Anglican Diocese of Sydney affirms that it is in full communion with the ACNA

ACNA website via American Anglican Council:

October 30, 2009

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) welcomes the affirmation from the Anglican Diocese of Sydney(Australia) that it is in full communion with the ACNA.

On October 28, the Diocese of Sydney's Synod passed a resolution which stated: "Synod welcomes the creation of the Province of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under the leadership of Archbishop Bob Duncan and notes the GAFCON Primates' Council recognition of the ACNA as genuinely Anglican and its recommendation that Anglican Provinces affirm full communion with the ACNA. Synod therefore expresses its desire to be in full communion with the ACNA." The resolution also directed the diocese's standing committee to ask its national body, the Anglican Church of Australia, to declare that it is in full communion with the ACNA as well.

ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan said, "We welcome this recognition from the Diocese of Sydney and look forward to working with them and our other overseas Anglican partners in spreading the Gospel and building a Communion that is truly Christ-centered and missional."

Since December 2008, the leaders of a number of Anglican Communion provinces - representing the majority of active Anglicans globally - have recognized the ACNA as authentically Anglican and have recommended that other Anglican provinces officially affirm full communion with the ACNA. These leaders include the Archbishops of Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, West Africa, the Southern Cone of South America, and the recently retired Archbishop of Kenya. Along with this support, the ACNA welcomed many official delegations and greetings from other Anglican provinces at its inaugural meeting in June, 2009.

ACNA figures to grow by five more parishes next week!

by texanglican

There will be five new congregations welcomed into the diocese of Fort Worth next week. Assuming the diocese accedes formally to the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA at our convention next Saturday (as seems likely) this will mean five new parishes for the new province! Several of these parishes are former TEC churches, while one is a new church plant.

The Church of Christ the Redeemer will be recognized as a mission parish in Fort Worth, under its vicar, Fr. Christopher Culpepper. St. Francis Church in Dallas will be welcomed as a new parish of the diocese, while St Gabriel's Anglican Church in Bentonville, AR, will become a mission station of the diocese. And St. Matthias' Anglican Church in Dallas and the Church of the Holy Spirit in Tulsa, OK, will become parishes of the diocese under a new Parish Affiliation Agreement that has been put into place here.

Welcome to the dioFortWorth family, friends!

Episcopal Diocese of Quincy formally joins the Anglican Church of North America

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue

via e-mail:

The Diocese of Quincy held its 132nd annual Synod October 16-17, and formally aligned itself as a constituent member of the newly formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), a group of more than 700 Anglican churches in the US and Canada that was founded in June. Since that time another 40 churches have joined the new body.

The Synod, hosted by the Church of the Transfiguration in Princeton, also reaffirmed its pastoral relationship with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone which offered the diocese “safe harbor” a year ago when the diocese separated from the Episcopal Church.

“God has truly blessed us over the last 12 months,” said Fr. John Spencer, President of the Standing Committee which currently oversees the diocese. “Our churches remain strong, we are focused on the future, and we are blessed to now be part of an orthodox Anglican body here in the US.” The ACNA is led by Archbishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and a leader over the last several years of the movement to restore a traditional, biblically grounded Anglican presence in the US.

In addition to routine business, the annual Synod welcomed three new parishes into the diocese. “They applied to become part of Quincy,” Fr. Spencer said, “because they know our diocese had taken a firm stand for the historic faith and practice of the Church. They know we adhere to biblical teaching and biblical morality, and they found a home with us.” Several other parishes have approached the diocese about possibly becoming members.

“God isn’t hampered by the rebellion of some in the church. When some stray from the Gospel, God raises up faithful Christians who are willing to stand against the social and moral decay that can infect and destroy a culture.” That decay, Spencer said, has infected some US churches. “There is a cost when you stand against the flow of society. But Christian faith is not a popularity contest. Our first calling is to uphold the teaching of Christ. Cultures have always resisted the Gospel. That’s no reason to stop teaching it, or stop living it.”

Two of the largest Provinces of the world-wide Anglican Communion have already formally recognized the new ACNA. As the ACNA receives growing recognition around the Communion, Spencer said, the diocese will maintain is pastoral relationship with the Province of the Southern Cone as its “official” link to world-wide Anglicanism.

Christ Church Savannah To Appeal Property Ruling

from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith

Via email:

(Savannah, GA) Christ Church, the oldest church in Georgia, has appealed the ruling of Judge Michael Karpf, which granted control of the congregation’s property to the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia.

“This is another step in what we knew would be a long process,” stated the Rev. Marcus B. Robertson, Rector of Christ Church. In order to maintain its fidelity to the historic Christian faith, Christ Church withdrew from the Episcopal Church on September 30th, 2007. “This decision, though set in the context of a legal contest, remains consistent with the commitment we made before God and one another at that time,” Robertson added.

Neil Creasy, Chancellor of Christ Church, said, “The Supreme Court of South Carolina is the only state supreme court to have ruled in a case involving facts, law and issues similar to ours. It ruled in favor of the local congregation. We are confident of a similar result here.”

Numerous messages of support have been given to the parish. “We are grateful for the prayers and words of encouragement we have received from churches and individuals from around the world,” said Sr. Warden Carol Rogers Smith.

Christ Church is a member of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and a congregation in the Gulf Atlantic Diocese, which came into being in August as a diocese of ACNA, covering north Florida and south Georgia.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh announces their intent to appeal lower court ruling

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue

via e-mail:

ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH RESPONDS TO COURT RULING

Today, we are pleased to introduce ourselves as The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Previously known as The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, our diocese is comprised of fifty-five congregations; 51 local congregations with a very long record of service to Pittsburgh area communities (in eleven southwestern Pennsylvania counties), and 4 congregations beyond the immediate region. We were the majority (67%) on the vote to withdraw from the Episcopal Church and are the majority now: 55 Anglican Church congregations as compared to 27 Episcopal Church congregations.

Our purpose in asking you here today is to announce our intention to appeal the recent ruling of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. The court ruled that a minority of our former parishes, which now claim to be a diocese affiliated with the Episcopal Church, shall hold and administer all diocesan assets. The appeal will be filed once the court issues a final order directing the transfer of all diocesan property to this minority group.

Our decision to appeal is for the purpose of protecting the mission of our fifty-one local congregations. Left uncontested, the award of all diocesan assets to the minority party, a group that comprises only a third of the parishes that were a part of our diocese when we withdrew from the Episcopal Church, would establish a precedent that we believe the minority would use to take steps to seize all the assets of all our local parishes. Indeed, the minority's website proclaims as much. This litigious action, which is supported by the aggressive leadership of the Episcopal Church, is unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable.

A further reason for the appeal is to address the question of the legal right of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh to separate from its former denominational affiliation (The Episcopal Church of the United States). This essential question has never yet had its day in court throughout the legal action in which the Episcopal Church minority is the plaintiff and is suing for all the assets. Many of these assets were donated in good faith by generations of families in our fifty-one congregations. There must be an equitable agreement and distribution. There is a Christian way to resolve this dispute.

The Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh are actively engaged in effective, caring ministry and the planting of new congregations, both regionally and nationally. Our local congregations stretch from Slippery Rock to Somerset to Waynesburg. We are urban, suburban, town, valley and mountain congregations. Shepherd's Heart in Uptown, Seeds of Hope in Bloomfield, and Church of the Savior in Ambridge are among our most celebrated ministries to the urban poor and to urban youth. Half of all mission agencies in North America are headquartered among us and are led by our people. Unhesitatingly, the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh is committed to protecting and expanding the extraordinary ministries of these dynamic congregations and agencies.

The appeal announced today will be funded from several significant contributions, the first of which is in hand. An Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh Defense Fund (The Staying Faithful Fund) has been established and is receiving donations. None of the ordinary gifts of our people or assessments of our congregations will be used to support the appeal.

We are building for the future, not dependent on the past or controlled by the culture. We proclaim the Christian Faith as once for all delivered to the saints. We rejoice in the generosity of our people and stand firmly on the solid Rock who is Our Lord Jesus. We share what we have, whether much or little. We are Anglican Christians transforming our world with Jesus Christ. We are the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Dissident theologian criticizes pope's opening to Anglicans

Oct-28-2009

By Sarah Delaney
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- Dissident theologian Father Hans Kung criticized Pope Benedict XVI for his recent opening to discontented Anglicans, charging the pope was "fishing" for the most conservative Christians to the detriment of the larger church.

Father Kung said the invitation to traditionalist Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church went against years of ecumenical work on the part of both churches, calling it instead "a nonecumenical piracy of priests."

The pope's basic message is: "Traditionalists of all churches, unite under the dome of St. Peter's!" Father Kung wrote in an editorial Oct. 28 in the Rome daily La Repubblica.

"Look: The fisherman is fishing above all on the 'right' side of the lake. But the water is muddy," he said.

The Vatican announced Oct. 20 that the pope was establishing a new structure to welcome Anglicans who want to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church while maintaining some of their spiritual and liturgical traditions. Many of the Anglicans who have asked the Vatican for such a provision are dismayed by the ordination of women and by the blessing of homosexual unions and the ordination of openly gay bishops in some provinces of the Anglican Communion.

