A VOL EXCLUSIVE
By Mary Ann Mueller and David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
May 31, 2010
Rumors are flying, e-mails are zipping across cyberspace, and letters are being written between two Episcopal bishops over a Sunday worship service being re-established at Nashotah House an Anglo-Catholic seminary in The Episcopal Church.
"The rumor mill is running-and it's out of control." blogs the Very Rev. Robert S. Munday, dean of Nashotah House Seminary as he tries to stem the tide of misconstrued information.
On April 22, VOL first learned about the Sunday community worship in an e-mail from Andrew Johnson, president of the Board Southeast Wisconsin Chapter of the American Anglican Council (SEWAAC), when he noted in a SEWAAC Update, "Just this past Sunday, April 18, saw the start of a traditional Anglican worship service being conducted at Nashotah House. These 10:00 AM Sunday morning services are open to the public and fill a void for those of us who have been looking for a traditional Anglican worship service that is not part of the Episcopal Church. This is the start of new Orthodox Anglican congregation being called St. Michael's at the Mission. We are truly thankful for Nashotah House and all they do."
Last week the Rt. Rev. William Wantland, retired bishop of the Diocese of Eau Claire and a frequent visitor to Nashotah House, commented on his May trip back to Wisconsin's oldest institution of higher learning to witness this year's graduation, hear former Rochester (UK) Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali's commencement address, and attend the spring meeting of the Nashotah House Board of Trustees, "Nashotah graduation was great, with a good sermon from Bp. Nazir-Ali but with the Bishop of Milwaukee raising Hell over The House having a Sunday morning Mass (as it has done at least three times in the past), which he sees as an attempt to start an ACNA parish."
That in a nutshell is the point of contention between Nashotah House and the Episcopal Diocese of Milwaukee. Is the new Sunday worship service at Nashotah House in reality the beginning of a SEWAAC-supported ACNA parish or is the newly re-instituted Sunday worship service a living laboratory where Nashotah students can learn firsthand about the inner workings of parish life and worship through hands-on experience?
On April 28, a meeting took place in Milwaukee among Milwaukee Bishop Steven A. Miller; Nashotah's Dean Munday; and the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., retired Bishop of South Carolina and chairman of Nashotah's Board of Trustees, to hash out the parameters of the new Sunday worship experience at The House.
In a copy of the two letters between Bishop Salmon and Bishop Miller leaked to VOL, the two bishops demonstrated their deep difference of opinion on how the late April meeting went and what it means to have the new community worship service starting at The House.
"I think it was helpful to acknowledge that the relationship of the bishop of Milwaukee with Nashotah House is fractured at best," writes Bishop Salmon in his one page letter. "While Nashotah House is an Episcopal-related institution, it is not under the authority of a diocesan bishop, it is our obligation to maintain a gracious relationship."
Bishop Miller does not agree that there is a gracious relationship between his Episcopal Diocese and The House. He believes he was blindsided.
The Milwaukee bishop charges in his two-page response that Bishop Salmon's letter to him was first made widely available to the Nashotah House community. As the Episcopal Bishop of Milwaukee he first learned about Bishop Salmon's letter via e-mail before the Nashotah letter was even in his hands.
"I don't know whether you are aware that copies of your letter were released within the Nashotah House community ...I had seen a copy of the letter forwarded to me by e-mail last weekend," writes Bishop Miller in his May 6th letter. "I would have preferred to received your letter and respond to it before it was distributed more widely."
Although the Nashotah letter was mistakenly dated May 29 rather than April 29, 2010, the envelope apparently bears a May 4th postmark. It was not delivered to Bishop Miller's Milwaukee office until May 5.
"The most urgent matter we discussed had to do with the accusation that the laboratory worship service that Nashotah House had begun two Sundays ago was actually an ACNA congregation," writes Bishop Salmon to the Milwaukee bishop. "Various documents by related individuals seemed to establish that.
"I have met with SEWAAC representatives this morning and confirmed with them that Nashotah's House's Sunday morning worship service is a laboratory for seminarian training and is related only to Nashotah House," Nashotah's Trustee Chairman continued. "It is a service for anyone interested to attend, and is in no way related to being in opposition to the diocese or any local congregation."
"While I am grateful for your concern about the 'fractured' state of the historic relationship between Nashotah House and the Bishop of Milwaukee, we agreed that this fracture began long before I become bishop of this diocese," Bishop Miller wrote. "However, my primary concern is about clarity of understanding regarding the canonical implications of the beginning of what, from all outward appearances, is a congregation, and not just a lab setting for liturgy..."
Bishop Miller is not only concerned about the new Sunday worship service becoming the nucleus of an ACNA congregation. He also fears that as the premier Anglo-Catholic seminary, Nashotah House draws in the crème de la crème of Episcopal and Anglican clerics to its hallowed halls including Bishop Nazir-Ali who is from Church of England, as well as Keith Ackerman, the retired Bishop of Quincy, and Bishop Wantland -- both of whom have close ties to Nashotah and are now associated with the Anglican Church in North America.
Bishop Ackerman holds an earned degree from Nashotah while Bishop Wantland has an honorary degree from the same Wisconsin seminary. There are also other Nashotans who have aligned themselves with ACNA or another Global South Anglican providence.
Some of the other living bishops in The Episcopal Church who hold earned Nashotah degrees include bishops William Love, Albany; Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac; Charles Jenkins, retired-Louisiana; Paul Lambert, suffragan-Dallas; Edwin Leidel, retired-Eastern Michigan; C.W. Ohl, provisional-North Texas (Ft. Worth); Peter Beckwith, Springfield; Robert Shahan, retired-Arizona; Francis Gray, retired-Northern Indiana; Richard Grein, retired-New York; Dabney Smith, Southwest Florida; G.W. Smith, Missouri; Arthur Vogel, retired-West Missouri; Keith Whitmore, assisting-Atlanta; Jeffery Lee, Chicago; and Robert Witcher, retired-Long Island.
Some bishops who have honorary doctorates from The House include the Rt. Revs: Clarence Pope, retired-Fort Worth; Dan Herzog, retired-Albany; Edward MacBurney, retired-Quincy; and John Howe, Central Florida.
Dean Munday also considers several other bishops to be Friends-of-The-House including the Rt. Rev's: Bud Shand, Easton; Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana; Jack Iker, Fort Worth; and ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan.
Nashotah House has cast a wide net in Anglican waters. Several non-TEC dioceses have sent their student priests to Wisconsin for solid Anglo-Catholic training. In addition. The House has been the "home" of at least one Archbishop of Canterbury -- Lord Michael Ramsey. Nashotah's Ramsey Society, which seeks not only to preserve but also to extend and enrich the Catholic witness in the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, is named in his honor.
"Not only did we discuss the importance of the leadership of the new Sunday morning service coming from constituent members of the Seminary community," Bishop Miller wrote to Bishop Salmon, "we also discussed the inappropriateness of those resolved or released from ministry in The Episcopal Church functioning in a clerical capacity either at the Sunday morning service or at other times in the Chapel of an institution advertising itself as 'A Seminary of The Episcopal Church'." "Nashotah House has been training priests for The Episcopal Church for 167 years," Dean Munday told a gathering of Nashotah sons and daughters at last year's General Convention in Anaheim. "And we have no intention of doing otherwise."
"I want to make it clear for the record here that more than 90 percent of our students come from dioceses of The Episcopal Church," said Munday last July.
"We have received several reports in the last few years from dioceses that give canonical exams that our graduates excel and are the best prepared of any graduates they see," Dean Munday proudly explained last year. "Bishops tell us our recent graduates are easily the best trained clergy in their dioceses."
Bishop Miller doesn't seem quite convinced of Dean Munday's assurances and told Bishop Salmon so.
"Nowhere in your letter do I find mention of this important issue which relates directly to the good order of the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church," Bishop Miller wrote. "The ongoing lack of a clear direction from the Board of Trustees to the Seminary administration on this matter is of grave concern to me..."
Bishop Miller felt that an e-mail, apparently written by Dean Munday, and circulating in the Diocese of Milwaukee, clearly outlined the problem. The Bishop included the body of the e-mail in his letter. The bishop wrote he received a copy of the e-mail from Dean Munday, which had also been sent to an alumna and priest in Bishop Miller's diocese.
The May 4th e-mail seemed to outline the purpose of the renewed Sunday worship.
"There are two things that make this current experiment with Sunday morning worship different from those that have gone before. We have been more successful in attracting individuals from the surrounding communities to attend and secondly the highly politicized atmosphere that currently exists in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion."
Dean Munday noted that there are worshippers who travel as much as 90 miles to attend the Nashotah Sunday service because "they are excited about the vision we are proposing for this congregation."
Then the Dean outlined a strategy for ministry including: Christian education for all ages, rekindling the Lake Country Youth Ministry as well as linking the developing Nashotah congregation with the ministry activities of the Bishop Kemper Mission Society.
"We believe that the Catholic devotional societies that exist at Nashotah House (Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, Society of Mary, Guild of All Souls) in addition to our chapters of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew, the Daughters of the King, and the Order of St. Luke will benefit from the continuity of having permanent members who are local laity..." he writes explaining that because of the high turnover of seminarians the student body chapters of these organizations struggle to remain viable from one school year to the next.
Taking in the contents and context of the Dean's e-mail, Bishop Miller continued his letter to the Nashotah bishop.
"This appears to be a congregation which is physically within the Diocese of Milwaukee meeting at Nashotah House. All Episcopal congregations within the Diocese are subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop," the Milwaukee bishop wrote. "It also appears that we need further honest conversation about the 'vision', which is drawing people to this congregation."
TEC Canon I.13:1 states, "Every Congregation in this Church shall belong to the Church in the Diocese in which its place of worship is situated."
Bishop Miller clearly regards this Canon as applicable to the Nashotah's Sunday developing worship group.
Dean Munday sought to do damage control over the weekend. Writing on his blog To "All the World" on Friday, Munday wrote a piece, "Tearing Down the Rumor Mill - Sunday morning worship at Nashotah House."
In it he wrote, "I have had experiences with the rumor mill at various times in my life; but perhaps none more vexing than the episode in which I am enmeshed at present."
Then he goes on to explain that Nashotah House has had a long history of celebrating Sunday Eucharist. Sometimes the service would take place on in the morning and other times at night, he wrote.
"The Chapel of St. Mary the Virgin, which was rededicated last year on its sesquicentennial anniversary as a house of worship, was originally built as St. Sylvanus and operated as a quasi parish church serving the spiritual needs of the Nashotahans and their surrounding neighbors.
"Through the years Nashotah House has reached out to help meet the spiritual needs of the surrounding community, not just prepare men (and now women) for the priesthood. Several times a Sunday service has been started at Nashotah with varying success and duration.
"Daily prayer has been a part of the Nashotah spiritual experience since the earliest days of the seminary's foundation when Jackson Kemper first planted its spiritual roots.
"Going all the way back to its founding in 1842, Nashotah House has always been as much a spiritual community as an educational institution. The integration of the practical dimensions of a worshiping community with the academic side of our life would also move the House away from the "ivory tower" image of which seminaries are all too often accused."
The Dean differs with Bishop Miller over what constitutes an Episcopal parish. He contends that any worship conducted at Nashotah House is outside the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Milwaukee.
Dean Munday explained in his blog, "The Sunday morning service, like any other worship service of Nashotah House, occurs under the authority of the Dean, who is designated by the Statutes of Nashotah House as the Ordinary, who himself functions under the authority of the Statutes and the Board of Trustees.
"The Sunday morning worship service and those who attend it ... do not constitute a congregation in the canonical sense, since Nashotah House, while it has always performed baptisms, weddings, funerals, and invited bishops to hold confirmations, does not receive or issue letters of membership, or function in any other way as a congregation, as defined by the Canons of the Episcopal Church."
The Dean also observed that while the seminary may receive students from a variety of traditions -- including other Anglican bodies -- the Trustees, administration, and faculty of Nashotah House have no interest in changing the historic relationship of Nashotah House to The Episcopal Church. Those on the faculty who are clergy of The Episcopal Church cannot celebrate the Eucharist or function canonically at a worship service of another denomination.
Apparently the miscommunication problem came up when SEWAAC ostensibly "mischaracterized what we were doing in their newsletter," wrote Munday.
"And the rumor mill began its work," Dean Munday blogged. "Before the day was over, one attendee (who was unaware of the painstaking lengths to which we had gone to discuss what this service could and could not be) had e-mailed some old friends that Nashotah House was starting an ACNA congregation."
Meanwhile Bishop Miller wrote to Bishop Salmon, "I am confident you will work to resolve this matter in accordance with the disciple of this Church which we vowed to uphold when we were ordained deacon, priest, and bishop."
Dean Munday is determined to press on as he blogs: "So what am I going to do? Well, first of all, I am not going to give up the things I am doing that are "right and a good and joyful thing" for many people. We will celebrate the Eucharist at Nashotah House on Sunday, just as we do every other day. The service is at 10:00 a.m. Everyone is welcome."
Recently Dean Munday announced his intention to run for the position of bishop in the Diocese of Springfield following the recent retirement of Bishop Peter Beckwith.
---Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline
Monday, May 31, 2010
Archbishop of Canterbury Wrist Slaps Episcopal Church over Homosexual Consecration
PB Jefferts Schori dodges ecclesiastical bullet in Williams' Pentecost Message
News analysis
By David Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
May 30, 2010
In a move designed to sting but not seriously hurt The Episcopal Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a mild wrist slap against the sexual innovations of TEC's leadership while insisting that border crossing is of equal concern for the Anglican Communion's global primates.
Following the consecration of the Rev. Mary Glasspool, an avowed lesbian priest, to TEC's episcopacy last week in Los Angeles, the ABC, in his Pentecost Day message, urged a diminished role for the Episcopal Church.
