moreover, the Presiding Bishop has recently declared a new Episcopalian form of the Doctrine in a letter to the House of Bishops not yet published on the official ENS site, but released elsewhere. In her letter, she declares it her policy not to allow any Episcopalian Diocese or bishop to sell any of their parish property without a clause that would exclude the setting foot on it by any bishop or other clergy of another church in competition with ECUSA for a period of at least five years from the date of sale:
I will continue to uphold two basic principles in the work some of us face in dealing with former Episcopalians who claim rights to church property or assets. Our participation in God’s mission as leaders and stewards of The Episcopal Church means that we expect a reasonable and fair financial arrangement in any property settlement, and that we do not make settlements that encourage religious bodies who seek to replace The Episcopal Church.
Pragmatically, the latter means property settlements need to include a clause that forbids, for a period of at least five years, the presence of bishops on the property who are not members of this House, unless they are invited by the diocesan bishop for purposes which do not subvert mission and ministry in the name of this Church.
It is worthy to note how the Presiding Bishop simply assumes, without any discussion, that she has the authority to impose these requirements on the bishops responsible for the lawsuits brought by the various pseudo-dioceses (emphasis added):
I understand that other bishops, such as Anglican bishops in good standing (but not any who is involved in provincial border crossing) might be welcomed to preach, preside, confirm, or even ordain, but that diocesan permission cannot encourage anything that purports to set up or participate in another jurisdiction.
The lesson here is clear: if a group is one of the remnants left behind when its diocese voted to withdraw from the voluntary association which is the Episcopal Church (USA), that group, and the bishop it purported to elect, have no true authority over anything they might want to do, such as settle litigation with their opponents along Christian lines. Because the Presiding Bishop is causing the national church to pay their bills, whether directly or indirectly, it appears that (in her view) they have ceded all authority to her, and cannot do anything she does not want them to do. Without formally admitting them as full-fledged Dioceses, General Convention welcomed these new entities to their life in the new ECUSA, a life in which they of necessity allow the Presiding Bishop to use them as she deems will best support her claims of metropolitan authority over the entire Church.
The letter which Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori wrote to the House of Bishops has created considerable confusion among Church and colonial historians, to say nothing of canon law experts. To some, for example, it is unclear whether the Presiding Bishop is claiming to act as Supreme Governor of ECUSA, in the way that Queen Elizabeth II, whom she will ask to renounce the corresponding doctrine in Britain, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Some point out that ECUSA has no metropolitan, or Supreme Governor --- at least, in its Constitution as written. "But in recent years, and especially under Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, we are seeing promulgation of a second, unwritten Constitution," said Professor Oliver Cromwell of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Under that Constitution, the Presiding Bishop can be whoever she says she is. And for her request to the Queen to have equal dignity, thus making it worthy of the Queen's consideration, she would have to be a Supreme Governor of a Church in her own right."
Professor Cromwell spoke at a press conference called by the Office of the Presiding Bishop to address a number of inquiries it said had been received about the Presiding Bishop's recent letter to the House of Bishops. He assured reporters that the appropriate title which the Presiding Bishop would choose to use in addressing the Queen was still under careful consideration by the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice, which thus far has backed her every move to assume more power in the Church.
A reporter then asked Professor Cromwell: "But doesn't the new Episcopal Doctrine of Discovery, by which an Episcopal Church, once founded, is claimed for ECUSA for all time, undercut the Presiding Bishop's demand that the Queen renounce England's counterpart doctrine?" "Not in the least," Cromwell responded. "As the Presiding Bishop has stated it, the Episcopal Doctrine of Discovery applies only on soil that has been hallowed to the Episcopal Church. The British Doctrine, on the other hand, applied to any soil where any British citizen happened to plant the flag. In other words, we went through appropriate ceremonies, and called on God's blessing on this particular property for its intended use by ECUSA. All the British explorers did was stick a flag in the ground. And besides, the Episcopal Doctrine does not, as you stated, apply 'for all time.' God does not determine what the Episcopal Church (USA) shall do from time to time; only the Presiding Bishop does. The Doctrine, as she stated it, clearly applies only until ECUSA, or I mean, until the Presiding Bishop, decides a Diocese may sell it --- plus five years beyond that."