While emphasizing the importance of celibacy for priests, the Vatican said a dispensation would be made for former Anglican priests who are married to be ordained Catholic priests. However, they will not be able to become bishops.

Father Kung, a Swiss theologian who has taught in Germany for decades, warned that married newcomers will cause resentment on the part of celibate Catholic clergy.

In 1979 the Vatican withdrew permission for him to teach as a Catholic theologian, although it did not restrict his ministry as a Catholic priest.


In the editorial, Father Kung also lambasted Pope Benedict's recent efforts to bring back into the fold members of the Society of St. Pius X, a group of breakaway Catholics opposed to the changes in the church following the Second Vatican Council.

"After reintegrating the anti-reformist Society of St. Pius X, now Benedict XVI wants to flesh out the thinning ranks of Roman Catholics with like-minded Anglicans," Father Kung wrote in the editorial.

He also criticized Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Communion, who "in his desire to ingratiate himself with the Vatican apparently didn't understand the consequences of the papal fishing trip in Anglican waters."

END

Dallas: A Diocese to Watch

This is from Lionel Diemel's blog. Diemel is part of the fake diocese of Pittsburgh that is working to become part of the pecusa diocese of Northwest PA. This post comes to DCNY via The Lead. ed.

October 22, 2009

The 113th annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas held this past weekend did not make much news. Episcopal News Service covered it in a single paragraph:
Dallas: “Great Fellowship” was the theme of the 113th annual diocesan convention, held at the South Fork Conference Center in Parker, Texas. Convention did not consider any resolutions; rather some 116 clergy and 194 lay delegates studied and discussed the Anglican covenant, according to Bishop Suffragan Paul Lambert of Dallas. Delegates approved a $3,169,600 budget, representing about a $29,000 increase from last year.
As ENS reported, no resolutions were considered at the convention, though, of course, the usual elections for Standing Committee and the like were held. To say that delegates “studied and discussed the Anglican covenant,” however, does not capture the essence of the event. It would be more correct to say that the delegates were propagandized or indoctrinated about the Anglican covenant.

The centerpiece of the convention was a trio of talks aimed at promoting adoption of the covenant and justifying the right of the diocese to approve it. These talks were given on Friday, October 16, 2009, by the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Mr. Mark McCall, and the Rev. Dr. Philip Turner. The discussion was conducted in small groups at tables at which delegates from the same church were separated.

In case the names of the speakers do not immediately ring bells, I should point out that the speakers constitute an Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) tag team. Turner is vice president of the ACI. Stanton and McCall are members of the ACI Advisory Committee. (See the ACI “Contributing Theologians” page here.) It may be difficult to characterize precisely what the ACI stands for, but it would not be unfair to say that the ACI has virtually never had anything positive to say about The Episcopal Church or anything negative to say about its detractors. To its credit, however, it has not advocated breaking away from The Episcopal Church.

I will not attempt a full analysis of the message to which delegates to the Dallas convention were subjected. I will, however, offer links to the three talks and provide short summaries of them. I recommend reading the talks for yourself and drawing your own conclusions as to what Bishop Stanton is trying to accomplish. Apparently, he plans to call a special convention after a revised Section Four of the proposed Anglican covenant is available, at which time, he expects the Dallas convention to endorse—whatever that means—the covenant. I’m sure that this plan is not contingent on the details of the revised Section Four .

The first and longest talk was given by Bishop Stanton himself. It was titled “DIOCESE AND COVENANT: Reflection on Dallas, its History and Future.” (You can read Stanton’s talk here. The text is from a handout and contains all the typographical errors of the original.) Drawing on the history of his diocese, Stanton argued for the autonomy of dioceses, a novel notion promoted by attorney Mark McCall and the ACI. The talk mentioned the “unqualified accession” requirement imposed by the church on dioceses, though without suggesting that it has any real effect on church polity. After decoupling his diocese from The Episcopal Church, Stanton argued that the Christian message across dioceses must be coördinated, using a “conciliar”—another popular ACI buzzword—approach. This was his lead-in for advocacy of his diocese’s adopting the covenant. In one sentence, Stanton dismissed the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church and embraced the convent: “A covenant is something higher and better than a code.” There is more than a little doubletalk here.

McCall was next to speak. His talk, “TEC Polity, The Civil Law and the Anglican Covenant,” is available here on the ACI Web site. McCall began with a discussion of the nature of The Episcopal Church, which, legally speaking, he says is a voluntary organization whose members are dioceses. Because the church’s constitution contains no “supremacy clause,” dioceses and the General Convention have “concurrent jurisdiction without supremacy,” which, given that diocesan conventions meet more often than the General Convention, effectively makes dioceses more powerful than the General Convention. (McCall’s legal discussion conveniently ignored the existence of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, of which all Episcopalians are members. He has a very limited idea of how a hierarchical organization must be ordered—he, too, basically ignores the accession requirement—and he does not deal with the constitutional implications of the Episcopal Church’s being a church.)

McCall then turned to the matter of adopting the Anglican covenant, at which point, his talk became seriously weird. Neither the covenant nor the Communion generally claims a right to alter a province’s polity. Provinces will accept or reject the covenant based on their own internal rules. In the case of our own church, since McCall claims that dioceses and the General Convention share jurisdiction, the General Convention and individual dioceses may act as they choose, and the Communion will have to sort out what that means.

I cannot resist an aside here. Whereas I have always thought McCall’s view of Episcopal Church polity to be seriously flawed, there are those who actually believe (or who want us to think they believe) this stuff. The General Convention should be very careful about how it accepts (God forbid!) or rejects the Anglican covenant. If it does so by canon—surely not the most obvious way of weighing in on the matter, particularly in the case of rejection—then, because of accession, dioceses could not second-guess the General Convention’s decision.

Turner was the final speaker; his talk was titled “Crossroads Are For Meeting (Again).” (This can be found on the ACI Web site here. Curiously, Turner’s footnotes are missing from the ACI posting and some of the formatting is dropped, so you may want to look at the PDF version of the Dallas handout here.) Turner offered a break from legal arguments. His basic message seemed to be “don’t be afraid of the covenant.” He began with some history, suggesting that the Anglican Communion has long sought a coherent self-identify that the covenant seeks to supply. His ultimate conclusion in the talk was that the covenant is the last best hope for keeping the Communion together. In discussing the covenant, excepting Section Four, Turner argued that the current draft is indeed “Anglican.” He acknowledged dissenting opinions and tried to counter them. In the last section of the talk, however, Turner argued that The Episcopal Church has acted in ways that make it impossible for the church to accept the covenant with integrity. (Implicitly, I suppose, this means that dioceses should act to accept it.) Acknowledging that the final form of Section Four is unknown, Turner suggested that previous versions have preserved autonomy and relied on “the process of ‘recognition’ rather than adjudication.” (This is an interesting point, thought perhaps a distinction without a difference.) According to Turner, “The simple fact is that without a strong Section Four that creates credible procedures rather than additional hierarchies, the Anglican Communion will perish as a communion of churches.”

One can see in the Dallas convention talks the strategizing of the militant traditionalists for their next battle. The General Convention actually asked dioceses to offer their opinions on the covenant, but that body intended for a serious, unbiased evaluation to take place in each diocese. The Bishop of Dallas, however, has decided instead to manipulate his own diocesan convention to assure that the diocese comes to the “right” conclusion. Moreover, expecting (or fearing) that the General Convention will reject the covenant, Stanton plans to act preëmptively, not merely offering moral support for the covenant, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested, but claiming actual ratification by the autonomous Diocese of Dallas. This promises to sow chaos not only within The Episcopal Church, but also within the Anglican Communion itself. Of course, it may be necessary to destroy the Communion in order to save it.

Response to Bonnie Anderson

Via TitusOneNine:

Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Monday, October 26th, 2009

The Diocese of South Carolina received a letter from Bonnie Anderson, the elected President of the House of Deputies. It was followed by a second statement saying that it was her practice to send such letters to each Diocese before their conventions.

In what follows we pay attention to sections of the first letter, where the President of the House of Deputies spoke at some length of her interpretation of the resolutions to be voted on at the South Carolina Diocesan Convention. These remarks seek to be substantive in character; presumably they represent her own considerations as well as those of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church. For that reason they deserve comment and evaluation of their own.

At the outset, we note that it is the duty of the President of the House of Deputies to preside over that body. Neither she nor the Executive Council is the constitutionally-designated Ecclesiastical Authority in the Diocese of South Carolina. It is not her role to instruct or interfere with the lawful diocesan Authority.

It remains an open question what the legal effect of resolutions passed at General Convention genuinely is. We have, for example, heard it claimed that there is a distinction between “descriptive” and “prescriptive” resolutions and that controversial ones (D025 and C056) were “descriptive.” It is hard to know how a non-prescriptive resolution could not be described, as the South Carolina resolution intimates, as without effect in that Diocese. But we proceed on the logic of the letter, where something more seems to be at stake.