In the five-page statement, the archbishop stated provinces, such as the Episcopal Church or national and regional churches that have broken agreed-upon "promises", such as homosexual ordinations and border crossing, should step down from participating in interfaith dialogues.
He said they should also relinquish decision-making powers in the Anglican Consultative Council that deals with questions of doctrine and authority.
When openly homogenital Bishop Gene Robinson was consecrated in 2003, the Anglican Communion leadership laid out three promises, or moratoria, according to the archbishop of Canterbury website:
1. No authorization of blessings services for same-sex unions.
2. No consecrations of bishops living in same-sex relationships.
3. No cross-border interventions (no bishop authorizing any ministry within the diocese of another bishop without explicit permission).
All of these have been broken.
The archbishop's message raises more questions than it answers.
First of all, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori gets a free pass. Nowhere in his statement is she specifically mentioned, nor is Fred Hiltz, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Canada, who steadfastly supports gay marriage, nor are any of the rest of the Anglican primates. It is the lower level orders that come in for his opprobrium.
According to the Episcopal News Service, only two Episcopal Church members are expected to be affected by the proposal. One serves on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue and the other on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order.
When a province "declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the communion, it is very hard to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the communion as a whole," Williams said. "This affects both our ecumenical dialogues ... and our faith-and-order related groups."
Williams said that affected provinces "will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future."
Episcopal Church members currently serving on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue are the Rev. Thomas Ferguson, the Episcopal Church's interim deputy for ecumenical and interreligious relations, and Assistant Bishop William Gregg of North Carolina. Other members who may be asked to resign their membership are the Rev. Canon Philip Hobson and Natasha Klukach from the Anglican Church of Canada and the Rev. Joseph Wandera from the Anglican Church of Kenya. Some dioceses in the Canadian church have made provisions for blessing same-gender unions while the Kenyan church has consecrated former Episcopalians as bishops in the U.S., an action that is in contravention of the moratorium on cross-border interventions.
But sources in London tell VOL that Dr. Williams' statement is virtually without consequences - just enough for the media to say that he is doing something, and doing it in an even handed way. "It is actually trivial, and apparently it is subject to discussion at the next primates' meeting," VOL was told.
An orthodox Episcopal bishop told VOL, "Rowan threaded the needle as he always does."
The exclusion of the Global South from these bodies on account of their border crossing will, I think, simply result in wry smiles. Mrs. Jefferts Schori gets another free pass as did Frank Griswold, her predecessor. The Global South who represent 80% of the Anglican Communion have always viewed pansexual behavior as soul destroying and life denying. Border crossing (which ceased when the ACNA was born more than a year ago) has been viewed as a necessary "evil" done at the behest of orthodox North American Anglicans forced into ecclesiastical bunkers in order to survive.
Some global leaders have indicated that Williams' message is "inadequate" and fails to deal with the "deeper issues of theological and moral innovation by North American leaders."
The deeper question is will the Global South primates even attend the January 2011 meeting? Will they even respond to this statement?
At what point do they formally signify that they no longer accept the authority of any of the Anglican Communion bodies? Is there a "tipping point"? Certainly there has been enormous outrage by orthodox Global South primates at the manipulative tactics of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) by Canon Kenneth Kearon and more particularly his predecessor John Peterson. This has been largely due to the fact that the bulk of the ACC's budget is funded by The Episcopal Church. Should that dry up, so would the ACC.
Williams' actions have done nothing, over the years, to allay the fears of orthodox archbishops and bishops that the innovations of North American primates will ever be seriously dealt with. His Pentecost message action seems more like a phlegmatic burp than the sound of a mighty rushing wind.
In an odd twist, Williams points to the recent Global South to South gathering in Singapore citing their call for diversity as a means to Anglican identity. This is to completely misread what happened there.
In Singapore, Global South leaders put the brakes on any immediate acceptance of an Anglican Covenant, arguing that it needed to be strengthened "in order for it to fulfill its purpose". They also argued vigorously against the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion's interference and stand to implement a Covenant.
They argued that the Primates are the only legitimate body to oversee and implement the Covenant, a major slap at the Anglican Consultative Council that, over time, has assumed powers it was never given. They also said, "All those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10."
Participants concluded the communiqué saying that the entire Anglican Communion structure, especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office, should be reviewed in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of the Anglican Communion.
The truth is the "painful divisions" Williams speaks of in his message will only continue and heighten in the coming months. If he calls for a Primates meeting in London in January, will any of the orthodox Primates come? What Williams says in his message are "recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round," will only continue.
An American Anglican Council spokesman said the step Williams took was not strong enough. The ambitious Ian Douglas Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut said that while Williams' statement is "of significance ... it's not as punitive as it might have been. It's another expression of how we're trying to live with our differences with integrity and not alienate one another," Douglas said. "I'm still convinced there's so much more that unites us."
Fiction dies hard among liberals and revisionists like Douglas. The alienation and divisions were fully and finally recognized in 2009 in Alexandria, Egypt. Two religions now exist side by side in the Anglican Communion and are utterly irreconcilable. A Covenant will neither gloss over nor cement that reality.
Williams acknowledged that the communion currently faces a dilemma. "To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing," he said.
"Neither is it a good thing to break away from each other so dramatically that we no longer see Christ in each other and risk trying to create a church of the 'perfect' -- people like us."
The truth is that Williams' Pentecost message has resolved nothing. The fix is in. A de facto break already exists. His message will be seen by the Global South for what it is, the last gasp of a spent Communion and not the hoped for mighty wind of joyful anticipation.
END
News analysis
By David Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
May 30, 2010
In a move designed to sting but not seriously hurt The Episcopal Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a mild wrist slap against the sexual innovations of TEC's leadership while insisting that border crossing is of equal concern for the Anglican Communion's global primates.
Following the consecration of the Rev. Mary Glasspool, an avowed lesbian priest, to TEC's episcopacy last week in Los Angeles, the ABC, in his Pentecost Day message, urged a diminished role for the Episcopal Church.
In the five-page statement, the archbishop stated provinces, such as the Episcopal Church or national and regional churches that have broken agreed-upon "promises", such as homosexual ordinations and border crossing, should step down from participating in interfaith dialogues.
He said they should also relinquish decision-making powers in the Anglican Consultative Council that deals with questions of doctrine and authority.
When openly homogenital Bishop Gene Robinson was consecrated in 2003, the Anglican Communion leadership laid out three promises, or moratoria, according to the archbishop of Canterbury website:
1. No authorization of blessings services for same-sex unions.
2. No consecrations of bishops living in same-sex relationships.
3. No cross-border interventions (no bishop authorizing any ministry within the diocese of another bishop without explicit permission).
All of these have been broken.
The archbishop's message raises more questions than it answers.
First of all, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori gets a free pass. Nowhere in his statement is she specifically mentioned, nor is Fred Hiltz, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Canada, who steadfastly supports gay marriage, nor are any of the rest of the Anglican primates. It is the lower level orders that come in for his opprobrium.
According to the Episcopal News Service, only two Episcopal Church members are expected to be affected by the proposal. One serves on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue and the other on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order.
When a province "declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the communion, it is very hard to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the communion as a whole," Williams said. "This affects both our ecumenical dialogues ... and our faith-and-order related groups."
Williams said that affected provinces "will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future."
Episcopal Church members currently serving on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue are the Rev. Thomas Ferguson, the Episcopal Church's interim deputy for ecumenical and interreligious relations, and Assistant Bishop William Gregg of North Carolina. Other members who may be asked to resign their membership are the Rev. Canon Philip Hobson and Natasha Klukach from the Anglican Church of Canada and the Rev. Joseph Wandera from the Anglican Church of Kenya. Some dioceses in the Canadian church have made provisions for blessing same-gender unions while the Kenyan church has consecrated former Episcopalians as bishops in the U.S., an action that is in contravention of the moratorium on cross-border interventions.
But sources in London tell VOL that Dr. Williams' statement is virtually without consequences - just enough for the media to say that he is doing something, and doing it in an even handed way. "It is actually trivial, and apparently it is subject to discussion at the next primates' meeting," VOL was told.
An orthodox Episcopal bishop told VOL, "Rowan threaded the needle as he always does."
The exclusion of the Global South from these bodies on account of their border crossing will, I think, simply result in wry smiles. Mrs. Jefferts Schori gets another free pass as did Frank Griswold, her predecessor. The Global South who represent 80% of the Anglican Communion have always viewed pansexual behavior as soul destroying and life denying. Border crossing (which ceased when the ACNA was born more than a year ago) has been viewed as a necessary "evil" done at the behest of orthodox North American Anglicans forced into ecclesiastical bunkers in order to survive.
Some global leaders have indicated that Williams' message is "inadequate" and fails to deal with the "deeper issues of theological and moral innovation by North American leaders."
The deeper question is will the Global South primates even attend the January 2011 meeting? Will they even respond to this statement?
At what point do they formally signify that they no longer accept the authority of any of the Anglican Communion bodies? Is there a "tipping point"? Certainly there has been enormous outrage by orthodox Global South primates at the manipulative tactics of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) by Canon Kenneth Kearon and more particularly his predecessor John Peterson. This has been largely due to the fact that the bulk of the ACC's budget is funded by The Episcopal Church. Should that dry up, so would the ACC.
Williams' actions have done nothing, over the years, to allay the fears of orthodox archbishops and bishops that the innovations of North American primates will ever be seriously dealt with. His Pentecost message action seems more like a phlegmatic burp than the sound of a mighty rushing wind.
In an odd twist, Williams points to the recent Global South to South gathering in Singapore citing their call for diversity as a means to Anglican identity. This is to completely misread what happened there.
In Singapore, Global South leaders put the brakes on any immediate acceptance of an Anglican Covenant, arguing that it needed to be strengthened "in order for it to fulfill its purpose". They also argued vigorously against the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion's interference and stand to implement a Covenant.
They argued that the Primates are the only legitimate body to oversee and implement the Covenant, a major slap at the Anglican Consultative Council that, over time, has assumed powers it was never given. They also said, "All those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10."
Participants concluded the communiqué saying that the entire Anglican Communion structure, especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office, should be reviewed in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of the Anglican Communion.
The truth is the "painful divisions" Williams speaks of in his message will only continue and heighten in the coming months. If he calls for a Primates meeting in London in January, will any of the orthodox Primates come? What Williams says in his message are "recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round," will only continue.
An American Anglican Council spokesman said the step Williams took was not strong enough. The ambitious Ian Douglas Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut said that while Williams' statement is "of significance ... it's not as punitive as it might have been. It's another expression of how we're trying to live with our differences with integrity and not alienate one another," Douglas said. "I'm still convinced there's so much more that unites us."
Fiction dies hard among liberals and revisionists like Douglas. The alienation and divisions were fully and finally recognized in 2009 in Alexandria, Egypt. Two religions now exist side by side in the Anglican Communion and are utterly irreconcilable. A Covenant will neither gloss over nor cement that reality.
Williams acknowledged that the communion currently faces a dilemma. "To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing," he said.
"Neither is it a good thing to break away from each other so dramatically that we no longer see Christ in each other and risk trying to create a church of the 'perfect' -- people like us."
The truth is that Williams' Pentecost message has resolved nothing. The fix is in. A de facto break already exists. His message will be seen by the Global South for what it is, the last gasp of a spent Communion and not the hoped for mighty wind of joyful anticipation.
END
NEW BUZZWORD!!
from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor
There are two aspects to a successful Episcopal Organization buzzword or cliche. It should (1) sound meaningful and (2) communicate absolutely nothing. Connecticut Episcopal Bishop Ian Douglas takes ”live into” to the next level:
“Many churches across the Anglican Communion because of conscience or their belief in what the holy spirit is up to in their local context have lived beyond the moratoria,” Douglas said.
Okay, I’ll play:
(1) I’m afraid I can’t accept this ticket, Officer. In my local context, I have lived beyond speed limits.
(2) Honey, I’m not sleeping with that woman! No, no, no, no! It’s just that in my local context, I have lived beyond monogamy.
(3) In my local context, I have lived beyond who owns what so no, you can’t have your Rolex back.
It’s got definite potential for greatness.
There are two aspects to a successful Episcopal Organization buzzword or cliche. It should (1) sound meaningful and (2) communicate absolutely nothing. Connecticut Episcopal Bishop Ian Douglas takes ”live into” to the next level:
“Many churches across the Anglican Communion because of conscience or their belief in what the holy spirit is up to in their local context have lived beyond the moratoria,” Douglas said.
Okay, I’ll play:
(1) I’m afraid I can’t accept this ticket, Officer. In my local context, I have lived beyond speed limits.
(2) Honey, I’m not sleeping with that woman! No, no, no, no! It’s just that in my local context, I have lived beyond monogamy.
(3) In my local context, I have lived beyond who owns what so no, you can’t have your Rolex back.
It’s got definite potential for greatness.
The Homosexual Hate Movement: Another form of totalitarianism
Via VirtueOnline:
by Paul Anthony Melanson
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2010/05/homosexual-hate-movement-another-form.html
May 28, 2010
Pope John Paul II, in "Memory and Identity: Conversations at the Dawn of a Millennium," notes how, "If, on the one hand, the West continues to provide evidence of zealous evangelization, on the other hand anti-evangelical currents are equally strong.
They strike at the very foundation of human morality, influencing the family and promoting a morally permissive outlook: divorce, free love, abortion, contraconception, the fight against life in its initial phases and in its final phase, the manipulation of life.
This program is supported by enormous financial resources, not only in individual countries, but also on a worldwide scale. It has great centers of economic power at its disposal, through which it attempts to impose its own conditions on developing countries. Faced with this, one may legitimately ask whether this is not another form of totalitarianism, subtly concealed under the appearances of democracy." (p. 48).
The Homosexual Hate Movement is indeed totalitarian. It seeks to impose its agenda and to punish those who refuse to accept or condone illicit same-sex relationships. For example, British and Canadian homosexual activists want to punish the African State of Malawi because it will not recognize same-sex liaisons. See here.