Professor Cromwell deferred to the Presiding Bishop's Special Legal Assistant for Real Property Matters, Mr. Henny Crumbsworth Phitingfor, Esq., to answer the question of whether the Presiding Bishop's Doctrine of Discovery violated laws prohibiting restraints on alienation. "As traditionally understood, no, we do not believe it does," he explained. "The usual form of unconstitutional restrictive covenant tried to prohibit whites, for example, from selling their property to African-Americans, or to Asians. Here we place no restriction whatsoever on who may buy the property. It's only on whom they allow to come onto the property."
"Does that mean that a Diocese could not sell its property to the Roman Catholic Church?" a reporter asked. "We do not see the Roman Catholic Church as competing in any way with us," Mr. Phitingfor answered. "They are on a different track, and do not attract the same kind of worshippers as we do."
"But isn't that still a violation of the Church's canons, especially when the clergy or bishop in question is from a province with whom ECUSA is in communion?" he was next asked. "Why, to what Canon are you referring?" he responded. The reporter (who is also an Episcopal priest) quoted Canon III.9.6, and read:
"No Priest shall preach, minister the Sacraments, or hold any public service, within the limits of any Diocese . . . without a license from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the Priest desires so to officiate. No Priest shall be denied such license on account of the Priest's race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age . . ."
"Ah, well, there you have it," replied Mr. Phitingfor. "You have answered your own question. You see, when we insist that no member of a competing Church, even one with which we are in communion, may set foot on one of our properties for at least five years after we sell it, we are not discriminating against that person on any of the bases listed in that Canon. We are discriminating against him on account of his religion, don't you see, because we see his religion as in competition with our religion. And there's nothing wrong with a Church discriminating on the basis of religion --- churches do that all the time."
"But not after you have sold the property," the reporter persisted. "If you have sold the property and still try to restrict the kind of people who may use it, aren't you engaging in discrimination that is forbidden by the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment -- which prohibit discriminating against anyone on the basis of their religion?"
"To be honest, we hadn't thought about that," Phitingfor replied. "We'll look into it, and if we find there's anything to it --- though frankly I don't see right now how that could be the case --- we'll put out a statement. But don't call us; we'll call you."
And with that exchange, the press conference was declared at an end.
Posted by A. S. Haley at 12:05 PM
Pittsburgh Exhibits Afford Window into ECUSA Tactics
From the Anglican Curmudgeon via TitusOneNine:
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The post-hearing briefing called for by Judge James in the Pittsburgh litigation is now complete, with opening briefs filed by ECUSA and the remnant group claiming to be the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh", a response by the actual Diocese of Pittsburgh, and a joint reply brief. For the most part, the parties repeat (albeit in greater detail) arguments I have already addressed in posts. (Note to those in Pittsburgh: while I make my bias plain, it is not arbitrary. I base it on what I believe are the historical facts about the nature of (P)ECUSA when it was founded, and on long-established principles of law about voluntary associations. Thus I absolutely refuse to refer to the remnant groups as "dioceses" unless and until they each go through the proper steps to be readmitted as such. To engage in such terminology is to further ECUSA's strategy of Orwellian doublespeak, whereby the outcome it desires is simply brought about by speaking as though it were already a fact.)
The latest filings, however, have been accompanied by a set of findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by ECUSA and its pseudo-diocese, accompanied by some 58 exhibits which they introduced at the hearing held before Judge James on May 27. Some of the exhibits provide a unique window into ECUSA's current operations, and in this post I would like to call your attention to one of them. (The files themselves are humongous .pdf downloads of between 300 and nearly 450 pages, so be cautious when clicking on the following links: Vols. 1-2 [which are preceded by the proposed findings] may be downloaded here [309 pages]; Vols. 3-4 [which are simply copies of ECUSA's 2006 Constitution and Canons, and of the governing documents of the Diocese of Pittsburgh before it voted to leave ECUSA] may be downloaded here [389 pages]; and Vols. 5-7 [transcripts of various hearings] may be downloaded here [431 pages]. A set of Exhibits introduced by the defendant Diocese of Pittsburgh may be downloaded here [only ten pages].)