1. Anderson Text:

Without the omitted language, someone reading the Resolution could come away with the idea that no departures from the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church of England are permitted at all when the expectation has always been that alterations would be made. The Preface, set forth in October 1789, acknowledges our debt to the Church of England for this Church’s “first foundation and a long continuance of nursing care and protection” and goes on to quote from the Preface of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England at that time that “the Forms of Divine Worship are alterable and changes should be made according to the various exigency of times and occasions.”

Ms Anderson apparently believes that departing from the teaching of the Communion, or from the language of the BCP in respect of blessing in Christian marriage (now to be extended, contra the BCP, to same sex couples, as permitted by General Convention 2009) constitutes an ‘expected alteration.’ A ‘various exigency of time and occasion’ is presumably General Convention 2009’s exigency of wanting to permit rites for same-sex blessings, without addressing the constitutional legality of doing so without changing the BCP in accordance with this desire.

2. As for the Oath as cited by Anderson:

I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Episcopal Church.

Anderson apparently does not realize that issue is being taken with the constitutionality of what General Convention has done precisely because it is at odds with the Oath she herself sees as central. General Convention has not solemnly engaged to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Episcopal Church because it has given permission to Bishops to bless same sex unions without bothering to change the marriage blessing rites the BCP regulates as in accordance with such Doctrine and Discipline.

3. Anderson text:

However, declaring actions of General Convention to be null and void and having no effect in a diocese is contrary to our polity and our Constitution and Canons.

What is being said is that the Constitution and Canons have been undercut or violated by the latitude General Convention has given in its resolutions D026, C056. Bishop Frey made this point quite clearly on the floor of General Convention. It would therefore be up to Ms Anderson to show that the Constitution and Canons were not violated by these resolutions. That is the point at issue. General Convention is not above the Constitution and Canons, nor is it identical with them. That would be to make nonsense of the very notion of Constitution and Canons. An assertion is not a legal fact. This is the matter the resolution is SC has concern about, precisely because it wishes to be in conformity with the Constitution and Canons of TEC on this issue.

4. Anderson text:

All dioceses must make an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

Followed by:

The General Convention is the governing body of the Church and the authority of all other entities and offices comes from General Convention.

Here again, without any argument, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church are simply conflated with General Convention, as though they were one and the same. But this is belied by the Constitution’s insistence that General Convention, should it seek to undertake to alter the Constitution, must do so by specific procedures so stipulated by the Constitution itself, and this is the requirement if the Constitution is to be changed. The General Convention is under the authority of the Constitution. It is not identical with it. As we have repeatedly demonstrated with historical and legal arguments, dioceses are not made subordinate to General Convention by our Constitution. Conclusory assertions to the contrary from one who has no constitutional authority in the Diocese of South Carolina are not persuasive.

As for ‘unqualified accession.’ It has been pointed out at numerous times that accession, as a legal term, is in the gift of the one acceding, and to speak of ‘unqualified’ does not mean ‘irrevocable.’ To the contrary, in the legal context from which the term ‘accession’ is drawn, a qualified accession is well-known and understood as a partial acceptance subject to stated qualifications or reservations. Moreover, given the First Amendment implications of acceding to membership in religious associations, legal authorities suggest that any attempt to make such an accession to membership irrevocable would be unenforceable. To simply assert this, as does Ms Anderson, is to compound the error. Moreover, accession is to the Constitution and Canons, not to General Convention (or the Executive Council) and indeed this is what is being argued is under threat.

5. Anderson text:

So, adoption of a resolution declaring an action of General Convention null and void is itself, a nullity.

Not if the action is in violation of the Constitution. Moreover, the resolutions were described by proponents as ‘descriptive.’ This raises the question as to what legal character a resolution has at all. And we note that liberal bishops have repeatedly said that they are not bound by General Convention resolutions. One need only point to resolution B033 from 2006 as one instance among many.

Conclusion

What Anderson has achieved in this formal letter to South Carolina is a demonstration of what happens when General Convention undertakes to permit actions without bothering formally to amend the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. A similar demonstration is being made in the Presiding Bishop’s recourse to a Canon involving renunciation of orders so as to deal with a problem it was never designed to address. The consequence of such action is the creation of a view of Holy Orders and a ‘denominational regularization’ of them without any counterpart elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. The point is this. To use ‘abandonment of communion of this church’ to refer univocally to TEC makes TEC into its own, private communion. If this be the case, TEC is defining itself and its orders in a way different from that of the Anglican Communion as a whole. For Anglicans, communion is not defined within the circumference of a single province and orders are not conferred within a single province alone.

By arrogating to herself the role of commentary, evaluation, and exhortation, the President of the House of Deputies adopts an authority vis-à-vis the Diocese of SC nowhere granted to her by the Constitution and Canons she claims to be defending. Was the President of the House of Deputies elected with a clear remit to function in this way vis-à-vis the Dioceses of The Episcopal Church? Naturally, the President of the House of Deputies might wish to write a letter to the Diocese of South Carolina and encourage attendance at General Convention. But here the intention is to speak on behalf of the Constitution and Canons as well as on matters of doctrine, church history and theology. Where do the Constitution and Canons grant her authority to address the Dioceses in this way, and is election to this presidential office intended to grant her authority as here presumed?

The questions are serious ones because it appears that the elected leadership of The Episcopal Church is now seeking a clear authority and hierarchy above the Bishops of the Church and also above the Constitution and Canons, without at the same time following the legal procedures necessary for adopting and exercising such hierarchy, constitutionally. If there are those within TEC who desire constitutional reform of TEC polity along the lines of a corporate model or the hierarchical structures of churches such as the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches, there are constitutional procedures to follow.

So to receive a notice from an elected official which purports to interpret doctrine, discipline and worship in this church, and to defend the Constitution and Canons, without an obvious warrant for doing so from the same Constitution risks exposing the very problem South Carolina and other dioceses have identified as needing address.

Diocese and Covenant: Reflections on Dallas, its History and Future

From the Anglican Communion Institute via TitusOneNine:

Written by: The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas
Friday, October 23rd, 2009

“Every Diocese is an independent and sovereign state, held in the unity of the Catholic Church by its Episcopate, according to the rule of St. Cyprian.” With these words, Bishop Alexander Charles Garrett – our first Bishop and,be it noted, once the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church – addressed the organizing Convention of the Diocese of Dallas in 1895. “The Diocese thus becomes the ecclesiastical unit, a full and perfect integer sufficient of itself for all purposes of growth and development.”

It was for the privilege of so organizing and of taking the key next step, that of a selection of Bishop, that the body was convened, he said.

Bishop Garrett looked back on the twenty-one years of the existence of the then Missionary District of North Texas, and the principles upon which he had led them. And then he turned to look at the state of the Church as it then existed so that the future could be embraced and the people of the new Diocese would understand what opportunities and challenges awaited them. Thus they stood at a crossroads.

The business of that organizing Convention, the Primary Convention as it is called in the Journal, lasted through two very long days and nights. The business was restricted. The Convention sat, almost through the whole of it, as a Committee of the Whole. And the business that was done centered on the writing of a Constitution. The members of Convention spoke to each other directly – lay and clergy alike. The work of various other committees was submitted to them and they debated and discussed the drafts of the Constitution. But this was no pro-forma exercise. There were 22 lay delegates and twenty clergy in attendance. This afforded each the opportunity to be heard and to have input into the final product of that Convention.

I wonder if that relatively small group could have anticipated that their labors would grow as they have. The Missionary District of Northern Texas, which was created by the General Convention in 1874, included all of the territory that now comprises three distinct dioceses: our own, the Diocese of Northwest Texas (organized in 1958), and the Diocese of Fort Worth (which was organized in 1982), and parts of a fourth, the Diocese of Oklahoma. Bishop Garrett reported to that Convention that there were 2123 communicants in 13 parishes and 28 organized missions, with 1297 Sunday school children and 180 teachers. The Endowment fund for the support of the Episcopate totaled $37,800. How things have changed.

I recall this first Convention to your attention for two reasons, both of them relevant to our meeting here.

I.

First, that first convention serves as a model for us. I have this year yearned for the opportunity for you as the leaders of your congregations and this Diocese as a whole to be able, like our forebears, to speak to one another. Three years ago, I travelled with some assistants, to every parish and mission and mission station to ask you some questions and to hear where you are. I came away with a renewed affection and respect for the work each of you is doing in your different contexts. How transforming it might be, I thought, if this could be done on a larger scale – if there were the time and space for permitting us to speak to one another about our challenges, our joys, our disappointments, our values. With the completion of the last General Convention, it seemed to me to be useful for this idea to be given concrete shape.

I have already been called upon to visit with a number of Vestries, and to hear from them their concerns over the actions of that Convention. Some of our parishes have lost members because of those actions. On the other hand, some of our congregations – some of you – will have rejoiced at the very actions that have offended or dismayed others. We are not a monochrome Diocese.

At the same time, we have been fairly clear over the last many years, indeed since before I came to be your Bishop some 17 years ago, that we take seriously our apostolic tradition and communion and that we value our place among Anglicans worldwide. We have affirmed, for example, various statements and resolutions emanating from the Irenaeus Fellowship of Bishops, the Lambeth Conferences, the Primates Meetings, the Windsor Report, and so forth. We have cherished our missionary engagement in various places around the world and have welcomed numerous bishops and archbishops from abroad who have come to share their work in our world. I believe many of us have been longing for and waiting patiently, I might add, for the development of the Anglican Covenant we have heard so much about.