Radical homosexual activists are engaged in a psychological attack in the form of propaganda aimed at those who are opposed to homosexuality. Their goal is to convert the mind and the will. As homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s,"
"Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade pr counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice'..by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot....Both Desensitization and Jamming...are mere preludes to our highest - though necessarily very long-range - goal, which is Conversion.
It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us.
Conversion aims at just this...By Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack , in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media." (p. 153).
The Homosexual Hate Movement is, by its own admission, engaged in psychological warfare through the use of propaganda to convert people to its agenda. And even that this conversion is "profoundly threatening to the American way of life." And when these radical activists fail to get their way, as we've witnessed in California and in other parts of the country, they can become violent. Indeed, this hate movement will use and all means - including economic sanctions - to impose its ideology. And that is totalitarianism.
by Paul Anthony Melanson
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2010/05/homosexual-hate-movement-another-form.html
May 28, 2010
Pope John Paul II, in "Memory and Identity: Conversations at the Dawn of a Millennium," notes how, "If, on the one hand, the West continues to provide evidence of zealous evangelization, on the other hand anti-evangelical currents are equally strong.
They strike at the very foundation of human morality, influencing the family and promoting a morally permissive outlook: divorce, free love, abortion, contraconception, the fight against life in its initial phases and in its final phase, the manipulation of life.
This program is supported by enormous financial resources, not only in individual countries, but also on a worldwide scale. It has great centers of economic power at its disposal, through which it attempts to impose its own conditions on developing countries. Faced with this, one may legitimately ask whether this is not another form of totalitarianism, subtly concealed under the appearances of democracy." (p. 48).
The Homosexual Hate Movement is indeed totalitarian. It seeks to impose its agenda and to punish those who refuse to accept or condone illicit same-sex relationships. For example, British and Canadian homosexual activists want to punish the African State of Malawi because it will not recognize same-sex liaisons. See here.
Radical homosexual activists are engaged in a psychological attack in the form of propaganda aimed at those who are opposed to homosexuality. Their goal is to convert the mind and the will. As homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s,"
"Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade pr counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice'..by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot....Both Desensitization and Jamming...are mere preludes to our highest - though necessarily very long-range - goal, which is Conversion.
It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us.
Conversion aims at just this...By Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack , in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media." (p. 153).
The Homosexual Hate Movement is, by its own admission, engaged in psychological warfare through the use of propaganda to convert people to its agenda. And even that this conversion is "profoundly threatening to the American way of life." And when these radical activists fail to get their way, as we've witnessed in California and in other parts of the country, they can become violent. Indeed, this hate movement will use and all means - including economic sanctions - to impose its ideology. And that is totalitarianism.
Tearing Down the Rumor Mill - Sunday morning worship at Nashotah House
From Dean Robert Munday's blog To All the World:
FRIDAY, MAY 28, 2010
"There’s an element of gossip present in every social enterprise. And while light office gossip and a few comments here and there probably won’t hurt anyone, a pervasive culture of rumor-mongering and trash-talking is detrimental to everyone." So begins an article by Margot Carmichael Lester, on the Monster.com job website.
The article continues:
“Gossip destroys morale, creates negative energy and stops coworkers from becoming a united team...” says Judith Orloff, MD, the author of Emotional Freedom: Liberate Yourself from Negative Emotions....
But in the world of office politics, gossip is prevalent, particularly in times of uncertainty, because people are scared and insecure. The folks feeling the greatest anxiety often tend to be the most fervent gossips.
I have had experiences with the rumor mill at various times in my life; but perhaps none more vexing than the episode in which I am enmeshed at present.
Nashotah House has had a daily celebration of the Eucharist (including Sundays) since time immemorial. It is one of the very fine aspects of being an Anglo-Catholic institution. Sometimes in the long history of the House the Sunday Eucharist has been in the morning; sometimes it has been in the evening.
In the 1970's and 1980's, when Fr. Louis Weil was Liturgics professor, there was a congregation named St. Silvanus, because it met in the historic Red Chapel also named for that saint. A few years ago, we moved the Sunday Eucharist to the morning and held it in St. Mary's Chapel, but the service never developed a sizeable congregation; so, after several months, we moved it back to the evening.
This semester we tried another experiment with having a Eucharist on Sunday morning. Some friends, trustees, and supporters of the House said they would be interested in worshiping with us if we had a Sunday morning service. We talked about it over a period of a few months, assessed the strength of the interest, and began to make plans. We saw some real advantages for Nashotah House as well as those who might wish to attend worship here.
Going all the way back to its founding in 1842, Nashotah House has always been as much a spiritual community as an educational institution. But one of the difficulties of being a seminary is that the student body turns over by 1/3 to 1/2 each year. This means that our devotional societies (Society of Mary, Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, Guild of All Souls) as well as our chapters of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew (evangelism among men and boys), the Order of St. Luke (healing ministry), and Daughters of the King (prayer and devotional society for women) all wax and wane as the student body turns over. In addition, Nashotah House has had a youth ministry which has served not only the youth of our community, but the youth from surrounding parishes that did not have enough youth to have their own youth group. Sometimes these ministries would die and have to be reborn because of the turn over in the student body. Opening the ministries of the House to a worshiping community of the seminary's friends and supporters could mean that these ministries might be maintained with continuity. The integration of the practical dimensions of a worshiping community with the academic side of our life would also move the House away from the "ivory tower" image of which seminaries are all too often accused. As we looked at the benefits both for Nashotah House and for those who might attend worship here, it looked like a "win-win" situation.
There is one other piece to the story you have to understand. While the Diocese of Milwaukee has been a moderate to conservative diocese and not a part of the divisive actions that have occurred in other parts of the Episcopal Church, the Diocese does not exist in a vacuum. The tensions in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have not gone unfelt in the Milwaukee area. Some people, unsettled by these tensions, look to Nashotah House as both a lighthouse and an oasis.
A few of the people who said they would be interested in attending worship at Nashotah House might well have preferred to leave the Episcopal Church. As we talked over a period of many weeks, those of us who represented Nashotah House made it clear that the seminary could not be a part of establishing a congregation of another entity. This is true because: (1) While the seminary may receive students from a variety of traditions, including other Anglican bodies, the Trustees, administration, and faculty of Nashotah House have no interest in changing the historic relationship of Nashotah House to the Episcopal Church. (2) Those of us on the faculty who are clergy of the Episcopal Church could not celebrate the Eucharist or function canonically at a worship service of another denomination. (3) The Sunday morning service, like any other worship service of Nashotah House, occurs under the authority of the Dean, who is designated by the Statutes of Nashotah House as the Ordinary, who himself functions under the authority of the Statutes and the Board of Trustees. (4) The Sunday morning worship service and those who attend it (even if they take a name, like St. Silvanus, St. Mary, St. Michael, Christ Church, etc.) do not constitute a congregation in the canonical sense, since Nashotah House, while it has always performed baptisms, weddings, funerals, and invited bishops to hold confirmations, does not receive or issue letters of membership, or function in any other way as a congregation, as defined by the Canons of the Episcopal Church.
So, on April 18, for the fifth or sixth time in Nashotah House's history (according to research done by some of our Trustees), we began Sunday morning services.
And the rumor mill began its work. Before the day was over, one attendee (who was unaware of the painstaking lengths to which we had gone to discuss what this service could and could not be) had e-mailed some old friends that Nashotah House was starting an ACNA congregation. The Southeast Wisconsin chapter of the American Anglican Council (SEWAAC) mischaracterized what we were doing in their newsletter. And the rector of a nearby Episcopal congregation (a graduate of Nashotah House) sent an e-mail to fellow alumni stating that we had started an ACNA congregation and provided the e-mail addresses of the bishops on our Board of Trustees and encouraged alumni to contact them with their concerns. This e-mail "went viral" and has spread all over the Episcopal Church, reaching students in our distance education and graduate programs and distressing them about the future of the House.
The rumors came full circle and upset current students at the House. To paraphrase the article I mentioned at the beginning of this piece: "particularly in times of uncertainty... people are scared and insecure. The folks feeling the greatest anxiety often tend to be the most fervent gossips." No one ever started rumors about the other times Nashotah House had held Sunday morning worship, including the previous attempt during my deanship to hold a Sunday morning Eucharist. But the current political tensions in the Episcopal Church mean that none of us, even in an oasis like Nashotah House, can count on doing "business as usual."
Today, I received an e-mail newsletter from an organization I had never heard of called "Wisconsin Anglican." (This link is to their website, which unfortunately does not contain the newsletter to which I am referring.) The newsletter heading says this issue is "Volume I, Issue 4." (I never saw issues #1, 2, or 3.) The newsletter claims to be "The Voice of Orthodox Anglicanism in the Badger State." I called the leaders of SEWAAC, who are certainly orthodox Anglicans living in the Badger State, and they never heard of this organization either, but they had received the same newsletter I did. We don't know who is behind this.
This newsletter has a large article about my being nominated for bishop in the Diocese of Springfield, obviously picked up from other news sources. It mentions Nashotah House's Commencement last week, in a story obviously taken from Nashotah House's own website. But, in a sidebar about "Impact in Wisconsin" it states: "In addition, the Rev. William Beasley, a priest of AMiA serves the new outreach meeting at Nashotah House Episcopal Seminary, St. Michael’s at the Mission."
Did these people bother to call to check their information? Of course not. The rumor mill is running, who has time to stop and check the facts? The Rev. William Beasley is a very fine priest from the Chicago area who loves Nashotah House and has spoken at SEWAAC meetings several times. But he has absolutely nothing to do with Sunday morning worship or any other "outreach" at Nashotah House.
The rumor mill is running—and it's out of control! To quote Lester's article again: "Gossip destroys morale, creates negative energy at work and stops coworkers from becoming a united team..." says Judith Orloff, MD, the author of Emotional Freedom: Liberate Yourself from Negative Emotions. "It impacts productivity by taking a worker's mind off the task at hand." Yeah, tell me about it!
So what am I going to do? Well, first of all, I am not going to give up the things I am doing that are "right and a good and joyful thing" for many people. And I am going to continue telling the truth about what we are doing at Nashotah House until we tear down the rumor mill.
We will celebrate the Eucharist at Nashotah House on Sunday, just as we do every other day. The service is at 10:00 a.m. Everyone is welcome!
FRIDAY, MAY 28, 2010
"There’s an element of gossip present in every social enterprise. And while light office gossip and a few comments here and there probably won’t hurt anyone, a pervasive culture of rumor-mongering and trash-talking is detrimental to everyone." So begins an article by Margot Carmichael Lester, on the Monster.com job website.
The article continues:
“Gossip destroys morale, creates negative energy and stops coworkers from becoming a united team...” says Judith Orloff, MD, the author of Emotional Freedom: Liberate Yourself from Negative Emotions....
But in the world of office politics, gossip is prevalent, particularly in times of uncertainty, because people are scared and insecure. The folks feeling the greatest anxiety often tend to be the most fervent gossips.
I have had experiences with the rumor mill at various times in my life; but perhaps none more vexing than the episode in which I am enmeshed at present.
Nashotah House has had a daily celebration of the Eucharist (including Sundays) since time immemorial. It is one of the very fine aspects of being an Anglo-Catholic institution. Sometimes in the long history of the House the Sunday Eucharist has been in the morning; sometimes it has been in the evening.
In the 1970's and 1980's, when Fr. Louis Weil was Liturgics professor, there was a congregation named St. Silvanus, because it met in the historic Red Chapel also named for that saint. A few years ago, we moved the Sunday Eucharist to the morning and held it in St. Mary's Chapel, but the service never developed a sizeable congregation; so, after several months, we moved it back to the evening.
This semester we tried another experiment with having a Eucharist on Sunday morning. Some friends, trustees, and supporters of the House said they would be interested in worshiping with us if we had a Sunday morning service. We talked about it over a period of a few months, assessed the strength of the interest, and began to make plans. We saw some real advantages for Nashotah House as well as those who might wish to attend worship here.
Going all the way back to its founding in 1842, Nashotah House has always been as much a spiritual community as an educational institution. But one of the difficulties of being a seminary is that the student body turns over by 1/3 to 1/2 each year. This means that our devotional societies (Society of Mary, Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, Guild of All Souls) as well as our chapters of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew (evangelism among men and boys), the Order of St. Luke (healing ministry), and Daughters of the King (prayer and devotional society for women) all wax and wane as the student body turns over. In addition, Nashotah House has had a youth ministry which has served not only the youth of our community, but the youth from surrounding parishes that did not have enough youth to have their own youth group. Sometimes these ministries would die and have to be reborn because of the turn over in the student body. Opening the ministries of the House to a worshiping community of the seminary's friends and supporters could mean that these ministries might be maintained with continuity. The integration of the practical dimensions of a worshiping community with the academic side of our life would also move the House away from the "ivory tower" image of which seminaries are all too often accused. As we looked at the benefits both for Nashotah House and for those who might attend worship here, it looked like a "win-win" situation.
There is one other piece to the story you have to understand. While the Diocese of Milwaukee has been a moderate to conservative diocese and not a part of the divisive actions that have occurred in other parts of the Episcopal Church, the Diocese does not exist in a vacuum. The tensions in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have not gone unfelt in the Milwaukee area. Some people, unsettled by these tensions, look to Nashotah House as both a lighthouse and an oasis.