Before I do, however, I would add that the parties have now provided the fullest possible documentation of how the much-disputed Stipulation which supposedly ended the original Pittsburgh lawsuit came into being. Recall that the principal dispute now before the Court is the proper meaning and interpretation of these words in its first paragraph:
Property, whether real or personal . . . held by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (hereinafter "Diocese") for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held and administered by the Diocese regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. . . .
The plaintiffs and ECUSA want the Court to read this language prescriptively, to mean that the Diocese of Pittsburgh in October 2005 forever bound itself to remain in ECUSA ("the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America") if it wanted to continue to hold title to its diocesan property. The defendant Diocese argues that the language is merely descriptive, and refers to it as it was at the time of the stipulation: a member Diocese of ECUSA. In that sense, they say, there is nothing in the language which would imply a promise to remain in ECUSA, and that since it is still the same legal entity in the eyes of the law after it withdrew as it was before it voted to leave, and continues to hold all of its property as before, it is in full compliance with the terms of the Stipulation.
From the Exhibits included in Vols. 1-2 above, what emerges is that as it was originally conceived and proposed by Mr. DeForest, the attorney for the original Calvary Church plaintiffs, the language was much clearer in favor of the position which plaintiffs now take. Thus, Mr. Otto (the defendant's then counsel) wrote to Mr. DeForest on January 5, 2005 and proposed an initial paragraph 1 which did not even touch upon the issue of diocesan property, but only on the subject of parish property (Pl. Ex. 2):
In the event a Parish Church wishes to leave, or disaffiliate with ECUSA, a mutual agreement among the Parish Church, the Diocese and ECUSA shall be required with respect to the disposition of all property held by or for the use of the Parish Church; absent any mutual agreement, the Parish Church may appeal or apply to the civil courts for resolution of the issue.
It was Mr. DeForest who sent back to Mr. Otto a revised first paragraph which specified clearly that all property of the Diocese was to remain in ECUSA, regardless of what the individual parishes chose to do (Pl. Ex. 3, January 11, 2005; emphasis added):
Property, whether real or personal (hereinafter "Property"), held by or for use of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (the "Diocese") shall remain in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America ("ECUSA") regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in ECUSA.
Had Mr. DeForest retained throughout the subsequent negotiations the language I have put in bold above, there would be no argument today over the meaning of the Stipulation. But as events turned out, negotiations stalled over Mr. DeForest's language, which he continued to insist on for the next several months. Finally, In July 2005, Mr. Otto sent Mr. DeForest a revised paragraph 1, which read as follows (Pl. Ex. 7):
Property, whether real or personal (hereinafter "Property"), held or administered by the Diocese of Pittsburgh (hereinafter "Diocese") for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held or administered by the Diocese regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in ECUSA.
And as you can see from the final October 2005 version quoted above, this essentially was the language settled upon, with only Mr. DeForest's descriptive term "of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America" added in after the word "Pittsburgh". I may be able to devote a fuller post to this later, but from the foregoing you can see why I think Mr. DeForest and his clients have the laboring oar to convince the court that this language:
Property, whether real or personal . . . held by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (hereinafter "Diocese") for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held and administered by the Diocese . . .
is the functional equivalent of this:
Property, whether real or personal (hereinafter "Property"), held by or for use of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (the "Diocese") shall remain in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America ("ECUSA") . . .
Now, on to the other exhibits, which might have gone unnoticed in the many hundreds of pages filed with the Court. First, there is a very telling example of the way that ECUSA's leadership carefully choreographs the outcomes that it wants, regardless of what the other bishops or deputies to General Convention might decide. A little background chronology will set the stage:
September 12, 2008: The Presiding Bishop telegraphs her intention to bring a resolution before the House of Bishops at its September meeting to effect the deposition of the Rt. Rev. Robert A. Duncan, diocesan Bishop of Pittsburgh, in advance of the Diocese's planned October annual convention, at which it will vote on a measure to remove itself from ECUSA.
September 18, 2008: The House of Bishops votes to "depose" Bishop Duncan, in the process violating Canon IV.9 three times.