So, it seemed to me, the time for suspending “business as usual” and spending some time in conversation about where we are and how we see our future would be especially helpful. It is to that work I call you at this Convention.

We have planned this Convention around a series of three talks concerned with the Anglican Covenant. I ask you to sit, not with the delegates of your parish, but at tables with those of other congregations. I ask you to listen to the talks, and then to speak to one another about what you have heard and what it means or might mean to you and the brothers and sisters in Christ whom you represent.

The point of these times together is not to decide anything. I have asked that we hold all resolutions of any substance to another time when we can engage in our customary format of debate. For this time we have together, we are to share with one another our thoughts, questions, feelings as appropriate, and concerns. We are not here to argue or to persuade. If anything, we are here to appreciate: literally, as the dictionary puts it, “to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of something; to recognize with gratitude; to judge with heightened perception or understanding.” In our case, I would hope that we grasp the nature, worth and significance of who we are, who we are to one another and where we stand; that we recognize with gratitude the ministry we share together; and that we grow in the perception and understanding of the character of our Diocese and the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Again, we are not here to do something in particular, to take some proposed action. In this connection, during your conversations, I would hope that you stick with “I” statements: that you speak with one another about your own perceptions, feelings, and reflections on what we discuss. I ask you to listen respectfully to what others say, and respond both honestly and respectfully as well. As St. Paul exhorts us, “Speak the truth in love.” (Eph 4.15) Or again, “love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor.” (Rom 12.10)

There will be three talks. I will give you some light on how this Diocese came to be organized, and what at that time and since has been the classic understanding of the polity of the Episcopal Church and the place of the Diocese. Mr. Mark McCall will again address some of the specific issues of Episcopal Polity and how we might approach the Anglican Covenant if and when that is our desire. The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner will give you some understanding of the shaping of the proposed Anglican Covenant and its theological underpinnings, and its relation and possible effects in the Anglican Communion.

Admittedly, our Diocesan Convention is a good deal larger than that first organizing Convention. The size complicates our ability to converse with each other, offering us some difficulties they did not have to deal with. But I believe we can overcome those difficulties and make fruitful use of this time if we truly desire to do so and determine to offer ourselves fully to this process. It is my fervent prayer that we will go away from this time with new insights into one another, our diocese, and the possibilities of a meaningful Covenant that will renew and strengthen our life and that of the Anglican Communion as a whole.

II.

I mentioned two reasons for recalling Bishop Garrett’s words at the first Convention. Let me now turn to the second reason. That second reason has to do with the very nature and character of Dioceses in the Episcopal Church, and our Diocese in particular.

We have heard a great deal about our unique polity in the Episcopal Church over the last several years. Polity is just a fancy word for how we do things – what rules and principles govern our corporate actions, and what structures are involved in governing. Perhaps more pointedly, the Greek word from which we get our English term connotes the rights and obligations inherent in being part of a larger body. St. Paul uses this very term when he describes the Gentile Christians. Once, he said, we were excluded from citizenship (politeia) in Israel, excluded from the covenants of promise which God had made to them. But now, in Christ, we are made fellow citizens (sumpolitai), fellow members of God’s household.

So what characterizes this “unique polity”? Bishop Garrett understood this polity, this citizenship, in a particular way. “Every Diocese is an independent and sovereign state.”

It is evident that Bishop Garrett did not see this striking statement as something new. Indeed, he looked back to the founding of the Church by her Lord and its spread as the basis for the statement. “Responsibility,” he said, “involves power.” It would have been a vain thing if Jesus had commanded his Apostles to go into all the world and to proclaim the Gospel, if at the same time he did not commit to them the necessary authority to do so. He gave them the right and the power “to teach, ordain, confirm, place, support and [discipline]” within their places of responsibility. This was the mode of operations in the earliest Church – a community of men and women carrying out the work of their Lord in each location, but joined in their common sense of mission.

Sovereignty, the power or authority to work and order a common life in a territory, was based both upon the mission of the Church and in turn the practical necessities of the Church. The mission was to proclaim Christ and to make his saving work known. This precious, life-giving task required a common message, a common language, and an authoritative center. That center was found “in the Apostles, and after them the Bishops,” wrote Garrett. The practical necessity of growth in and toward the Lord was provided by the laity and clergy in union with their bishop. We catch this dual sense in our own day when, at the ordination of Bishops we declare that the Bishop is to be one with the Apostles in proclaiming the resurrection and interpreting the Gospel; and in our baptism when we promise to “continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship”.

Sovereignty as Bishop Garrett uses it means being a “perfect integer” – the whole of the Church in a given place. His frequent references to the “primitive Church” reflects both the Catholic and the Anglican understanding that the diocese, not the parish, is the local Church, and that within its borders it is competent and equipped to do all that the risen Christ might ask of it. And, I think, this learned and eloquent shepherd had his perspective on the early Church right: when we look at, for example, the Acts of the Apostles, what we find are Christians carrying out their mission in each place with integrity and autonomy – in this sense sovereignty – but with a concern as well for the work of the whole. When the Gospel is first carried to Samaria, Jerusalem sends out no less that Peter and John to “inspect” the work begun there by Philip. But having done so, they leave that work to carry on. In Antioch, Christians first began to reach out to Gentiles in a systematic way. So great is the success of this witness, that Jerusalem again sends out an inspector, Barnabas. But he does not reign in these enthusiastic missionaries – rather, he supports them and calls upon Paul to assist him in that work. When controversies are introduced into the community, the community itself sends Paul and Barnabas to consult with Jerusalem. And the Church in Jerusalem confirms and upholds the work of mission among the Gentiles, addressing the Church there as “brothers.”

These instances demonstrate what sovereignty means. In the customary understanding of “hierarchy,” power flows from the top down. There is a supreme authority – be it a person or a curia or some combination of these – that exercises power over all subordinate units. In the New Testament, however, we do not see either James, the Lord’s Brother, or the assembly of apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem acting as a pope and curia. What we see are communities acting with independence in their own spheres or territories, but with mutual concern and counsel over matters of larger than local concern. This is what Bishop Garrett calls “the confirmatory action of conciliar ratification.”

And this, in turn, is how our first Bishop understood our polity in the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Dallas was moving from being a creation the General Convention – a Missionary District – into a new status – a sovereign Diocese of the Episcopal Church. It was a move from childhood to maturity as the Bishop saw it.

But the Bishop was not alone in this understanding. Hudson Stuck, the first Dean of our Cathedral, preached the sermon at that Primary Convention Eucharist. Stuck was a remarkable man of learning and spirituality in his own right. He was a clarion voice in calling the Church to address the needs of the community around it. He would go on to become an estimable missionary of extraordinary commitment and competence in Alaska, and in fact would be the first man to put together a successful assault on Mount Denali as he called it, Mount McKinley, the highest peak on the North American Continent.

But his sermon at that convention reached remarkable heights of its own. With a clarity of vision and a comprehensive grasp of Church history, he put our Diocese and its new status on the same foundation that Bishop Garrett had. “For consider that every organized diocese is essentially an independent autonomous portion of the church, having all that is necessary for a church,” Stuck declaimed. “By itself it may subsist and grow and flourish, self-governed and self-contained. The diocese is the true unit—complete, valid, authentic.” It was then an act of self-creation – the dignity and nobility of which was not lost on those who sat down to make a constitution and elect a bishop of their own choosing.

Once again, Stuck, like Garrett made it clear that autonomy – sovereignty in the sense they were using it – did not mean go-it-alone. The Lambeth Conference of Bishops was still relatively a new thing when this Diocese created itself. But the lessons of Church history were clear: “The fullness of the apostolic power, to which I have referred again and again as the great deposit of authority, resides not in each individual bishop, but in the complete apostolic college. It resides in the whole body of bishops.” Bishops were the focus of unity not only within the Diocese, but among the dioceses as well. This was the conciliar approach that Garrett had emphasized.

We hear much today about the “autonomy” of the provinces, and therefore also the necessary and rightful autonomy of the Episcopal Church. But within our own province, we hear a different sort of thought: that the province is the supreme authority over every diocese because dioceses are created by the General Church. Our own history shows this not to be the case, however.

In 1874, about 100,000 square miles of north Texas (and including a little bit of the Oklahoma territory) was split off from the Diocese of Texas and made a Missionary District, as we have seen. In the Canons, this was called an “unorganized” territory. A Missionary Bishop was assigned to this “unorganized” territory. Under the Constitution of the Episcopal Church, the organization of a Diocese originates with a Convocation of Clergy and Laity called together by the designated bishop “for that purpose.” (Art V, Sec 1) The writing of a Constitution and Canons is the sign and instrument of organization. It is this event that creates the legal entity. The Constitution of the Episcopal Church requires that an “unqualified accession” be made by the new Diocese. When that is done, the General Convention gives its consent, a certified copy of the Diocesan Constitution and Canons is given to the Secretary of the General Convention, and the Executive Council gives its approval. Thereupon the Diocese is “admitted” to union with the General Convention. (See also Title I, Canon 10.4)

Precisely this process was followed when this Diocese organized itself. Nothing in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church speaks of General Convention creating or erecting dioceses. Furthermore, where they speak, they make clear that the organization and integrity of the Diocese is a purely local matter, aside, of course, from the act of admission. That is to say, the Diocese organizes itself and sets out for itself the procedures which will carry out its work – including, most notably, the process by which it elects its bishops. This approach was true for the organization of dioceses back in 1895 and continues, for the most part unchanged, up to this present day.