A few of the people who said they would be interested in attending worship at Nashotah House might well have preferred to leave the Episcopal Church. As we talked over a period of many weeks, those of us who represented Nashotah House made it clear that the seminary could not be a part of establishing a congregation of another entity. This is true because: (1) While the seminary may receive students from a variety of traditions, including other Anglican bodies, the Trustees, administration, and faculty of Nashotah House have no interest in changing the historic relationship of Nashotah House to the Episcopal Church. (2) Those of us on the faculty who are clergy of the Episcopal Church could not celebrate the Eucharist or function canonically at a worship service of another denomination. (3) The Sunday morning service, like any other worship service of Nashotah House, occurs under the authority of the Dean, who is designated by the Statutes of Nashotah House as the Ordinary, who himself functions under the authority of the Statutes and the Board of Trustees. (4) The Sunday morning worship service and those who attend it (even if they take a name, like St. Silvanus, St. Mary, St. Michael, Christ Church, etc.) do not constitute a congregation in the canonical sense, since Nashotah House, while it has always performed baptisms, weddings, funerals, and invited bishops to hold confirmations, does not receive or issue letters of membership, or function in any other way as a congregation, as defined by the Canons of the Episcopal Church.
So, on April 18, for the fifth or sixth time in Nashotah House's history (according to research done by some of our Trustees), we began Sunday morning services.
And the rumor mill began its work. Before the day was over, one attendee (who was unaware of the painstaking lengths to which we had gone to discuss what this service could and could not be) had e-mailed some old friends that Nashotah House was starting an ACNA congregation. The Southeast Wisconsin chapter of the American Anglican Council (SEWAAC) mischaracterized what we were doing in their newsletter. And the rector of a nearby Episcopal congregation (a graduate of Nashotah House) sent an e-mail to fellow alumni stating that we had started an ACNA congregation and provided the e-mail addresses of the bishops on our Board of Trustees and encouraged alumni to contact them with their concerns. This e-mail "went viral" and has spread all over the Episcopal Church, reaching students in our distance education and graduate programs and distressing them about the future of the House.
The rumors came full circle and upset current students at the House. To paraphrase the article I mentioned at the beginning of this piece: "particularly in times of uncertainty... people are scared and insecure. The folks feeling the greatest anxiety often tend to be the most fervent gossips." No one ever started rumors about the other times Nashotah House had held Sunday morning worship, including the previous attempt during my deanship to hold a Sunday morning Eucharist. But the current political tensions in the Episcopal Church mean that none of us, even in an oasis like Nashotah House, can count on doing "business as usual."
Today, I received an e-mail newsletter from an organization I had never heard of called "Wisconsin Anglican." (This link is to their website, which unfortunately does not contain the newsletter to which I am referring.) The newsletter heading says this issue is "Volume I, Issue 4." (I never saw issues #1, 2, or 3.) The newsletter claims to be "The Voice of Orthodox Anglicanism in the Badger State." I called the leaders of SEWAAC, who are certainly orthodox Anglicans living in the Badger State, and they never heard of this organization either, but they had received the same newsletter I did. We don't know who is behind this.
This newsletter has a large article about my being nominated for bishop in the Diocese of Springfield, obviously picked up from other news sources. It mentions Nashotah House's Commencement last week, in a story obviously taken from Nashotah House's own website. But, in a sidebar about "Impact in Wisconsin" it states: "In addition, the Rev. William Beasley, a priest of AMiA serves the new outreach meeting at Nashotah House Episcopal Seminary, St. Michael’s at the Mission."
Did these people bother to call to check their information? Of course not. The rumor mill is running, who has time to stop and check the facts? The Rev. William Beasley is a very fine priest from the Chicago area who loves Nashotah House and has spoken at SEWAAC meetings several times. But he has absolutely nothing to do with Sunday morning worship or any other "outreach" at Nashotah House.
The rumor mill is running—and it's out of control! To quote Lester's article again: "Gossip destroys morale, creates negative energy at work and stops coworkers from becoming a united team..." says Judith Orloff, MD, the author of Emotional Freedom: Liberate Yourself from Negative Emotions. "It impacts productivity by taking a worker's mind off the task at hand." Yeah, tell me about it!
So what am I going to do? Well, first of all, I am not going to give up the things I am doing that are "right and a good and joyful thing" for many people. And I am going to continue telling the truth about what we are doing at Nashotah House until we tear down the rumor mill.
We will celebrate the Eucharist at Nashotah House on Sunday, just as we do every other day. The service is at 10:00 a.m. Everyone is welcome!
More on DCNY ordination
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Partnered gay man to be ordained in the DCNY":
Tony,
You DO know me and I am tentatively angry at you for engaging this "person" (and I use the term "person" loosely - which will immediately remind you who I really am, so call me up so that I can apologize for correcting you in public).
Anon said Trinity. WRONG! It was at what these pseudo-Anglicans call "Christ" Church. Why didn't you challenge that? My bride and I were downtown, so we peeked into the church. There were about 20 people there -- mostly GLBTQWERTYUIOP (whatever they are calling themselves today). No clergy. No choir. One guy -- obviously a show queen -- struggling through some innocuous piece of pseudo-liturgical garbage -- more power ballad than Anglican.
Be glad that my bride didn't type this! She is angry already that I typed that! HAHAHAHA!
So WE are the new Anon, setting the record straight. Ignore all other Anons.
Tony,
You DO know me and I am tentatively angry at you for engaging this "person" (and I use the term "person" loosely - which will immediately remind you who I really am, so call me up so that I can apologize for correcting you in public).
Anon said Trinity. WRONG! It was at what these pseudo-Anglicans call "Christ" Church. Why didn't you challenge that? My bride and I were downtown, so we peeked into the church. There were about 20 people there -- mostly GLBTQWERTYUIOP (whatever they are calling themselves today). No clergy. No choir. One guy -- obviously a show queen -- struggling through some innocuous piece of pseudo-liturgical garbage -- more power ballad than Anglican.
Be glad that my bride didn't type this! She is angry already that I typed that! HAHAHAHA!
So WE are the new Anon, setting the record straight. Ignore all other Anons.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
A Message from Bishop David Anderson
From the American Anglican Council:
Dearly Beloved in Christ,
We note the Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion, and are most interested to see how and when Section 4 will actually be implemented. We will write more about the implications of this letter after having had some time for reflection. At first reading, it appears that in an hour when the Anglican Church globally needs sound, clear and orthodox leadership at the top, the captain of the Anglican Communion seems to be below decks preoccupied with lesser things, and neither the wheel nor the reef charts are being minded.
As we approach this Sunday we are reminded of one of the key beliefs - and mysteries - of the Christian faith: the Holy Trinity.
In the United States, this is also Memorial Day weekend. It commemorates the U.S. men and women who have given their life in service while in the military. It began as a way to honor Union soldiers of the American War Between the States, but was expanded after the first and second world wars and is now inclusive of all those who have given their life in military service.
It is also a time when we can honor those still alive who have served their country, and us, by serving in the military. I travel using the Atlanta airport as my home base, and there is an active group called the USO which welcomes troops in uniform, either leaving or returning from overseas deployment. To see 20 to 40 military people in uniform, carrying their heavy rucksacks, suddenly greeted by a crowd cheering and clapping, and to watch the expressions of happiness come across the faces of the uniformed travelers is very heart-warming.
Moving from the military battle front to the Anglican church battles, I was recently sent some comments by one of The Episcopal Church's very liberal retired bishops.
Walter Righter, the retired bishop of Iowa, quoted a portion of an article by Fr. James Stockton of Austin, Texas, published in the April 2010 issue of the Covenant Journal, where the priest opines, "It is, I think, a given that the proposed 'Anglican Covenant' is the fruit of a bad tree. It derives from the envy of a small number of emerging world primates and the homophobia of some influential North Americans." Bishop Righter quotes this and agrees, saying, "That, I think, must be acknowledged by persons who are engaged in serious attempts at reconciliation."
The difficulties in the Anglican Communion are compounded by the belief of liberal revisionists such as Bishop Righter and others that the driving force behind the "emerging world" Primates is envy, or as others have even alleged, ignorance, and additionally that the orthodox Anglican leaders in North America are homophobic. The inference is that if we could just get over our alleged homophobia, then things could be negotiated. Bishop Righter scores his point by emphasizing that Fr. Stockton's assertions have to be acknowledged as truths before anyone can engage in serious work on reconciliation. Clearly it would be equally easy for many of us on the receiving end of Righter's comment to respond with an assessment of Righter's moral, ethical, or theological motives and state of being. To do so, however, would be equally unhelpful. I am more and more aware as I grow older that it is very difficult to accurately determine a person's true motive or state of being, so I will simply observe that I think Bishop Righter is very wrong, and his assertions impact his own credibility.
The "emerging world" Primates, and in particular the Primates of Africa, are, with perhaps only a few exceptions, deeply committed to the faith brought forward to us by the apostles and saints, and brought to sub-Saharan Africa and the far East in many cases by missionaries from Europe only a few centuries ago.
Christianity has been in Africa since the earliest days in Egypt, Ethiopia, and North Africa, and our Western European Christianity owes much to early church leaders from that region. Zeal for the Gospel as received is very much the motive and driving force among most of the Primates in Africa. The driving force in North America that pushes the orthodox Anglicans forward is a similar zeal for the Gospel, and a desire to have the structure of the church uphold and honor Gospel teaching, and to be free of imposed restraints on the propagation of this Gospel. A theologically orthodox Anglican body is needed to be able to correctly define sin and virtue based on Holy Scripture, frame the catechesis such that the true faith is passed on to others and the Gospel accurately brought to those still in spiritual darkness, and see that transformational conversion is not only hoped for but realized.
May God have mercy on our leadership, where they are orthodox, give them vision, strength and courage, where they are in error, correct them and bring them to repentance and restoration, and in all things continue to establish the Church in fidelity to the truth, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Faithfully in Christ,
+David
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
_____________
Dearly Beloved in Christ,
We note the Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion, and are most interested to see how and when Section 4 will actually be implemented. We will write more about the implications of this letter after having had some time for reflection. At first reading, it appears that in an hour when the Anglican Church globally needs sound, clear and orthodox leadership at the top, the captain of the Anglican Communion seems to be below decks preoccupied with lesser things, and neither the wheel nor the reef charts are being minded.
As we approach this Sunday we are reminded of one of the key beliefs - and mysteries - of the Christian faith: the Holy Trinity.
In the United States, this is also Memorial Day weekend. It commemorates the U.S. men and women who have given their life in service while in the military. It began as a way to honor Union soldiers of the American War Between the States, but was expanded after the first and second world wars and is now inclusive of all those who have given their life in military service.
It is also a time when we can honor those still alive who have served their country, and us, by serving in the military. I travel using the Atlanta airport as my home base, and there is an active group called the USO which welcomes troops in uniform, either leaving or returning from overseas deployment. To see 20 to 40 military people in uniform, carrying their heavy rucksacks, suddenly greeted by a crowd cheering and clapping, and to watch the expressions of happiness come across the faces of the uniformed travelers is very heart-warming.
Moving from the military battle front to the Anglican church battles, I was recently sent some comments by one of The Episcopal Church's very liberal retired bishops.
Walter Righter, the retired bishop of Iowa, quoted a portion of an article by Fr. James Stockton of Austin, Texas, published in the April 2010 issue of the Covenant Journal, where the priest opines, "It is, I think, a given that the proposed 'Anglican Covenant' is the fruit of a bad tree. It derives from the envy of a small number of emerging world primates and the homophobia of some influential North Americans." Bishop Righter quotes this and agrees, saying, "That, I think, must be acknowledged by persons who are engaged in serious attempts at reconciliation."
The difficulties in the Anglican Communion are compounded by the belief of liberal revisionists such as Bishop Righter and others that the driving force behind the "emerging world" Primates is envy, or as others have even alleged, ignorance, and additionally that the orthodox Anglican leaders in North America are homophobic. The inference is that if we could just get over our alleged homophobia, then things could be negotiated. Bishop Righter scores his point by emphasizing that Fr. Stockton's assertions have to be acknowledged as truths before anyone can engage in serious work on reconciliation. Clearly it would be equally easy for many of us on the receiving end of Righter's comment to respond with an assessment of Righter's moral, ethical, or theological motives and state of being. To do so, however, would be equally unhelpful. I am more and more aware as I grow older that it is very difficult to accurately determine a person's true motive or state of being, so I will simply observe that I think Bishop Righter is very wrong, and his assertions impact his own credibility.
The "emerging world" Primates, and in particular the Primates of Africa, are, with perhaps only a few exceptions, deeply committed to the faith brought forward to us by the apostles and saints, and brought to sub-Saharan Africa and the far East in many cases by missionaries from Europe only a few centuries ago.
Christianity has been in Africa since the earliest days in Egypt, Ethiopia, and North Africa, and our Western European Christianity owes much to early church leaders from that region. Zeal for the Gospel as received is very much the motive and driving force among most of the Primates in Africa. The driving force in North America that pushes the orthodox Anglicans forward is a similar zeal for the Gospel, and a desire to have the structure of the church uphold and honor Gospel teaching, and to be free of imposed restraints on the propagation of this Gospel. A theologically orthodox Anglican body is needed to be able to correctly define sin and virtue based on Holy Scripture, frame the catechesis such that the true faith is passed on to others and the Gospel accurately brought to those still in spiritual darkness, and see that transformational conversion is not only hoped for but realized.
May God have mercy on our leadership, where they are orthodox, give them vision, strength and courage, where they are in error, correct them and bring them to repentance and restoration, and in all things continue to establish the Church in fidelity to the truth, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Faithfully in Christ,
+David
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
_____________
Archbishop of Canterbury slaps Episcopal Church for openly gay bishops
Via TitusOneNine:
By the CNN Wire Staff
May 28, 2010 2:36 p.m. EDT
The Episcopal Church in Los Angeles recently consecrated an openly gay bishop
The archbishop of Canterbury warned that divisions in the church would widen
He urged a diminished role for the Episcopal Church for violating "promises"
Conservatives say he didn't go far enough
(CNN) -- Rifts within the Anglican Communion could widen after the archbishop of Canterbury, who has condemned the consecration of openly gay bishops, urged a diminished role Friday for the Episcopal Church.