October 4, 2008: Without Bishop Duncan to lead it, the Diocese of Pittsburgh votes (116 to 69 in the lay order; 121 to 33 in the clergy) to amend its Constitution and Canons so as to withdraw from ECUSA.
October 4, 2008: The Rev. Dr. James B. Simons of Pittsburgh announces that he disagrees with the vote, and that as a member of the Diocese's Standing Committee, he will organize the dissenters as a continuing "diocese".
All right, that sets the stage for the following chronology, which is derived solely from Exhibits included in the first link (Vols. 1-2) given earlier. The first, from the documents which make up Pl. Ex. 34, is as follows:
October 6, 2008: On the Monday following the Convention, the Rev. Dr. Simons sends letters to each of the other members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, in which he states:
I am sure you are aware that I did not support Saturday's actions of the Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church in amending the diocesan Constitution to remove the "accession" clause and in accepting the invitation of the Archbishop of the Southern Cone to "join" that Province. On the other hand, it is my understanding that you did support those measures. If I am wrong in that understanding and you are in a position to demonstrate to me that you opposed and publicly repudiated those actions, I would appreciate you letting me know promptly. I shall assume that I am correct if you do not communicate to me a contradiction of my understanding by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 8th.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The post-hearing briefing called for by Judge James in the Pittsburgh litigation is now complete, with opening briefs filed by ECUSA and the remnant group claiming to be the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh", a response by the actual Diocese of Pittsburgh, and a joint reply brief. For the most part, the parties repeat (albeit in greater detail) arguments I have already addressed in posts. (Note to those in Pittsburgh: while I make my bias plain, it is not arbitrary. I base it on what I believe are the historical facts about the nature of (P)ECUSA when it was founded, and on long-established principles of law about voluntary associations. Thus I absolutely refuse to refer to the remnant groups as "dioceses" unless and until they each go through the proper steps to be readmitted as such. To engage in such terminology is to further ECUSA's strategy of Orwellian doublespeak, whereby the outcome it desires is simply brought about by speaking as though it were already a fact.)
The latest filings, however, have been accompanied by a set of findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by ECUSA and its pseudo-diocese, accompanied by some 58 exhibits which they introduced at the hearing held before Judge James on May 27. Some of the exhibits provide a unique window into ECUSA's current operations, and in this post I would like to call your attention to one of them. (The files themselves are humongous .pdf downloads of between 300 and nearly 450 pages, so be cautious when clicking on the following links: Vols. 1-2 [which are preceded by the proposed findings] may be downloaded here [309 pages]; Vols. 3-4 [which are simply copies of ECUSA's 2006 Constitution and Canons, and of the governing documents of the Diocese of Pittsburgh before it voted to leave ECUSA] may be downloaded here [389 pages]; and Vols. 5-7 [transcripts of various hearings] may be downloaded here [431 pages]. A set of Exhibits introduced by the defendant Diocese of Pittsburgh may be downloaded here [only ten pages].)
Before I do, however, I would add that the parties have now provided the fullest possible documentation of how the much-disputed Stipulation which supposedly ended the original Pittsburgh lawsuit came into being. Recall that the principal dispute now before the Court is the proper meaning and interpretation of these words in its first paragraph:
Property, whether real or personal . . . held by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (hereinafter "Diocese") for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held and administered by the Diocese regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. . . .
The plaintiffs and ECUSA want the Court to read this language prescriptively, to mean that the Diocese of Pittsburgh in October 2005 forever bound itself to remain in ECUSA ("the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America") if it wanted to continue to hold title to its diocesan property. The defendant Diocese argues that the language is merely descriptive, and refers to it as it was at the time of the stipulation: a member Diocese of ECUSA. In that sense, they say, there is nothing in the language which would imply a promise to remain in ECUSA, and that since it is still the same legal entity in the eyes of the law after it withdrew as it was before it voted to leave, and continues to hold all of its property as before, it is in full compliance with the terms of the Stipulation.