In fact, it was characteristic of the founding principles laid down for the Episcopal Church by the Rev. William White, who later became one of our first bishops. In a booklet issued in August of 1782, entitled The Case for the Episcopal Church in the United States Considered, he advocated for a course of action by the churches that traced their heritage to the Church of England just weeks after the war for Independence had been, to all intents and purposes, won. He believed that immediate and decisive action by these churches would be the only thing that would preserve them in the tradition of their worship and spiritual mission.

White sketched a framework in which the continuation of the life of the Church could be assured: that the churches organize themselves into a voluntary association, that the local churches would be equal, that they would be represented in small districts (he did not yet use the word diocese), which in turn would send representatives to larger bodies. The underlying principle of these larger bodies was that they would only decide on matters, for example Canons and Prayer Book, which served to make the communion one and which, significantly, could not be effected at the lowest possible level. As he put it: “One natural consequence of this distinction, will be to retain in each church every power that need not be delegated for the good of the whole.” With respect to what would come to be called the General Convention, he wrote: “The use of this and the preceding representative bodies is to make such regulations, and receive appeals in such matters only, as shall be judged necessary for their continuing one religious communion.”

In fact, the organization of “districts” or dioceses preceded the formation of the General Convention. From the 1760s, local gatherings of clergy and often laity, called either convocations or conventions, developed. One such convention in Maryland in 1780 provides us with the first clear instance of the use The Protestant Episcopal Church as the name that would be eventually adopted for our branch of the Church. White himself called for and presided over a meeting of state representatives in May 1784 to consider what his plan set forth. A Convention of as many states as possible was set for October. In the latter part of that same month, White presided over a Convention of the churches in Pennsylvania. That Convention adopted the following principles:

The Church is independent of all foreign or domestic civil authority.
The Church is competent to regulate its own affairs.
The Church’s liturgy should conform as close as possible to that of England.
Ministry should consist of three orders: Bishops, priests, deacons.
Canons should be made by both clergy and laity.
No powers should be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government except such as could not be conveniently exercised by State conventions.
The larger Convention planned in May did indeed take place in October. That Convention ratified the principles adopted by Pennsylvania as their own, and then planned the First General Convention for September 1785.

The formation of the Episcopal Church is striking. It appears that the only model for such a process as was in fact followed was that presented by the recent history of the colonies themselves. It was John Adams who, in the spring of 1776, had suggested that the “The Colonies should all assume the Powers of Government in all its branches first.” Then they should confederate with each other and “define the Powers of Congress next.” Only after all the pieces of government were in place, Adams argued, should Independence be declared. The assembly of the colonial representatives in fact adopted a resolution calling for the creation by each colony of its own constitution. This was the only part of Adams’ plan that was carried out before Independence was declared. But it worked.

White’s proposals seemed to follow that example. We often hear it said that the framers of our Church Constitution were the same people who in large part framed the Constitution of the United States. But that is simply not true. In fact, before the tumultuous events that led to the framing of a Constitutional government for the United States in 1787 and 1788, the Episcopal Church was already coming together. Its framework reflected rather the Confederation of the States than what would become the United States. And the notion of a centralized authority was clearly unwanted and unneeded in both confederations.

As White wrote in his Case, “On the subject of government, whether civil or ecclesiastical, there is great truth and beauty in the following observation of the present Bishop of St. Asaph, ‘The great art of governing consists in not governing too much.’”

That was then, as the saying goes, this is now. But it is important to understand that the principle that “No powers should be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government except such as could not be conveniently exercised by State [or diocesan] conventions” has been a part of our basic self-understanding from the very beginning.

In the 1950s a number of books called the Church’s Teaching Series were published by the Episcopal Church. Powell Mills Dawley, an eminent Church historian at the time wrote about The Episcopal Church and Its Work. Recalling the organization of the Episcopal Church, he wrote, “The first dioceses existed separately from each other before they agreed to the union in 1789 into a national church. That union, like the original federation of our states, was one in which each diocese retained a large amount of autonomy, and today the dioceses still possess an independence far greater than that characteristic in most other Churches with episcopal polity.” Dawley then goes on to say, “Diocesan participation in any national program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced. Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan Convention and the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of the Church is almost complete.”

The latest revision of the authoritative commentary on the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, by Whyte and Dykman, describes the earliest history of our Church in these words: “At the close of the American Revolution, the leaders of the former Church of England in the colonies . . . organized the separate and scattered Anglican parishes into independent Churches in each of the new states.” It repeats this understanding when describing the Churches as “completely independent.” It then describes the national structure they created in Convention as “a federation of equal and independent Churches in the several states.”

And to conclude this review, as late as 1987, in an official document filed with the Internal Revenue Service, the then Treasurer of the Episcopal Church wrote, “The Episcopal Church is comprised of 117 autonomous dioceses, 98 of which are domestic and 19 foreign.”

The words independent, sovereign and autonomous as applied to dioceses seems strange to our modern, corporate ears. And yet, these are the precise words used to describe our “unique polity” since the beginning. And the reason is easy to find. William White, again in his Case for the Episcopal Churches, drew attention to the differences between the organization of the Church of England and the situation in the States. In the mother country, dioceses were preeminent and formed congregations. Here the very opposite situation existed. The congregations who formed dioceses cherished their independence and demanded that their dioceses be largely self-governing. Arguing that the Episcopate would be both desirable and traditional among the former Anglicans, he nevertheless took pains to assure his readers that “this government will not be attended with the danger of tyranny, either temporal or spiritual.” Speaking again of tyranny, he opined that had the Church at Rome been ruled by a presbytery instead of a pope, given its riches and sense of “dominion,” this corporate body would have been as powerful as any single individual. What would White think today of his Episcopal Church, where the claim is made that the General Convention is the “supreme” authority in this Church?

What are we to make of this review?

There is a dignity to being a Diocese of this Church. The word “integer” used by both Bishop Garrett and Dean Stuck means “whole.” The Diocese is the whole Church gathered in a given location. This does not mean that it is ALL of the Church, for surely that is not true. But it is whole in that it possesses the fullest expression of the ministry possible – laity, bishops, priests and deacons gathered for the worship of God and the proclamation of the Gospel. We are not, as I have said in many places over the last few years, merely the local franchise of a great American Corporation. That was not how our forebears thought of themselves. It is not how we should think of ourselves here, today, either.

On its day of organization, Bishop Garrett brimmed with excitement and bright hope. He said that the people of this newly formed Diocese were the equals of any in the Church and across the nation. They had the vitality, the intelligence, the grit and the faithfulness to carry forward the mission of God. “For all these reasons, and many others which might be mentioned, I was anxious that you should have full right” of a Diocese, he proclaimed.

Dean Stuck virtually sang in the poetry of his sermon: “no wonder that we who are assembled here to-day, with joy and gladness and thankful hearts, to put once for all our ecclesiastical government in the old mold in the ancient diocesan form . . . Now shall we take rank with Antioch and Jerusalem and Rome and Canterbury, as autonomous, as complete, as self-governing; in the ancient mold and form of the original spiritual principalities of the church.”

These are not the voices of either subservience or party spirit. They see the link that united them with their spiritual forebears, just as we should. And they were ready to undertake all that it meant to be the Church in their situation, just as we should.

This leads me to my next point. The emphasis on both the dignity and autonomy of the Diocese was firmly rooted in a sense of mission. From the outset, William White understood as urgent the need to get on with the mission of the Church – in his terms, “that the worship of God and the instruction and reformation of the people are the principal objects of ecclesiastical discipline.” This sense of mission underlay his proposal for the structure of the Episcopal Church as a whole. It also underlay the creation of this Diocese.

All mission is ultimately local. This is so even when we reach out from where we live to places in the farthest parts of the world. The Church’s mission can be put in no better terms, I think, than that of Archbishop William Temple: “Evangelism is the presentation of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit in such ways that persons may be led to believe in him as Savior and follow him as Lord within the fellowship of his Church.” It is always persons engaging persons, disciples making disciples – or at least opening the way to discipleship. And the larger dimension of this mission embraces not just individuals, but communities, societies and the world as a whole. Christians have always seen that, as William Reed Huntington put it, “this single Gospel has a two-fold outlook”, namely the transformation of individuals and society as a whole. But the first impulse is not out there, but right here, in the place where God has put us.

From the time of the apostles, communities were formed to work together in reaching out to their neighbors. I think this basic mode of operation can be traced back to the rudimentary form of organziation which Jesus himself instituted among his followers. At any rate, it came to form the basic structure of the Church that has persisted throughout the centuries. The frontline of the work of the Church is the Diocese and always has been – a community fully equipped to support and extend its work of proclaiming the Gospel in the particularities of the culture in which it lives.