Earlier this month, a Los Angeles, California, diocese ordained the Rev. Mary Glasspool, the first openly gay bishop ordained in the church since 2004, when Gene Robinson took his post in New Hampshire. The U.S. church has been criticized by conservative factions for openly gay ordinations.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the nominal head of Anglican Communion, shared his concern when Glasspool was consecrated, saying then that the move would further divide the 77 million-member worldwide denomination that includes the Episcopal Church in the United States.
On Friday, he made an even stronger statement in a letter to the communion.
"Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation," Williams wrote. "There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round.
"It is clear that the official bodies of The Episcopal Church have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been asked of them by others, and the consecration of Canon Mary Glasspool on May 15 has been a clear sign of this."
Williams does not have the power to issue edicts like the pope, but he issued a five-page statement suggesting that provinces (such as the Episcopal Church) or national and regional churches that have broken agreed-upon "promises" should step down from participating in interfaith dialogues.
He said they should also relinquish decision-making powers in a committee that deals with questions of doctrine and authority.
Following Robinson's consecration, the communion leadership laid out three promises, or moratoria, according to the archbishop of Canterbury website:
-- No authorization of blessings services for same-sex unions.
-- No consecrations of bishops living in same-sex relationships.
-- No cross-border interventions (no bishop authorizing any ministry within the
diocese of another bishop without explicit permission).
Glasspool has been in an open same-sex relationship for 19 years, a violation of the moratoria. Robinson also was in a same-sex relationship at the time of his consecration.
Conservative Anglicans have long called for Williams to punish the Episcopal Church by not inviting the church to the Lambeth Conference, a global meeting of Anglican leaders held every decade.
Williams did not go far enough in his rebuke, a spokesman for a conservative Anglican group said Friday.
Robert Lundy of the American Anglican Council said the Episcopal Church shouldn't be involved in any decision-making bodies within the Anglican Communion so long as it continues to ordain openly gay bishops and violate biblical teachings.
Williams' statement only keeps the Episcopal Church off of certain committees within the communion, Lundy said.
"He [Williams] knows he has to do something because he's under pressure from all sides," he said. "But unfortunately, the step he's taken in our view is not strong enough."
Bishop Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut called Williams' statement "significant" but "not as punitive as it might have been."
He said it was an affirmation of the three moratoria, and he made clear that other churches, not just the U.S. Episcopal Church, will be affected for having broken promises as well.
"Many churches across the Anglican Communion because of conscience or their belief in what the holy spirit is up to in their local context have lived beyond the moratoria," Douglas said. "While the moratoria are still before us, such actions do have some ramifications. ... If anything, I question the efficacy of the moratoria."
He added, "It's another expression of how we're trying to live with our differences with integrity and not alienate one another. I'm still convinced there's so much more that unites us."
By the CNN Wire Staff
May 28, 2010 2:36 p.m. EDT
The Episcopal Church in Los Angeles recently consecrated an openly gay bishop
The archbishop of Canterbury warned that divisions in the church would widen
He urged a diminished role for the Episcopal Church for violating "promises"
Conservatives say he didn't go far enough
(CNN) -- Rifts within the Anglican Communion could widen after the archbishop of Canterbury, who has condemned the consecration of openly gay bishops, urged a diminished role Friday for the Episcopal Church.
Earlier this month, a Los Angeles, California, diocese ordained the Rev. Mary Glasspool, the first openly gay bishop ordained in the church since 2004, when Gene Robinson took his post in New Hampshire. The U.S. church has been criticized by conservative factions for openly gay ordinations.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the nominal head of Anglican Communion, shared his concern when Glasspool was consecrated, saying then that the move would further divide the 77 million-member worldwide denomination that includes the Episcopal Church in the United States.
On Friday, he made an even stronger statement in a letter to the communion.
"Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation," Williams wrote. "There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round.
"It is clear that the official bodies of The Episcopal Church have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been asked of them by others, and the consecration of Canon Mary Glasspool on May 15 has been a clear sign of this."
Williams does not have the power to issue edicts like the pope, but he issued a five-page statement suggesting that provinces (such as the Episcopal Church) or national and regional churches that have broken agreed-upon "promises" should step down from participating in interfaith dialogues.
He said they should also relinquish decision-making powers in a committee that deals with questions of doctrine and authority.
Following Robinson's consecration, the communion leadership laid out three promises, or moratoria, according to the archbishop of Canterbury website:
-- No authorization of blessings services for same-sex unions.
-- No consecrations of bishops living in same-sex relationships.
-- No cross-border interventions (no bishop authorizing any ministry within the
diocese of another bishop without explicit permission).
Glasspool has been in an open same-sex relationship for 19 years, a violation of the moratoria. Robinson also was in a same-sex relationship at the time of his consecration.
Conservative Anglicans have long called for Williams to punish the Episcopal Church by not inviting the church to the Lambeth Conference, a global meeting of Anglican leaders held every decade.
Williams did not go far enough in his rebuke, a spokesman for a conservative Anglican group said Friday.
Robert Lundy of the American Anglican Council said the Episcopal Church shouldn't be involved in any decision-making bodies within the Anglican Communion so long as it continues to ordain openly gay bishops and violate biblical teachings.
Williams' statement only keeps the Episcopal Church off of certain committees within the communion, Lundy said.
"He [Williams] knows he has to do something because he's under pressure from all sides," he said. "But unfortunately, the step he's taken in our view is not strong enough."
Bishop Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut called Williams' statement "significant" but "not as punitive as it might have been."
He said it was an affirmation of the three moratoria, and he made clear that other churches, not just the U.S. Episcopal Church, will be affected for having broken promises as well.
"Many churches across the Anglican Communion because of conscience or their belief in what the holy spirit is up to in their local context have lived beyond the moratoria," Douglas said. "While the moratoria are still before us, such actions do have some ramifications. ... If anything, I question the efficacy of the moratoria."
He added, "It's another expression of how we're trying to live with our differences with integrity and not alienate one another. I'm still convinced there's so much more that unites us."
The Stakes Just Went Up: If the Shoe Fits, Wear It
from Anglican Curmudgeon by A. S. Haley
Last Saturday, I put up a carefully researched post about the impending maneuvers at the Executive Council of ECUSA to ensure that the (newly ordained) Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut would be able to claim a continuing seat on the Anglican Consultative Council, and derivatively, on its 14-member Standing Committee, to which he was elected at the Council's 14th meeting ("ACC-14"), held in Jamaica a year ago. (The Archbishop of Canterbury makes, ex officio, the Standing Committee's fifteenth member, but one member has resigned, and another is not attending, for reasons explained in the earlier post.) Set out verbatim in the post were the plain-English provisions of Article 4 of the ACC Constitution, which preclude ECUSA or its Executive Council from taking any such step as proposed.
When the Rev. Ian Douglas was elected to the ACC's Standing Committee at ACC-14, he was serving as ECUSA's clerical representative. But when he was elected as the Bishop of Connecticut, and ordained last April 17, he was no longer a simple priest, and became from that moment disqualified to serve as ECUSA's clergy member on the ACC. He immediately resigned his post on ECUSA's Executive Council, because he had been elected to it as a clergy member. But he has since withheld his resignation from the ACC, to which he had also been elected as a clergy member.
The ACC's Constitution mandates that a member elected as a clergy representative step down when he ceases to be a member of the clergy; it does not allow switching orders in the middle of a term. "[O]n retirement from [the] ecclesiastical office [in which the member was elected]," it says, [b]ishops and other clerical members shall cease to be members [of the ACC]." (Constitution, Sec. 4 (d), with emphasis added. It is specious to argue that election to the episcopacy is not "retirement" from the priesthood, given that the whole point of the ACC is to have a body in which bishops, clergy and laity all share proportionate representation. And there is much more language, as demonstrated in the earlier post, that bears out this common-sense interpretation.)
"This is not rocket science," the post asserted, "but plain English." Nevertheless, because of what had been said in two posts put up by the Rev. Canon Mark Harris at his Preludium website (not linked here due to technical glitches, as explained earlier), the post called attention to the hypocrisy that would result if ECUSA's Executive Council proceeded as Canon Harris suggested it might, at its meeting next month, to "reappoint" Bishop Douglas to the ACC as a replacement for ECUSA's last episcopal representative.
The post itself was clear, both as to the reasons why that act would constitute hypocrisy, and as to the motives for saying so. Contrary to the Rev. Canon Harris' reaction to it, the post labeled no person a "hypocrite" -- after all, the action proposed has yet to be taken. But if it were to be taken, it would give ECUSA what no other province enjoys on the Standing Committee -- two of its bishops serving as members. And it would seek to prevent the Standing Committee from replacing its one clergy member with another -- in violation of the ACC's bylaws (see the membership listings linked above). All just because ECUSA wants it that way, and acts as final judge of its own members' qualifications, while blocking other provinces from selecting their members according to their own criteria.
Now, however, with the promulgation of the Pentecost letter by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the stakes for ECUSA have increased by quite a bit. As many other blogs have already noticed, the Archbishop very pointedly mentioned that he would be taking up with his fellow primates the issue of attendance and agenda at the forthcoming Primates' Meeting, scheduled for January 2011. This is a warning shot across ECUSA's bow. If 815 now attempts to re-vote Bishop Douglas onto the ACC in violation of its rules, it may find that it has marooned itself by running against the tide in the Communion, and is left stranded without any ability of ++Canterbury to throw it a helping line.
What is this "tide in the Communion" to which I refer? ++Canterbury's letter, I submit, has struck just the right Pentecostal tone to call every member of the Communion to re-examine the paths on which they are going -- to ensure that the call to which they are responding is from the Holy Spirit. Now is not the time to strike out on one's own course, or to continue blindly on the same heading as before:
"And so the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of ‘communion’ or fellowship (II Cor. 13.13). The Spirit allows us to recognise each other as part of the Body of Christ because we can hear in each other the voice of Jesus praying to the Father. We know, in the Spirit, that we who are baptised into Jesus Christ share one life; so that all the diversity of gifting and service in the Church can be seen as the work of one Spirit (I Cor. 12.4). In the Holy Eucharist, this unity in and through the self-offering of Jesus is reaffirmed and renewed as we pray for the Spirit to transform both the bread and wine and ‘ourselves, our souls and bodies’.
"When the Church is living by the Spirit, what the world will see is a community of people who joyfully and gratefully hear the prayer of Jesus being offered in each other’s words and lives, and are able to recognise the one Christ working through human diversity. And if the world sees this, the Church is a true sign of hope in a world of bitter conflict and rivalry."
++Rowan Cantuar here is doing what he does best: pastoring the churches of the Communion, and calling them to account, to think deeply about the course they have set for themselves, and what it means for the Communion at large, as a family in Christ. He has no primatial powers within the Communion itself, and so he is using the force of his pastoral personality to its best purpose.
A vote by the Executive Council next month to send Bishop Douglas to the ACC -- before he even admits that he is no longer a member, by resigning the seat he held until he became a bishop -- would send exactly the wrong signal at exactly the wrong time to the rest of the Communion. (And once he admits he is no longer a member, he will have to concede the next step as well -- that the Constitution requires ECUSA to wait for at least six years before it can reappoint him.) Ignoring the facts on the ground, waving the hands and muttering something about "we can't allow the ACC to lose the benefit of his voice and experience; there has to be a less narrow reading of the provisions that will allow him to stay on" -- will proclaim loud and clear that nothing has really changed. If Dr. Williams and the ACC's Secretary-General were then to "overlook" such a perverse manipulation of the rules, it will change Canterbury's wonderful letter from a spiritual wake-up call into decorative wallpaper.
With regard to observation of the moratoria adopted by the Primates and the ACC itself, the "reappointment" of Bishop Douglas to the ACC would also be a finger in the Communion's collective eye at this point. The reason, as I explained in the previous post, is that Bishop Douglas now heads a diocese in which his predecessor had authorized rites for same-sex blessings, in defiance of the Windsor Report. The post observed that Bishop Douglas had made no move to rescind the authorization for same-sex blessings by the clergy who canonically are under him, and that he was thus every much as effectively "in violation" of the Windsor Report as had been the Rev. Ashey. Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If not, there is a double standard involved for those on the left: they are allowed to do as they please, while voting to exclude others for doing the same thing they do.
Apparently these observations failed in their Christian objective. They were not intended as calumny, or ad hominem attack, but like the Archbishop's much more elegantly worded pastoral letter, as a call by one Christian to another to stay upon the upright path. Forget and forgive, then, my paltry effort. To heed the Archbishop's call should now weigh uppermost in the mind of everyone in a leadership position at ECUSA.
There is still time to reflect and consider, on the part of everyone concerned. Let us pray that the Pentecostal Spirit will be upon us all.
* * * * * *
Postscript: To those loyal readers who might think I have sold my birthright for a pottage from the Archbishop of Canterbury, I say only that I write as a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church (USA), who has been in despair since the 1970's over its usurpation by social activists and ensuing decline -- for more than thirty years now. As a member of the legal profession, I especially deplore its more recent descent into the morass of litigation over ill-defined and highly questionable "property rights". From where I observe ECUSA and the Communion, however, I can see no other hope of deliverance from the current troubles -- except that either ECUSA sinks under the weight of its own tenemental concupiscence, or that ++Rowan Cantuar is finally driven by ECUSA's machinations to make a stand independent of its perfidious goals, which if unchecked will grow to encompass the very see of St. Augustine. The current Pentecostal Letter offers a glimmer of hope in that latter direction, so I shall not detract from it in any way. Nor shall I disparage the scorn of the many who have grown tired of waiting for the Archbishop to take definitive action, because I recognize their right to disappointment based on everything that has come to pass thus far. Only time will tell, and until there are absolutely no options left whatsoever, I shall continue to pray that the Holy Spirit brings my church back onto the path of righteousness and truth.