From the Exhibits included in Vols. 1-2 above, what emerges is that as it was originally conceived and proposed by Mr. DeForest, the attorney for the original Calvary Church plaintiffs, the language was much clearer in favor of the position which plaintiffs now take. Thus, Mr. Otto (the defendant's then counsel) wrote to Mr. DeForest on January 5, 2005 and proposed an initial paragraph 1 which did not even touch upon the issue of diocesan property, but only on the subject of parish property (Pl. Ex. 2):
In the event a Parish Church wishes to leave, or disaffiliate with ECUSA, a mutual agreement among the Parish Church, the Diocese and ECUSA shall be required with respect to the disposition of all property held by or for the use of the Parish Church; absent any mutual agreement, the Parish Church may appeal or apply to the civil courts for resolution of the issue.
It was Mr. DeForest who sent back to Mr. Otto a revised first paragraph which specified clearly that all property of the Diocese was to remain in ECUSA, regardless of what the individual parishes chose to do (Pl. Ex. 3, January 11, 2005; emphasis added):
Property, whether real or personal (hereinafter "Property"), held by or for use of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (the "Diocese") shall remain in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America ("ECUSA") regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in ECUSA.
Had Mr. DeForest retained throughout the subsequent negotiations the language I have put in bold above, there would be no argument today over the meaning of the Stipulation. But as events turned out, negotiations stalled over Mr. DeForest's language, which he continued to insist on for the next several months. Finally, In July 2005, Mr. Otto sent Mr. DeForest a revised paragraph 1, which read as follows (Pl. Ex. 7):
Property, whether real or personal (hereinafter "Property"), held or administered by the Diocese of Pittsburgh (hereinafter "Diocese") for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held or administered by the Diocese regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in ECUSA.
And as you can see from the final October 2005 version quoted above, this essentially was the language settled upon, with only Mr. DeForest's descriptive term "of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America" added in after the word "Pittsburgh". I may be able to devote a fuller post to this later, but from the foregoing you can see why I think Mr. DeForest and his clients have the laboring oar to convince the court that this language:
Property, whether real or personal . . . held by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (hereinafter "Diocese") for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held and administered by the Diocese . . .
is the functional equivalent of this:
Property, whether real or personal (hereinafter "Property"), held by or for use of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (the "Diocese") shall remain in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America ("ECUSA") . . .
Now, on to the other exhibits, which might have gone unnoticed in the many hundreds of pages filed with the Court. First, there is a very telling example of the way that ECUSA's leadership carefully choreographs the outcomes that it wants, regardless of what the other bishops or deputies to General Convention might decide. A little background chronology will set the stage:
September 12, 2008: The Presiding Bishop telegraphs her intention to bring a resolution before the House of Bishops at its September meeting to effect the deposition of the Rt. Rev. Robert A. Duncan, diocesan Bishop of Pittsburgh, in advance of the Diocese's planned October annual convention, at which it will vote on a measure to remove itself from ECUSA.
September 18, 2008: The House of Bishops votes to "depose" Bishop Duncan, in the process violating Canon IV.9 three times.
October 4, 2008: Without Bishop Duncan to lead it, the Diocese of Pittsburgh votes (116 to 69 in the lay order; 121 to 33 in the clergy) to amend its Constitution and Canons so as to withdraw from ECUSA.
October 4, 2008: The Rev. Dr. James B. Simons of Pittsburgh announces that he disagrees with the vote, and that as a member of the Diocese's Standing Committee, he will organize the dissenters as a continuing "diocese".
All right, that sets the stage for the following chronology, which is derived solely from Exhibits included in the first link (Vols. 1-2) given earlier. The first, from the documents which make up Pl. Ex. 34, is as follows:
October 6, 2008: On the Monday following the Convention, the Rev. Dr. Simons sends letters to each of the other members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, in which he states:
I am sure you are aware that I did not support Saturday's actions of the Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church in amending the diocesan Constitution to remove the "accession" clause and in accepting the invitation of the Archbishop of the Southern Cone to "join" that Province. On the other hand, it is my understanding that you did support those measures. If I am wrong in that understanding and you are in a position to demonstrate to me that you opposed and publicly repudiated those actions, I would appreciate you letting me know promptly. I shall assume that I am correct if you do not communicate to me a contradiction of my understanding by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 8th.