The danger, of course, is that the diocese, like the parishes that make it up, can forget that while it is autonomous and fully able to to carry the whole of the Gospel into action in its context, it may also lose touch with the fullness of the message and the largeness of the purpose for which it was sent. Dioceses must, as we have already seen, act in conciliar ways. The Diocese reminds all its parts- clergy and congregations – that they do not exist for themselves. So the dioceses together serve the same function for each diocese. We cannot go-it-alone. The mission of the Church is too compelling, too urgent for a go-it-alone mentality. This conciliar mode is the genius, I think, of the Anglican Way.

And that brings me to the third thing I think we can learn from our past.

The very nature of the Church is covenantal. We should know this without having to make it explicit. Everytime we celebrate the Eucharist, we hear the words of our Lord, “take, drink, this is my blood of the new covenant.” Indeed, the calling of the People of Israel and the calling of the Body of Christ represent God’s gracious gift of a covenantal relationship that supports and steers and saves us.

A covenant is something higher and better than a code. It was a significant accomplishment for the founders of the Episcopal Church in these States to forge a Constitution and Prayer Book and preserve their heritage by these means for future generations – including us. But it was even more significant that they were able to establish trust and commitment and carry out this work on the basis of a covenant that respected the differences, the dignities and the missional imperatives of one another.

A covenant is nothing other than the expression of the expectations as well as the obligations that people have of each other. How odd to hear some people protest that we do not need a covenant now – that indeed, a covenant is unAnglican. For over a generation, several Archbishops of Canterbury have asked Anglicans what it means to be a communion, and have done more than ask – have urged Anglican leaders to give serious consideration and careful reflection to how we live with each other. Serious efforts have been made in the series of Lambeth Conferences and meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council to do this. Fundamental to these efforts is the recognition that we do indeed have a covenantal relationship. The question is not whether we need a covenant, but what the nature of the covenant is that we already have – that already in some sense underlies being an Anglican.

And this question has become more urgent precisely because the bonds of communion have been stretched to the breaking point. It might be all well and good to live in a covenant that never needs to be made clear. But in times of crisis, where trust is strained, where expectations and obligations go unmet, where in fact actions are taken that adversely affect one’s brothers and sisters in covenant, then it is time to look carefully to the ties that bind us and ask what they are and what they require of us.

This is why we are dealing with the proposed Anglican Covenant here. The proposed covenant is not something external to us – something being imposed upon us – something foreign to being an Anglican, or an Episcopalian within the the Anglican Communion. Far from it. It is simply the attempt in this time of crisis to spell out in frank terms what the ground of our communion, our fellowship, our being related to one another is. The question before this body is really pretty simple: is what you read in the covenant an expression of the faith and commitment you hold?

Another odd thing I hear has to do with autonomy. There are voices who firecely champion the autonomy of the Episcopal Church with respect to the rest of the Communion. By “autonomy” they mean, it appears, “no one can tell us what to do.” At the same time, however, these same voices will tell us that only the Provinces can adopt or ratify the covenant, and that dioceses cannot. But in our peculiar polity, as we have seen, dioceses have the same if not even a greater claim to autonomy than our particular province. In fact, I have seen time and time again bishops and dioceses rise up to declare that they will not be bound by resolutions of the General Convention that did not go their way. (Just think back to the so-called “moratoria” voted on in the Convention of 2006!)

If the resolutions of General Convention cannot bind the dioceses to certain terms of communion life, they certainly cannot deter dioceses from committing to them.

But all of this begins to look like the squabbles children have with each other from time to time. Autonomy means simply “you’re not the boss of me!” But there is a grown-up world out there that demands a deeper and more thoughtful kind of engagement. What does it mean to be the Church of Christ? What is entailed in being an Anglican Christian?

We in the Diocese of Dallas are the Church. We have a goodly heritage that is at one and the same time Anglican, Episcopalian, and Texan. We have an urgent mission to fulfill. And we are doing this while responding to and working with other Christians in our communities, in our nation, in our denomination and in our world. We do not seek to divide or separate, but we seek greater unity and clarity and commitment in the cause of Christ.

We possess, furthermore, not only the authority to consider and respond to the proposed Anglican Covenant, but the moral and spiritual imperative to do so. For this covenant concerns us, individually and corporately, and it concerns our future.

A Healer's Journey

Fr. Nigel Mumford is currently in the ICU of Saratoga Hospital. I am told that 1,000 of us are praying for him regularly. Please join us in praying for Fr. Mumford's full recovery. ed.

From Guideposts.com:

How one man came to touch many

When he was a drill instructor in Her Majesty's Royal Marines, Nigel Mumford had no inkling he'd one day be involved in any kind of healing ministry. He retired from the service and moved to the United States in 1980, opening a picture-framing shop in western Connecticut. When his sister, Julie, a ballerina, was paralyzed with a neurological disease for which doctors could find no cure, Nigel was shattered.

Then one day a clergyman from Australia traveling with a healing ministry stood beside Julie's hospital bed and prayed for her recovery. Before leaving her room, he wrote a large sign and posted it where Julie could see: "Even when we are too weak to have any faith left, God remains faithful to us and will help us. Thank you, God, you are healing me now." That evening Julie sat up for the first time in months. She continued to recover and after three months was able to resume her life. "I was as flabbergasted as anyone that this happened," Nigel remembers. "For the first time, it occurred to me that the love of God wasn't some pie-in-the-sky concept but a power literally present for use in our lives."

Months later in his frame shop, when a customer complained of a crushing headache, Nigel impulsively laid his hands on her head and prayed. In astonishment she announced the pain had disappeared. More and more hurting people asked him to pray with them. Nigel's father, an Anglican priest in England, was now involved with a healing ministry of his own. "I can't explain how and why God's power may be working through you," he told his son. "Don't try to figure it out. Just be available to it."
Nigel gave up his business and comfortable home and began what he calls "a semi-monastic life" at a vacant church retreat house that has now become the Oratory of the Little Way. Some words he'd read in the bible now held great meaning for him: "The prayer of faith will save the sick..."

Nigel Mumford—like many others involved in healing ministries—avoids using the term faith healer. "I don't heal," he says. "God does. That may not involve physical healing as much as emotional, psychological or spiritual healing. Of course, someone who's sick should always have good medical care. But one's anger or grief about his or her situation needs to be healed, too." Today, as an increasing body of medical research shows that prayer and faith can have a profound and positive effect on blood pressure, the immune system, and a patient's recovery from physical and mental illness, it seems wise for everyone to "be available" for healing.
Read one about one woman's experience with Nigel in Being Healed.

To contact the Oratory of the Little Way, call 860-354-8294 or go to www.cysol.com/oratory.

Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children

From the Ruth Institute blog via Stand Firm:

October 15th, 2009

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

As mental health professionals, it’s our ethical and moral obligation to support policies that are in the best interest of those we serve, particularly those who are most vulnerable—namely, children. Same-sex marriage may be in the best interest of adult homosexuals who yearn for social and legal recognition of their unions, but it’s not in the best interest of children.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe love is all children really need. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as by loving parents of the opposite sex. But that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is naively simplistic and denies the complex nature and core needs of human beings.

According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family.(1,2,3) That research consistently shows that children raised in such families are more likely to thrive—psychologically, mentally, and physically—than children reared in any other kind of family configuration.

Extensive research also reveals that not only mothers, but also fathers, are critical to the healthy development of children. Swedish researchers reviewed the best longitudinal studies from around the world that assessed the effects of fathers on children’s development. Their review spanned 20 years of studies and included over 22,000 children, and found that fathers reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls, enhance cognitive development, and decrease delinquency.(4)

It’s clear that children benefit from having both a male and female parent. Recent medical research confirms genetically determined differences between men and women and those fundamental differences help explain why mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics to parenting that can’t be replicated by the other sex. Mothers and fathers simply aren’t interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. One-sex parenting, whether by a single parent or a homosexual couple, deprives children of the full range of parenting offered by dual-sex couples.

Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.(5)

Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited (6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.(6) Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, (10) attempt suicide, (11) experience domestic violence and sexual assault, (12) and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.(13,14,15)

It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves (16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.(18,19,20,21) There’s no question that human sexuality is fluid and pliant.(22) Consider ancient Greece and Rome—among many early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather because sexuality is malleable and socially influenced.

Same-sex marriage no doubt will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously.

It also must be expected that if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of non-traditional marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping also will be deemed discriminatory. In fact, such legal maneuverings have already begun. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous.

To date, very little research exists that assesses long-term outcomes for homosexually parented children. According to Charlotte Patterson, a self-proclaimed, pro-same-sex-marriage researcher, there are only two longitudinal studies of children raised by lesbians.(23) And no long-term studies of children raised by homosexual men. A professional organization dedicated to the welfare of its patients cannot and should not support drastic change in social policy based on just two, small and non-representative longitudinal studies.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving toward children as heterosexual couples, but children need more than love. They require the distinctive qualities and complementary natures of a male and female parent. The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years concludes that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. This time-tested wisdom is now supported by the most advanced, scientifically sound research available.