Last Saturday, I put up a carefully researched post about the impending maneuvers at the Executive Council of ECUSA to ensure that the (newly ordained) Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut would be able to claim a continuing seat on the Anglican Consultative Council, and derivatively, on its 14-member Standing Committee, to which he was elected at the Council's 14th meeting ("ACC-14"), held in Jamaica a year ago. (The Archbishop of Canterbury makes, ex officio, the Standing Committee's fifteenth member, but one member has resigned, and another is not attending, for reasons explained in the earlier post.) Set out verbatim in the post were the plain-English provisions of Article 4 of the ACC Constitution, which preclude ECUSA or its Executive Council from taking any such step as proposed.
When the Rev. Ian Douglas was elected to the ACC's Standing Committee at ACC-14, he was serving as ECUSA's clerical representative. But when he was elected as the Bishop of Connecticut, and ordained last April 17, he was no longer a simple priest, and became from that moment disqualified to serve as ECUSA's clergy member on the ACC. He immediately resigned his post on ECUSA's Executive Council, because he had been elected to it as a clergy member. But he has since withheld his resignation from the ACC, to which he had also been elected as a clergy member.
The ACC's Constitution mandates that a member elected as a clergy representative step down when he ceases to be a member of the clergy; it does not allow switching orders in the middle of a term. "[O]n retirement from [the] ecclesiastical office [in which the member was elected]," it says, [b]ishops and other clerical members shall cease to be members [of the ACC]." (Constitution, Sec. 4 (d), with emphasis added. It is specious to argue that election to the episcopacy is not "retirement" from the priesthood, given that the whole point of the ACC is to have a body in which bishops, clergy and laity all share proportionate representation. And there is much more language, as demonstrated in the earlier post, that bears out this common-sense interpretation.)
"This is not rocket science," the post asserted, "but plain English." Nevertheless, because of what had been said in two posts put up by the Rev. Canon Mark Harris at his Preludium website (not linked here due to technical glitches, as explained earlier), the post called attention to the hypocrisy that would result if ECUSA's Executive Council proceeded as Canon Harris suggested it might, at its meeting next month, to "reappoint" Bishop Douglas to the ACC as a replacement for ECUSA's last episcopal representative.
The post itself was clear, both as to the reasons why that act would constitute hypocrisy, and as to the motives for saying so. Contrary to the Rev. Canon Harris' reaction to it, the post labeled no person a "hypocrite" -- after all, the action proposed has yet to be taken. But if it were to be taken, it would give ECUSA what no other province enjoys on the Standing Committee -- two of its bishops serving as members. And it would seek to prevent the Standing Committee from replacing its one clergy member with another -- in violation of the ACC's bylaws (see the membership listings linked above). All just because ECUSA wants it that way, and acts as final judge of its own members' qualifications, while blocking other provinces from selecting their members according to their own criteria.
Now, however, with the promulgation of the Pentecost letter by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the stakes for ECUSA have increased by quite a bit. As many other blogs have already noticed, the Archbishop very pointedly mentioned that he would be taking up with his fellow primates the issue of attendance and agenda at the forthcoming Primates' Meeting, scheduled for January 2011. This is a warning shot across ECUSA's bow. If 815 now attempts to re-vote Bishop Douglas onto the ACC in violation of its rules, it may find that it has marooned itself by running against the tide in the Communion, and is left stranded without any ability of ++Canterbury to throw it a helping line.
What is this "tide in the Communion" to which I refer? ++Canterbury's letter, I submit, has struck just the right Pentecostal tone to call every member of the Communion to re-examine the paths on which they are going -- to ensure that the call to which they are responding is from the Holy Spirit. Now is not the time to strike out on one's own course, or to continue blindly on the same heading as before:
"And so the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of ‘communion’ or fellowship (II Cor. 13.13). The Spirit allows us to recognise each other as part of the Body of Christ because we can hear in each other the voice of Jesus praying to the Father. We know, in the Spirit, that we who are baptised into Jesus Christ share one life; so that all the diversity of gifting and service in the Church can be seen as the work of one Spirit (I Cor. 12.4). In the Holy Eucharist, this unity in and through the self-offering of Jesus is reaffirmed and renewed as we pray for the Spirit to transform both the bread and wine and ‘ourselves, our souls and bodies’.
"When the Church is living by the Spirit, what the world will see is a community of people who joyfully and gratefully hear the prayer of Jesus being offered in each other’s words and lives, and are able to recognise the one Christ working through human diversity. And if the world sees this, the Church is a true sign of hope in a world of bitter conflict and rivalry."
++Rowan Cantuar here is doing what he does best: pastoring the churches of the Communion, and calling them to account, to think deeply about the course they have set for themselves, and what it means for the Communion at large, as a family in Christ. He has no primatial powers within the Communion itself, and so he is using the force of his pastoral personality to its best purpose.
A vote by the Executive Council next month to send Bishop Douglas to the ACC -- before he even admits that he is no longer a member, by resigning the seat he held until he became a bishop -- would send exactly the wrong signal at exactly the wrong time to the rest of the Communion. (And once he admits he is no longer a member, he will have to concede the next step as well -- that the Constitution requires ECUSA to wait for at least six years before it can reappoint him.) Ignoring the facts on the ground, waving the hands and muttering something about "we can't allow the ACC to lose the benefit of his voice and experience; there has to be a less narrow reading of the provisions that will allow him to stay on" -- will proclaim loud and clear that nothing has really changed. If Dr. Williams and the ACC's Secretary-General were then to "overlook" such a perverse manipulation of the rules, it will change Canterbury's wonderful letter from a spiritual wake-up call into decorative wallpaper.
With regard to observation of the moratoria adopted by the Primates and the ACC itself, the "reappointment" of Bishop Douglas to the ACC would also be a finger in the Communion's collective eye at this point. The reason, as I explained in the previous post, is that Bishop Douglas now heads a diocese in which his predecessor had authorized rites for same-sex blessings, in defiance of the Windsor Report. The post observed that Bishop Douglas had made no move to rescind the authorization for same-sex blessings by the clergy who canonically are under him, and that he was thus every much as effectively "in violation" of the Windsor Report as had been the Rev. Ashey. Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If not, there is a double standard involved for those on the left: they are allowed to do as they please, while voting to exclude others for doing the same thing they do.
Apparently these observations failed in their Christian objective. They were not intended as calumny, or ad hominem attack, but like the Archbishop's much more elegantly worded pastoral letter, as a call by one Christian to another to stay upon the upright path. Forget and forgive, then, my paltry effort. To heed the Archbishop's call should now weigh uppermost in the mind of everyone in a leadership position at ECUSA.
There is still time to reflect and consider, on the part of everyone concerned. Let us pray that the Pentecostal Spirit will be upon us all.
* * * * * *
Postscript: To those loyal readers who might think I have sold my birthright for a pottage from the Archbishop of Canterbury, I say only that I write as a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church (USA), who has been in despair since the 1970's over its usurpation by social activists and ensuing decline -- for more than thirty years now. As a member of the legal profession, I especially deplore its more recent descent into the morass of litigation over ill-defined and highly questionable "property rights". From where I observe ECUSA and the Communion, however, I can see no other hope of deliverance from the current troubles -- except that either ECUSA sinks under the weight of its own tenemental concupiscence, or that ++Rowan Cantuar is finally driven by ECUSA's machinations to make a stand independent of its perfidious goals, which if unchecked will grow to encompass the very see of St. Augustine. The current Pentecostal Letter offers a glimmer of hope in that latter direction, so I shall not detract from it in any way. Nor shall I disparage the scorn of the many who have grown tired of waiting for the Archbishop to take definitive action, because I recognize their right to disappointment based on everything that has come to pass thus far. Only time will tell, and until there are absolutely no options left whatsoever, I shall continue to pray that the Holy Spirit brings my church back onto the path of righteousness and truth.
Archbishop of Canterbury imposes first sanctions on Anglican provinces over gay bishops dispute
From The Telegraph (UK) via TitusOneNine:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has imposed the first punishments on Anglican national churches judged to have inflamed tensions over homosexuality in the church.
By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Published: 4:03PM BST 28 May 2010
Dr Rowan Williams announced that provinces which had ignored his “pleading” for restraint would be banned from attending official discussions with other Christian denominations and prevented from voting on a key body on doctrine.
He admitted the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion was in a time of “substantial transition” but held back from taking the most serious step of expelling national churches from it.
His action, taken after years of patiently asking both conservatives and liberals to abide by agreed rules, will affect both sides in the dispute over whether the Bible permits openly homosexual clergy.
It has been triggered by the progressive Episcopal Church of the USA, which ordained its first lesbian bishop, the Rt Rev Mary Glasspool, earlier this month. The Episcopal Church also elected the first openly homosexual bishop in the Communion, the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, in 2003.
But the move will also hit orthodox provinces in the developing world – known as the Global South – that reacted to the liberal innovations in America and Canada by taking conservative American clergy and congregations out of their national churches and giving them roles in Africa and South America. This has triggered bitter legal battles over the fate of church buildings.
The Anglican provinces found to have broken the “moratoria” - on ordaining homosexual clergy; blessing same-sex unions in church; and making “cross-border interventions” - will soon be sent letters telling them about the proposed punishment for straying from the Communion’s agreed positions.
This will involve them being asked to step down from formal ecumenical dialogues such as those with Orthodox Churches or the Roman Catholic Church, and being denied decision-making powers in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order that handles questions of church doctrine and authority.
The heads of all the national Anglican churches, known as the Primates, will discuss the Archbishop’s plan at their next scheduled meeting in January. The provinces are also going through a lengthy process of establishing a “covenant” of agreed behaviour and consequences for those who break it.
Dr Williams wrote in a Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion, of which he is the spiritual head: “Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation. There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round.
“It is clear that the official bodies of The Episcopal Church have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been asked of them by others, and the consecration of Canon Mary Glasspool on May 15 has been a clear sign of this. And despite attempts to clarify the situation, activity across provincial boundaries still continues - equally dictated by what people have felt they must in conscience do.
“I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces - provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) - should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members.”
It is the first time the Archbishop has imposed such sanctions on Anglican provinces. In 2005, Primates called on the Episcopal Church and its Canadian counterpart to "voluntarily withdraw" their representatives from a gathering of the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham. The churches still sent delegations and made presentations but did not officially participate.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has imposed the first punishments on Anglican national churches judged to have inflamed tensions over homosexuality in the church.
By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Published: 4:03PM BST 28 May 2010
Dr Rowan Williams announced that provinces which had ignored his “pleading” for restraint would be banned from attending official discussions with other Christian denominations and prevented from voting on a key body on doctrine.
He admitted the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion was in a time of “substantial transition” but held back from taking the most serious step of expelling national churches from it.
His action, taken after years of patiently asking both conservatives and liberals to abide by agreed rules, will affect both sides in the dispute over whether the Bible permits openly homosexual clergy.
It has been triggered by the progressive Episcopal Church of the USA, which ordained its first lesbian bishop, the Rt Rev Mary Glasspool, earlier this month. The Episcopal Church also elected the first openly homosexual bishop in the Communion, the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, in 2003.
But the move will also hit orthodox provinces in the developing world – known as the Global South – that reacted to the liberal innovations in America and Canada by taking conservative American clergy and congregations out of their national churches and giving them roles in Africa and South America. This has triggered bitter legal battles over the fate of church buildings.
The Anglican provinces found to have broken the “moratoria” - on ordaining homosexual clergy; blessing same-sex unions in church; and making “cross-border interventions” - will soon be sent letters telling them about the proposed punishment for straying from the Communion’s agreed positions.
This will involve them being asked to step down from formal ecumenical dialogues such as those with Orthodox Churches or the Roman Catholic Church, and being denied decision-making powers in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order that handles questions of church doctrine and authority.
The heads of all the national Anglican churches, known as the Primates, will discuss the Archbishop’s plan at their next scheduled meeting in January. The provinces are also going through a lengthy process of establishing a “covenant” of agreed behaviour and consequences for those who break it.
Dr Williams wrote in a Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion, of which he is the spiritual head: “Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation. There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round.
“It is clear that the official bodies of The Episcopal Church have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been asked of them by others, and the consecration of Canon Mary Glasspool on May 15 has been a clear sign of this. And despite attempts to clarify the situation, activity across provincial boundaries still continues - equally dictated by what people have felt they must in conscience do.
“I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces - provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) - should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members.”
It is the first time the Archbishop has imposed such sanctions on Anglican provinces. In 2005, Primates called on the Episcopal Church and its Canadian counterpart to "voluntarily withdraw" their representatives from a gathering of the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham. The churches still sent delegations and made presentations but did not officially participate.
More reaction from the pecusa left
What kind of Pentecost?
from The Lead by Andrew Gerns
The Archbishop of Canterbury says that the churches within the Communion who ordain gay bishops, bless same-sex unions and cross provincial boundaries should excuse themselves from certain ecumenical and Communion activities but instead serve as "consultants."
Just who is he talking about? And what does this mean in life of the Church in real terms?
Mark Harris did some research and came up with a list of who this punishment would affect. [see Harris' article posted below.]
I am not sure of the status of SE Asia and Tanzania. I am sure this will be further corrected.
There are some unanswered questions about this approach.
While Williams acknowledges that churches that have worked against the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada and others, might take some comfort in this decision he cautions them not to cheer too loudly. Given the level of the rhetoric emanating from these quarters as well as from those who have left the Episcopal Church, it is hard to imagine how conservative groups will not view this move anything but too little discipline coming too late,
The Archbishop recognizes that this affects neither the Anglican Consultative Council nor the Primates Meeting, which are governed by constitutions that define membership, although he thinks that these groups should consider the possibility of different rules. So does that mean that he will propose some rule changes the next time they meet, or does he think the prospect of yet another round of negotiations will entice Primates who have threatened to stay away to change their minds?
Or is he hoping that this will be seen as punishment enough, hoping that this chapter will have been closed. Or, as one person commented this morning: is this a choice between cake or death?
Williams does not address the situation of the Church of England where same sex unions are legal but where the church have neither officially sanctioned such rites nor disciplines of the clergy who perform them. Neither does he address the reality in his own church where gay clergy are allowed to live in civil partnerships but may not perform public rites of blessings. Apparently, only churches that openly address the pastoral care of LGBT persons are asked to step aside.
While the ABC specifically names the ordination of Mary Glasspool as suffragan bishop of Los Angeles and reminds us of his appearance before General Convention in 2009, he does not name the border-crossing provinces or define whether provinces that crossed borders in the past but have given over those former Episcopal congregations to ACNA will also be asked to withdraw from these kinds of gatherings.
The Archbishop expresses the hope that differing parties would remain in dialogue and pray for one another. Except for being asked to leave the room and consult (we assume that means don't speak unless addressed), and the vague hope that the Covenant process might define things better, there is no mechanism suggested as how this might take place.
Archbishop Williams has drawn two pictures of the Pentecost church that are difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, he reminds us of the church that was drawn together by the power of the Holy Spirit and spoke to the whole world in many tongues. On the other hand, we have the church of the muted voice, whose pace is established by the comfort-level of the most cautious members of the body and where the Spirit only speaks what is agreeable to all. He paints a picture of a church that is defined by what it is not, what it will not do, and where it will not go.
from The Lead by Andrew Gerns
The Archbishop of Canterbury says that the churches within the Communion who ordain gay bishops, bless same-sex unions and cross provincial boundaries should excuse themselves from certain ecumenical and Communion activities but instead serve as "consultants."
Just who is he talking about? And what does this mean in life of the Church in real terms?
Mark Harris did some research and came up with a list of who this punishment would affect. [see Harris' article posted below.]
I am not sure of the status of SE Asia and Tanzania. I am sure this will be further corrected.
There are some unanswered questions about this approach.
While Williams acknowledges that churches that have worked against the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada and others, might take some comfort in this decision he cautions them not to cheer too loudly. Given the level of the rhetoric emanating from these quarters as well as from those who have left the Episcopal Church, it is hard to imagine how conservative groups will not view this move anything but too little discipline coming too late,
The Archbishop recognizes that this affects neither the Anglican Consultative Council nor the Primates Meeting, which are governed by constitutions that define membership, although he thinks that these groups should consider the possibility of different rules. So does that mean that he will propose some rule changes the next time they meet, or does he think the prospect of yet another round of negotiations will entice Primates who have threatened to stay away to change their minds?
Or is he hoping that this will be seen as punishment enough, hoping that this chapter will have been closed. Or, as one person commented this morning: is this a choice between cake or death?
Williams does not address the situation of the Church of England where same sex unions are legal but where the church have neither officially sanctioned such rites nor disciplines of the clergy who perform them. Neither does he address the reality in his own church where gay clergy are allowed to live in civil partnerships but may not perform public rites of blessings. Apparently, only churches that openly address the pastoral care of LGBT persons are asked to step aside.
While the ABC specifically names the ordination of Mary Glasspool as suffragan bishop of Los Angeles and reminds us of his appearance before General Convention in 2009, he does not name the border-crossing provinces or define whether provinces that crossed borders in the past but have given over those former Episcopal congregations to ACNA will also be asked to withdraw from these kinds of gatherings.
The Archbishop expresses the hope that differing parties would remain in dialogue and pray for one another. Except for being asked to leave the room and consult (we assume that means don't speak unless addressed), and the vague hope that the Covenant process might define things better, there is no mechanism suggested as how this might take place.
Archbishop Williams has drawn two pictures of the Pentecost church that are difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, he reminds us of the church that was drawn together by the power of the Holy Spirit and spoke to the whole world in many tongues. On the other hand, we have the church of the muted voice, whose pace is established by the comfort-level of the most cautious members of the body and where the Spirit only speaks what is agreeable to all. He paints a picture of a church that is defined by what it is not, what it will not do, and where it will not go.
Following Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles Consecration, Archbishop of Canterbury calls for first steps toward disciplinary action
from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue
BB NOTE: Timing, my friends - it's all about timing.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, calls for provinces formally breaking the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion to no longer officially represent the Anglican Communion in ecumenical affairs (such as on the IASCUFO - you can read their communique here, which was released prior to Glasspool's consecration when the Episcopal Church was requested to stand down from it's intention to make her a bishop). This will particularly affect The Episcopal Church, which formally did break the moratoria at the Los Angeles consecration of Mary Glasspool, officiated by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
Make no mistake about it, Rowan Williams timing in releasing his call now follows in the wake of the Glasspool consecration two weeks ago.
Dr. Williams writes, ""Although attitudes to human sexuality have been the presenting cause, I want to underline the fact that what has precipitated the current problem is not simply this issue but the widespread bewilderment and often hurt in different quarters that we have no way of making decisions together so that we are not compromised or undermined by what others are doing. We have not, in other words, found a way of shaping our consciences and convictions as a worldwide body."
Here is another excerpt from his official Pentecost letter, where he outlines the first consequences:
"We began by thinking about Pentecost and the diverse peoples of the earth finding a common voice, recognising that each was speaking a truth recognised by all. However, when some part of that fellowship speaks in ways that others find hard to recognise, and that point in a significantly different direction from what others are saying, we cannot pretend there is no problem.
"And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal faith-and-order related groups.
"I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice. It does not alter what has been said earlier by the Primates’ Meeting about the nature of the moratoria: the request for restraint does not necessarily imply that the issues involved are of equal weight but recognises that they are ‘central factors placing strains on our common life’, in the words of the Primates in 2007. Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future.
BB NOTE: We can see some movement toward working within the communion structures at the last Global South meeting in Singapore when the leaders of the ACNA and the leaders of the Communion Partners came together to speak to the gathering. Efforts are underway to continue to build bridges between the ACNA and the Communion Partners, both formally and informally, as well with the Church of England which, in an extraordinary action in February recognized the ACNA's desire to remain Anglican at the Church of England Synod. Other efforts are underway as well which have not yet been made public. It will be interesting to watch if The Episcopal Church will change course as well and stand down from it's formal insistence to break the moratoria established in the Windsor Report.
BB NOTE: Timing, my friends - it's all about timing.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, calls for provinces formally breaking the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion to no longer officially represent the Anglican Communion in ecumenical affairs (such as on the IASCUFO - you can read their communique here, which was released prior to Glasspool's consecration when the Episcopal Church was requested to stand down from it's intention to make her a bishop). This will particularly affect The Episcopal Church, which formally did break the moratoria at the Los Angeles consecration of Mary Glasspool, officiated by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
Make no mistake about it, Rowan Williams timing in releasing his call now follows in the wake of the Glasspool consecration two weeks ago.
Dr. Williams writes, ""Although attitudes to human sexuality have been the presenting cause, I want to underline the fact that what has precipitated the current problem is not simply this issue but the widespread bewilderment and often hurt in different quarters that we have no way of making decisions together so that we are not compromised or undermined by what others are doing. We have not, in other words, found a way of shaping our consciences and convictions as a worldwide body."
Here is another excerpt from his official Pentecost letter, where he outlines the first consequences:
"We began by thinking about Pentecost and the diverse peoples of the earth finding a common voice, recognising that each was speaking a truth recognised by all. However, when some part of that fellowship speaks in ways that others find hard to recognise, and that point in a significantly different direction from what others are saying, we cannot pretend there is no problem.
"And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal faith-and-order related groups.
"I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice. It does not alter what has been said earlier by the Primates’ Meeting about the nature of the moratoria: the request for restraint does not necessarily imply that the issues involved are of equal weight but recognises that they are ‘central factors placing strains on our common life’, in the words of the Primates in 2007. Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future.
BB NOTE: We can see some movement toward working within the communion structures at the last Global South meeting in Singapore when the leaders of the ACNA and the leaders of the Communion Partners came together to speak to the gathering. Efforts are underway to continue to build bridges between the ACNA and the Communion Partners, both formally and informally, as well with the Church of England which, in an extraordinary action in February recognized the ACNA's desire to remain Anglican at the Church of England Synod. Other efforts are underway as well which have not yet been made public. It will be interesting to watch if The Episcopal Church will change course as well and stand down from it's formal insistence to break the moratoria established in the Windsor Report.
Who is on the Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order?
The Rev. Mark Harris lists those on the ACSCUFO and highlights those who would be asked to step down according to the ABC's Pentecost letter (this letter is posted below). Asaju of Nigeria, Kalengyo of Uganda, Zavala of Chile, and Grieb of pecusa would be reduced to consultant status. Obviously, the Global South will not be pleased with losing three seats while pecusa loses one. ed.
From Preludium blog via Stand Firm:
5/28/2010
Here is a list of those on the Anglican Communion Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order. Those highlighted in red would be reduced to consultant status (whatever that means) under the moratoria rule the Archbishop speaks of in his letter.
The Most Revd Bernard Ntahoturi, Primate of Burundi and Chair of Commission
The Rt Revd Dr Georges Titre Ande, Congo
The Ven. Professor Dapo Asaju, Nigeria
The Revd Canon Professor Paul Avis, England
The Rt Revd Philip D Baji, Tanzania
The Revd Canon Dr John Gibaut, World Council of Churches
The Rt Revd Howard Gregory, West Indies
The Revd Dr Katherine Grieb, Episcopal Church (USA)
The Revd Canon Clement Janda, Sudan
The Revd Sarah Rowland Jones, Southern Africa
The Revd Dr Edison Muhindo Kalengyo, Uganda
The Rt Revd Victoria Matthews, Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
The Revd Canon Dr Charlotte Methuen, England
The Revd Dr Simon Oliver, Wales/England
The Rt Revd Professor Stephen Pickard, Australia
Dr Andrew Pierce, Ireland
The Revd Canon Dr Michael Nai Chiu Poon, South East Asia
The Revd Dr Jeremiah Guen Seok Yang, Korea
The Rt Revd Tito Zavala, Bishop of Chile, Southern Cone
The Revd Joanna Udal, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for Anglican Communion Affairs The Revd Canon Dr Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director for Unity, Faith and Order
Mr Neil Vigers, of the Anglican Communion Office.
I am not sure of the status of SE Asia and Tanzania. I am sure this will be further corrected.
POSTED BY MARK HARRIS AT 5/28/2010 06:38:00 AM
From Preludium blog via Stand Firm:
5/28/2010
Here is a list of those on the Anglican Communion Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order. Those highlighted in red would be reduced to consultant status (whatever that means) under the moratoria rule the Archbishop speaks of in his letter.
The Most Revd Bernard Ntahoturi, Primate of Burundi and Chair of Commission
The Rt Revd Dr Georges Titre Ande, Congo
The Ven. Professor Dapo Asaju, Nigeria
The Revd Canon Professor Paul Avis, England
The Rt Revd Philip D Baji, Tanzania
The Revd Canon Dr John Gibaut, World Council of Churches
The Rt Revd Howard Gregory, West Indies
The Revd Dr Katherine Grieb, Episcopal Church (USA)
The Revd Canon Clement Janda, Sudan
The Revd Sarah Rowland Jones, Southern Africa
The Revd Dr Edison Muhindo Kalengyo, Uganda
The Rt Revd Victoria Matthews, Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
The Revd Canon Dr Charlotte Methuen, England
The Revd Dr Simon Oliver, Wales/England
The Rt Revd Professor Stephen Pickard, Australia
Dr Andrew Pierce, Ireland
The Revd Canon Dr Michael Nai Chiu Poon, South East Asia
The Revd Dr Jeremiah Guen Seok Yang, Korea
The Rt Revd Tito Zavala, Bishop of Chile, Southern Cone
The Revd Joanna Udal, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for Anglican Communion Affairs The Revd Canon Dr Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director for Unity, Faith and Order
Mr Neil Vigers, of the Anglican Communion Office.
I am not sure of the status of SE Asia and Tanzania. I am sure this will be further corrected.
POSTED BY MARK HARRIS AT 5/28/2010 06:38:00 AM
Canterbury proposes resignation of ecumenical commission members
By Matthew Davies, May 28, 2010
[Episcopal News Service] Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is proposing that representatives currently serving on some of the Anglican Communion's ecumenical dialogues should resign their membership if they are from a province that has not complied with moratoria on same-gender blessings, cross-border interventions and the ordination of gay and lesbian people to the episcopate.
Williams made his proposal in a May 28 Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion, in which he specifically refers to the May 15 consecration of Los Angeles Bishop Suffragan Mary Douglas Glasspool and the ongoing activity across provincial boundaries. Glasspool is the Episcopal Church's second openly gay, partnered bishop.
Two Episcopal Church members serving on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue and one on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order are expected to be affected by the proposal.
When a province "declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the communion, it is very hard to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the communion as a whole," Williams said. "This affects both our ecumenical dialogues ... and our faith-and-order related groups."
Williams said that affected provinces "will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future."
Episcopal Church members currently serving on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue are the Rev. Thomas Ferguson, the Episcopal Church's interim deputy for ecumenical and interreligious relations, and Assistant Bishop William Gregg of North Carolina.
Other members that may be asked to resign their membership are the Rev. Canon Philip Hobson and Natasha Klukach from the Anglican Church of Canada and the Rev. Joseph Wandera from the Anglican Church of Kenya. Some dioceses in the Canadian church have made provisions for blessing same-gender unions and the Kenyan church has consecrated former Episcopalians as bishops in the U.S., an action that is in contravention of the moratorium on cross-border interventions.
Williams recommends that affected members serving on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order should revert to consultant status. The Rev. Katherine Grieb, an Episcopal priest and professor of New Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary, serves on that commission. Other members who are likely to be affected by Williams' suggestion are the Venerable Dapo Asaju of Nigeria, the Rev. Edison Muhindo Kalengyo of Uganda and Bishop Tito Zavala of Chile, Southern Cone, all of whom hail from provinces that are currently involved in cross-border interventions in the United States.
The third phase of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission is unaffected by Williams' suggestion as its members have yet to be named.