Importantly, and to their credit, many self-proclaimed pro-same-sex-marriage researchers acknowledge that there is as of yet no definitive evidence as to the impact of homosexual parenting on children. Regardless, some of those advocates support same-sex marriage because they believe it offers a natural laboratory in which to assess the long-term impact on children.(24) That position is unconscionable and indefensible.

Same-sex marriage isn’t in the best interest of children. While we may empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we cannot allow the children to lose.

CAMFT, like all mental health organizations, must base policy decisions on scientific evidence and research findings, not personal belief and political opinion. Most importantly, they must never allow children to be used as guinea pigs in unwise and potentially harmful social experiments.

The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal “The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter.

Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the “offending” articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion.

References: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html

Diocese of South Carolina Calls Time Out from the Episcopal Church

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
10/25/2009

It came as no surprise that a special convention of the diocese of South Carolina voted overwhelmingly in four resolutions to distance itself from certain bodies of The Episcopal Church.

Some 300 Episcopalians gathered at Christ Church in Mt. Pleasant, a suburb of Charleston, and approved four of five resolutions, one of which declared General Convention Resolutions D025 and C056 "as null and void." This special convention was restricted to congregational delegations. Visitors and the news media were barred from attending.

The voting margins were expectedly large supporting the diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence by 85+ percent in all four resolutions that include:

• upholding the substance of the “doctrine, discipline and worship” of the Episcopal Church to mean that which is expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the theology of the historic prayer books;”

• “That this diocese authorize the bishop and standing committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church 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 the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, The Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions … and that the Diocese of South Carolina declares that the most recent example of this behavior, in the passage of Resolutions DO25 and CO56, to be null and void, having no effect in this Diocese, and in violation of our diocesan canon (XXXVI sec.1).”

• “That this diocese … will work in partnership with such Dioceses as are willing to form missional relationships providing gatherings for bishops, clergy and laity for the express purpose of evangelism, encouragement, education and mission … and that the parishes of this diocese are encouraged to enter into their own missional relationships with orthodox congregations isolated across North America and to pursue effective initiatives which are lay-led and supported.”

• “That the Diocese of South Carolina endorses the [Ridley Cambridge Draft] of the proposed Anglican Covenant, as it presently stands, in all four sections, as an expression of our full commitment to mutual submission and accountability in communion, grounded in a common faith.”

Bishop Lawrence acknowledged that the resolutions while seeming tepid to some, to others the feel of haste, even imprudence.

In his address to the delegates (see below) some might say that what took place renders him disloyal to The Episcopal Church. He, in turn, attacked what he called the Episcopal Church’s “indiscriminate inclusivity.”

“The landscape around us in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is changing almost daily,” he said. “This week alone has brought remarkable and gracious news from the Vatican, but it will give us little relief but that of hope that one day all who hold the faith of the apostles shall be one. Meanwhile these four principles need to guide us; otherwise we will be tossed about by every windy gust of news or tidal wave crashing on the shore.”

“This false teaching that I have called the gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity has challenged the doctrine of the Trinity, the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ, the authority of Scripture, our understanding of baptism, and now, that last refuge of order, our Constitution & Canons,” he said. “Like an invasive vine, like kudzu in an old growth forest, it has decked the Episcopal Church with decorative destruction. It has invaded and now is systematically dismantling the fundamental teachings of our Church and our Christian heritage.”

Lawrence slammed The Episcopal Church citing its apostasies as the cause of its declining statistics.

“The General Convention is not the answer to the problems of the Episcopal Church. The General Convention has become the problem. It has replaced a balanced piety in this Church with the politics of one-dimensional activism. Every three years when the Episcopal Church train pulls into the station of General Convention more traditional, catholic and evangelical Episcopalians get off the train and do not return. Do you know that in 1968 this Church had 3,600,000 members? In 2008 we had just barely over 2,000,000. It is even less than that now.”

But Lawrence, who is a Communion Partner bishop, (a group of orthodox bishops committed to staying in The Episcopal Church) may find that his attempt to find a third way of non negotiation with the national church could backfire.

Just days earlier his Standing Committee got what can only be described as a threatening letter from Bonnie Anderson President of the House of Deputies.

She urged the carrot of “commitment” with the stick of conformity. “While what your Convention will consider is a resolution and not a constitutional amendment, the principle is the same. A diocese is, of course, free to express its disagreement with an action of General Convention and to work to change it but it may not declare it to be null and void and of no effect in the diocese.” She went on to say that for the diocese to declare GC2009 Resolutions D025 and C056 “null and void” is itself a nullity.

“Actions of General Convention are binding on dioceses regardless of whether their bishops and deputies voted for or against them, agree with them or even participated in General Convention,” she wrote.

“It is my prayer,” she wrote, “that Resolutions 1-4 are not steps being proposed to move the Diocese away from The Episcopal Church and towards efforts by others to create an alternate Anglican structure in our midst.”

Among orthodox priests still committed to staying in The Episcopal Church, some have been critical of Lawrence’s desire to withdraw from some governing bodies of the church. The Rev. Philip Wainwright President of the Evangelical Episcopal Assembly and an Episcopal priest in the reconstructed Diocese of Pittsburgh criticized Lawrence for not attending Province IV meetings of fellow bishops saying his non attendance will diminish his ability to make a stand for orthodoxy in that province and the wider Episcopal Church.

Wainwright admitted recently that he was staying in TEC, because there is no Plan B. "Many have thought they were the only ones left. It is true we are a floundering church, a church struggling over decisive issues. I was called to remain faithful. It seems clear to me that leaving exacerbates and waters down the voice of orthodoxy."

Lawrence and his diocese have chosen to stay but the story is far from over.

There are growing disagreements within the diocese. St. Andrew's Parish in Mt. Pleasant has begun a 40 Days of Discernment program to decide whether it will separate from the Episcopal Church and, by extension, from the diocese. If that happens Lawrence has said parishes may leave by cutting a deal over property. Clearly this could have a snowball effect with other prominent parishes deciding to leave.

Earlier in mid-September, the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina said the diocese “teeters on the edge of schism” from the Episcopal Church. With this diocesan action it might have pushed itself right over the edge. The ball is now firmly in the court of the national church.

The full text of Bishop Lawrence’s speech can be accessed here. http://www.dioceseofsc.org/lawrence_mark_convention_address_10_24_09.pdf

END

In case you missed this...

Yankees Beat Angels and Advance to World Series

The New York Yankees beat the Los Angeles Angels 5-2 in Game
6 of the American League Championship Series to advance to
the World Series for the first time since 2003. They will
play Game 1 against the Philadelphia Phillies on Wednesday
night in New York.

Source: New York Times

Global South Anglican Primates speak out today about the Vatican offer, preferring to work on the implementation of the Anglican Covenant.

Sunday, 25 October 2009 14:01

A Pastoral Exhortation to the Faithful in the Anglican Communion


1. We, under-shepherds of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of
Jesus Christ, bring greetings to the faithful in the Anglican Communion.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

For in his great love for us, we are no longer foreigners and aliens, but
fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as
the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and
rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being
built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit
(Ephesians 2: 19-22).


2. The Vatican announcement on Apostolic Constitution (Note of The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about Personal Ordinariates for
Anglicans entering the Catholic Church) gives us an occasion in making the
following pastoral exhortation.


3. We welcome Pope Benedict XVI's stance on the common biblical teaching on
human sexuality, and the commitment to continuing ecumenical dialogue.


4. At the same time we believe that the proposed Anglican Covenant sets the
necessary parameters in safeguarding the catholic and apostolic faith and
order of the Communion. It gives Anglican churches worldwide a clear and
principled way forward in pursuing God's divine purposes together in the
one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. We urge churches
in the Communion to actively work together towards a speedy adoption of the
Covenant.


5. In God's gracious purposes the Anglican Communion has moved beyond the
historical beginnings and expressions of English Christianity into a
worldwide Communion, of which the Church of England is a constitutive part.
In view of the global nature of the Communion, matters of faith and order
would inevitably have serious ramifications for the continuing well-being
and coherence of the Communion as a whole, and not only for Provinces of the
British Isles and The Episcopal Church in the USA. We urge the Archbishop of
Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in
the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates'
Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under
our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual
oversight.


6. As Primates of the Communion and guardians of the catholic and apostolic
faith and order, we stand in communion with our fellow bishops, clergy and
laity who are steadfast in the biblical teaching against the ordination of
openly homosexual clergy, the consecration of such to the episcopate, and
the blessing of homosexual partnerships. We also urge them, as fellow
Anglicans, to continue to stand firm with us in cherishing the Anglican
heritage, in pursuing a common vocation, in expressing our unity and common
life, and in maintaining our covenanted life together.


7. In the closing words of the Anglican Covenant: With joy and with firm
resolve, we offer ourselves for fruitful service and binding ourselves more
closely in the truth and love of Christ, to whom with the Father and the
Holy Spirit be glory for ever. Amen. "Now may the God of Peace, who brought
again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the
blood of the eternal covenant, make you complete in everything good so that
you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen." (Hebrews
13.20, 21)


25th October 2009

Global South Primates Steering Committee:

President: The Most Revd Peter J. Akinola, Nigeria General
Secretary: The Most Revd John Chew, Southeast Asia
Treasurer: The Most Revd Mouneer Anis, Jerusalem and the Middle East.
Members: The Most Revd Emmanuel Kolini, Rwanda
The Most Revd Stephen Than Myint Oo, Myanmar

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/weblog/comments/pastoral_exhort
ation/

Spoiling the party

by Robert Hart
Special to Virtueonline
October 23, 2009

I don't want to spoil the party
So I'll go
I would hate my disappointment to show

Except that, unlike those lyrics from a Beatles song, I am not going anywhere, and my response is not disappointment. One cannot be disappointed by what he expects. Actually, I am willing to spoil the party if that is what it takes. I could say, "no more Mr. Nice guy," except that I have never been thought of as a nice guy in the first place. At least, not by "Roman" polemicists and eager Tiber swimmers.

In the midst of heady, enthusiastic (if not Enthusiastic) responses to Rome's big offer, it seems necessary for someone to have the bad manners that it takes to remind people of classic Anglican disagreements with Roman doctrine. Or so some of the comments to my recent post, Thanks, but no thanks, indicate.

And, although it should not be necessary to remind readers of this, the classic Anglican position is not to be found in the multitude of "spirituality" choices currently on the official Canterbury Anglican Communion menu. Neither the perpetual adolescents at Stand Firm, the way out liberals of the modern Broad Church ("Broad" as in 1940s movies- effeminate, with broads at the altar) which includes as well the "sacramental" buggery party, nor the fussy Anglo-Papalists, embrace classic Anglican doctrine. Rather, all of these people live by the humorous lyrics in another Beatles song: "I dig a pony, Where you can celebrate anything you want." Their "Anglicanism" is all made up in their own heads, and mutually affirmed in their own circles just enough to complete the process of deception with confidence. It began with that famous lie, "Anglican has no distinctive theology."

Of course that is a lie only when the sentence is incomplete. It is supposed to end with the words, "but only that of the Catholic Church." How often we have repeated on The Continuum those words, under our blog title, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. How often we have reminded everybody that the goal of the English Reformers was to restore the full Catholic truth that had been lost by overmuch carnal and demonic "Doctrinal Development." By English Reformers, I mean the men who took up the pastoral challenge to reform the teaching and practice of the Church of England. I do not mean Henry VIII, whose only goal was to rule without interference. It is telling that in his announcement on Monday (Oct. 20, 2009), Cardinal Levada did what Romans always do: He laid the whole English Reformation on Henry, as if there was no Bloody Mary between Edward and Elizabeth, and as if there were no Cranmer, no Hooker, etc. who wanted to teach sound doctrine to the salvation of souls.

If ever we would see genuine Reunion in the Church, then ill mannered men like me will have to be given our say first: That is because real unity can have a chance only if it is to follow sincere discussion about theology, inasmuch as Christians must never divorce themselves from conscience and from love of the truth. Frankly, we have so much in common, that overcoming these theological differences is worth the effort. Therefore, it is necessary to state the differences that remain between us and Rome. Differences that are merely those of custom and ethos are important, but here we shall discuss the heavier matters of theology.

1. The papacy

If we believe in the Universal Consensus of Antiquity then we cannot accept the magnified role of the bishop of Rome. Simply put, we believe in the Conciliar authority of the bishops of the Church, not in the Roman doctrine of Papal Universal Primacy (Before someone lectures us in comments, yes, we do understand the Roman doctrine: We do not agree with it).

2. Teaching authority

Related to point 1, we believe that all doctrine must be thoroughly documented by the standard of Universal Consensus and Antiquity, and must come from the revelation of God in Scripture as its source. Rome claims to believe this too, but in practice they have relied instead on a flawed concept of Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development. Therefore, they have created "dogmas" such as the full blown Medieval theory of Purgatory and its related errors (which we will address), and have felt free to make dogmas out of pious customs, namely the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, requiring them as necessary to salvation even though they cannot be proved by Holy writ (see Article VI).

3.Justification

The Gospel cannot be preached truly unless we believe that Christ's sacrifice alone is all that is needed to take away human sin. Rome does teach this in their Catechism of the Catholic Church, but on the same exact page they restate their belief that the merits of the saints can be applied by the Church to remit human sins.

May I suggest that this apparent self-contradiction is because Rome confuses Tradition with precedent? The burden of having to keep every doctrine ever taught, instead of weighing truth against error by the standard of Scripture with Universal Consensus and Antiquity, creates a disability that hinders direct and powerful proclamation of the Gospel. They want to proclaim that Christ's sacrifice alone is full and sufficient, but they are in bondage to a Medieval error that ought to be tossed out. This is no small matter. It must be thoroughly discussed and cleared up.

Article XIV. Of Works of Supererogation

Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants. The above Article is simply the only doctrine known to the ancient Church, and it is consistent with the testimony of every saint who has ever left behind any record of the struggles, the sins and the mercy that were experienced in this transitory life. It is beyond question drawn from the Bible. If the Church has been given some "treasury" of the merits of saints, then it must be that these people were so righteous that God owes sinful mankind a credit based on the merits of these saints; and although that credit is applied against some idea of "temporal punishment" in a state called Purgatory, the idea of any remission of sins that allows one unhindered entrance into God's presence, other than Christ's own sacrifice of himself once offered, is heresy. It is a false Gospel, and therefore no small matter (Gal. 1:8).

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Rom. 5:1, 7-11)

Saint Paul taught very clearly that justification comes by God's grace, because he does not hold the sinner guilty; not only is the sinner forgiven, but all sin is forgotten; it has been taken away. Justification leads to sanctification, but the justification of the ungodly that comes through faith is immediate, not a process inasmuch as mercy can have no process that delays its full effects.

Article XXII. Of Purgatory

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. It may be that some kind of theory of Purgatory, other than "the Romish doctrine" referred to here, is the only meaningful interpretation of various passages that speak of the many stripes given to those who knew, and the few to the ignorant, or of Paul's account of loss by fire of wood, hay and stubble. That is, a final cleansing. It is just as reasonable that this purifying will be painful but achieved in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, when the carnal and fallen mortal condition of the saints must finally die as the power of Christ's transforming immortality perfects all those who are raised after pattern of his resurrection.

Nonetheless, we must be unhindered in our efforts to preach the Gospel. The doctrine condemned in Article XXII was an elaborately constructed teaching about how individuals may earn credits, may receive pardons based on merits of the saints, and be granted a shorter sentence in Purgatory. Indeed, the whole emphasis of complete repentance and genuine faith, so as to be restored to fellowship with God in this life and the in the age to come, was lost. The realization that Christ had offered himself once for all (Heb. 10:10) was lost. Instead, people performed works to lessen the time of temporal punishment, an entire concept that is alien to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, contrary to Scripture, unknown by the Fathers, indeed, "repugnant to the word of God." And, the whole idea of long sentences in Purgatory contradicts the clear teaching that Christ will come again, and that "the dead in Christ shall rise first." (I Thess. 4:16) For, in that whole crazy system, sinners working off their sins will always have time to serve in Purgatory, and so Christ could never return. The time would never be right.

In short, it is a damnable heresy that denies the Gospel. Furthermore, it calls into question Christology.

Our Book of Common Prayer draws from the Epistle to the Hebrews and from the First Epistle of St. John to give us this powerful proclamation in our service of Holy Communion (all of which is edited out of the "Anglican" Use Rite approved by Rome-for no good reason):

(Using the version as it appears in the American , Episcopal Prayer Book, edition 1928)

"ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again."

That the "Romish Doctrine of Purgatory," with all of its related errors, calls into question the Christological truth drawn from Scripture and well defended at the Council of Chalcedon, should be easy to understand. If anything needs to be added to Christ' sacrifice* then we lessen his Divinity. The death of Christ is not full, perfect and sufficient ultimately because of the intensity of his suffering, but because of the Divine nature of his Person. The Man who also the Word made flesh, the one who is complete in two natures, the Eternally Begotten Son who is of the same substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, has taken time into his eternity, created nature into his uncreated being, and mortality into his immortal Person. The Person who is both God and man suffered and died. He was sinless, holy and righteous as the Lamb without spot, and he was God the Son, like the Lion who appeared as a Lamb that had been slain (Rev. 5:5,6). How could the death of the sinless one be less than redemptive; and how could the death of the one who is fully God and fully man be less than full, perfect and sufficient? The cross saves us from all sin and from death because of the Divine Person who died there. If we claim to need anything else, are we not denying that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? (I John 4:1f)

This may spoil the party, but before we can enter into real unity, we have genuine work to do.

_________________________

* I fear someone may think that St. Paul's words contradict my point: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." (Col. 1: 24) St. Paul was not setting forth his sufferings as adding to Christ's atonement, but identifying his sufferings with those of his Lord, as all true disciples may, and trusting that those sufferings were all serving a good purpose in the hands of God.


----Robert Hart is Priest in Charge of St. Benedict's Anglican Church in Chapel Hill North Carolina, and a Contributing Editor of Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity. He contributes regularly to the blog, The Continuum.