"In our dealings with other Christian communions, we do not seek to deny our diversity; but there is an obvious problem in putting forward representatives of the communion who are consciously at odds with what the communion has formally requested or stipulated," Williams said. "Their views deserve attention, respect and careful study. They should be engaged in serious dialogue -- but it would be eccentric to place such people in a position where their view was implicitly acknowledged as one of a range of equally acceptable convictions, all of which could be taken as representatively Anglican."
The moratoria were first mentioned in the 2004 Windsor Report, a document that made several recommendations on how the communion might maintain unity amid disagreements over theological interpretations and human sexuality issues. The moratoria have since been supported by the communion's primates or episcopal leaders, at their February 2009 meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council, the communion's main policy-making body, at its May 2009 meeting.
The Episcopal Church's General Convention, meeting in July, passed Resolution D025 that declared the ordination process open to all people. Glasspool is the first openly gay priest to be elected and ordained as bishop since the passage of Resolution D025.
"Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation," Williams said. "There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round."
Williams said he hopes that the Anglican Covenant, which was first suggested in the Windsor Report, will help the communion focus on mission and he reiterated that it should not be seen as an instrument of control. The covenant's final text was sent to the communion's 38 provinces in December with the request that they consider adopting it.
Williams acknowledged that the communion currently faces a dilemma. "To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing," he said. "Neither is it a good thing to break away from each other so dramatically that we no longer see Christ in each other and risk trying to create a church of the 'perfect' -- people like us."
Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church's program officer for public affairs, said that an Episcopal Church response is not expected at this time.
-- Matthew Davies is editor and international correspondent of the Episcopal News Service.
[Episcopal News Service] Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is proposing that representatives currently serving on some of the Anglican Communion's ecumenical dialogues should resign their membership if they are from a province that has not complied with moratoria on same-gender blessings, cross-border interventions and the ordination of gay and lesbian people to the episcopate.
Williams made his proposal in a May 28 Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion, in which he specifically refers to the May 15 consecration of Los Angeles Bishop Suffragan Mary Douglas Glasspool and the ongoing activity across provincial boundaries. Glasspool is the Episcopal Church's second openly gay, partnered bishop.
Two Episcopal Church members serving on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue and one on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order are expected to be affected by the proposal.
When a province "declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the communion, it is very hard to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the communion as a whole," Williams said. "This affects both our ecumenical dialogues ... and our faith-and-order related groups."
Williams said that affected provinces "will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future."
Episcopal Church members currently serving on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue are the Rev. Thomas Ferguson, the Episcopal Church's interim deputy for ecumenical and interreligious relations, and Assistant Bishop William Gregg of North Carolina.
Other members that may be asked to resign their membership are the Rev. Canon Philip Hobson and Natasha Klukach from the Anglican Church of Canada and the Rev. Joseph Wandera from the Anglican Church of Kenya. Some dioceses in the Canadian church have made provisions for blessing same-gender unions and the Kenyan church has consecrated former Episcopalians as bishops in the U.S., an action that is in contravention of the moratorium on cross-border interventions.
Williams recommends that affected members serving on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order should revert to consultant status. The Rev. Katherine Grieb, an Episcopal priest and professor of New Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary, serves on that commission. Other members who are likely to be affected by Williams' suggestion are the Venerable Dapo Asaju of Nigeria, the Rev. Edison Muhindo Kalengyo of Uganda and Bishop Tito Zavala of Chile, Southern Cone, all of whom hail from provinces that are currently involved in cross-border interventions in the United States.
The third phase of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission is unaffected by Williams' suggestion as its members have yet to be named.
"In our dealings with other Christian communions, we do not seek to deny our diversity; but there is an obvious problem in putting forward representatives of the communion who are consciously at odds with what the communion has formally requested or stipulated," Williams said. "Their views deserve attention, respect and careful study. They should be engaged in serious dialogue -- but it would be eccentric to place such people in a position where their view was implicitly acknowledged as one of a range of equally acceptable convictions, all of which could be taken as representatively Anglican."
The moratoria were first mentioned in the 2004 Windsor Report, a document that made several recommendations on how the communion might maintain unity amid disagreements over theological interpretations and human sexuality issues. The moratoria have since been supported by the communion's primates or episcopal leaders, at their February 2009 meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council, the communion's main policy-making body, at its May 2009 meeting.
The Episcopal Church's General Convention, meeting in July, passed Resolution D025 that declared the ordination process open to all people. Glasspool is the first openly gay priest to be elected and ordained as bishop since the passage of Resolution D025.
"Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation," Williams said. "There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round."
Williams said he hopes that the Anglican Covenant, which was first suggested in the Windsor Report, will help the communion focus on mission and he reiterated that it should not be seen as an instrument of control. The covenant's final text was sent to the communion's 38 provinces in December with the request that they consider adopting it.
Williams acknowledged that the communion currently faces a dilemma. "To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing," he said. "Neither is it a good thing to break away from each other so dramatically that we no longer see Christ in each other and risk trying to create a church of the 'perfect' -- people like us."
Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church's program officer for public affairs, said that an Episcopal Church response is not expected at this time.
-- Matthew Davies is editor and international correspondent of the Episcopal News Service.
pecusa left reacts to ABC letter
ABC responds to Glasspool consecration
from The Lead by John B. Chilton
Once again, timing reveals Rowan Williams is more interested in appeasement than justice. Labeling it "Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion" does not mask that fact. The latest from Lambeth Palace. The bottom line, as predicted:
[From ACNS press release]:
Notes to editors:
Q. Practically, what does this letter mean for Provinces, national or regional churches who have broken any of the moratoria?
A. Representatives of those Provinces, national or regional churches whose decision-making bodies have gone against the agreed moratoria a) will be asked to step down from formal ecumenical dialogues such as those with Orthodox Churches or the Roman Catholic Church, and b) will no longer have any decision-making powers in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order that handles questions of church doctrine and authority.
[Chilton comments]:
Notes to editors:
The ABC has no authority. Hence the key words, "will be asked." The U.S. representative can ignore the request for self disinvitation.
In the proposed Anglican Covenant the IASCUFO [Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order] is charged with adjudication. The Covenant had been billed as not applying retrospectively. The IASCUFO held its first meeting in December of 2009 when it issued a communique explaining its understanding of its wider charge.
Addendum. Mark Harris has highlighted who on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order might be effected. But who is to say who is in violation? The Church of Nigeria has not dismantled the outposts it created in the U.S. since the moratoria were put in place. But CANA and the CoN say they have severed ties.
from The Lead by John B. Chilton
Once again, timing reveals Rowan Williams is more interested in appeasement than justice. Labeling it "Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion" does not mask that fact. The latest from Lambeth Palace. The bottom line, as predicted:
[From ACNS press release]:
Notes to editors:
Q. Practically, what does this letter mean for Provinces, national or regional churches who have broken any of the moratoria?
A. Representatives of those Provinces, national or regional churches whose decision-making bodies have gone against the agreed moratoria a) will be asked to step down from formal ecumenical dialogues such as those with Orthodox Churches or the Roman Catholic Church, and b) will no longer have any decision-making powers in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order that handles questions of church doctrine and authority.
[Chilton comments]:
Notes to editors:
The ABC has no authority. Hence the key words, "will be asked." The U.S. representative can ignore the request for self disinvitation.
In the proposed Anglican Covenant the IASCUFO [Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order] is charged with adjudication. The Covenant had been billed as not applying retrospectively. The IASCUFO held its first meeting in December of 2009 when it issued a communique explaining its understanding of its wider charge.
Addendum. Mark Harris has highlighted who on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order might be effected. But who is to say who is in violation? The Church of Nigeria has not dismantled the outposts it created in the U.S. since the moratoria were put in place. But CANA and the CoN say they have severed ties.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Lutherans in Search of a Church
From First Things via TitusOneNine:
May 27, 2010
by Robert Benne
In its August 2009 Churchwide Assembly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church decided formally to leave the Great Tradition of orthodox Christianity for a declining and desiccated liberal Protestantism. The decisions it made—accepting a weak and confused social statement on sexuality, allowing blessings of gay unions, ordaining gays and lesbians in partnered relationships, and requiring Lutherans to respect each other’s “bound conscience” on these issues—crossed the “line in the sand” that separates revisionist Christians from orthodox.
That result was a foregone conclusion for critical observers who had been watching the ELCA carefully since its inception in the late eighties. (Among them, of course, was Richard John Neuhaus, who saw clearly the trajectory yet to unfold.) What had been the promise of a renewed and robust Lutheranism in the merger of the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America was aborted before its birth, in 1988. The planners of the new Lutheran church saw to it that those who provided theological guidance to predecessor churches—then almost exclusively white and male—were marginalized from the real decision-making centers of church life.
One of their instruments was a quota system that insured that the more “progressive” elements of the church would be overrepresented. Every committee, task force, and voting body must be comprised of 60 percent laypeople of whom half must be female and 40 percent of clergy of whom half must be female. 10 percent must be people of color or people whose first language is other than English, of whom half must be female. This scheme dramatically reduced the role of white, male pastors in the church.
Other instruments were: making the Bishops merely advisory; categorizing theologians as only one interest group among others; and locating final authority in lay-dominated, semiannual assemblies that could vote even on doctrinal matters, as one fatefully did in August 2009. These bodies made sure there would be “many voices” in the life of the ELCA, and we now have “many voices,” but no authoritative ones. What is left of classical Lutheranism in the ELCA is a mere “aroma in the bottle.”
But church organizations abhor a vacuum. In the absence of a genuine confessional teaching authority, the ELCA has followed liberal Protestantism in adopting a working theology sharply different from its classical confessions. It has substituted the “Gospel of inclusion” for the classic “Gospel of redemption” that emphasizes repentance, forgiveness, and amendment of life. The former diminishes the importance of the Law as the source of both repentance and guidance for Christians. The god of self-esteem promises everyone acceptance just the way they are.
But the ELCA is far more interested in pressing forward the liberationist themes issuing from feminism, multiculturalism, anti-imperialism, and environmentalism. These themes constitute the non-negotiables in ELCA church life. The ELCA bishops recently participated in a workshop that featured a presentation titled “Power, Privilege, and Difference.” Being therefore educated about their propensities to be oppressive, the worthy bishops resolved to have “observers” at all their meetings to monitor for “PP&D” thinking. One might note that they employed no monitors for confessional theology, perhaps because there was nothing of significance to monitor.
The decision to allow the blessing and ordination of gays and lesbians in partnered relationships was the flash point for those who had observed these deep-running liberationalist trends operating in the church for many years. That flash point, however, illuminated the deeper problem of authority in the church. Scripture and its Lutheran confessional interpretation seemed to have been cast aside for the voting process of a Churchwide Assembly that was shaped more by contemporary experience, highly-organized interest groups, and the scarcely veiled agenda of ELCA headquarters.
The ELCA’s proclamation that it held no clear teachings on homosexual conduct, yet allowed the blessing and ordination of partnered homosexuals, individualized and congregationalized the church in one fell swoop. Each individual and congregation has to exercise their own “bound conscience” on these matters. Some individuals may simply leave for other churches or press their congregations to leave the ELCA, while some divert their offerings to purely local causes or participate in organized efforts to renew the church. Most members, however, try to act as if nothing has happened.
Some congregations have left the ELCA for other Lutheran bodies, while others have publicly proclaimed orthodox beliefs and practices and allowed their members to divert their offerings into “bound conscience” funds that cannot be sent on to the ELCA. Most try to avoid these controversies like the plague. Pastors know the tension will cost them membership and support no matter what direction they go.
The national church has a budget far less than the one it began with in 1988, even if one does not account for inflation. Sixty-four of the sixty-five synods have diminished their giving to the national church. All the synods have less to work with.
However, the most interesting fall-out is the organizational changes. The two organizations formed to resist the direction of the ELCA—the Word Alone Network and Lutheran CORE—have redefined themselves. Neither desires to continue organized resistance within the ELCA, which they regard as futile. Both have turned their attention to building new organizations independent of the ELCA, as they seek to provide harbors for those in search of a church beyond their congregations.
The Word Alone Network has become Word Alone Ministries, which provides educational and worship materials, mission opportunities, and theological education for the church that it founded earlier. That church, or better, that “association of congregations,” is the Lutheran Congregations in Ministry for Christ. The LCMC was formed during the fracas over an agreement, between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church, Called to Common Mission, which required ordination to the historic episcopacy for Lutheran pastors and bishops. That requirement was anathema to the mostly Midwestern, low church Lutherans. The LCMC now lists 410 member congregations, with 191 having joined since last August. Among them are some of the largest Lutheran churches in America.
Representing the “evangelical catholic” or high church wing of the church, Lutheran CORE redefined itself after the fiasco of August 2009 as a coalition for the renewal and reconfiguration of Lutheranism in North America. Though it had no initial desire to start yet another Lutheran church, CORE responded to the wave of churches wanting to leave the ELCA for a more “churchly” organization than Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ, and hopes to facilitate the birth of the new North American Lutheran Church next August. It is uncertain just how many congregations will be on board at its founding.
Both CORE and the NALC see themselves as instruments of a reconfiguration of Lutheranism in North America—CORE as an ongoing convocation of Lutheran teaching theologians, and the NALC as an ecclesia embodying those teachings.
Whatever comes of these ventures remains to be seen. If the Holy Spirit blesses them they will flourish and provide new beginnings for Lutheranism in America. For many they are the last, great efforts to live out the promise of Lutheranism as a church on this continent. If they fail, the only remaining option may be a bracing swim across the Tiber.
Robert Benne is Director of the Center for Religion and Society and Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion Emeritus at Roanoke College. His Good and Bad Ways to Think About Religion and Politics will appear this summer.
May 27, 2010
by Robert Benne
In its August 2009 Churchwide Assembly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church decided formally to leave the Great Tradition of orthodox Christianity for a declining and desiccated liberal Protestantism. The decisions it made—accepting a weak and confused social statement on sexuality, allowing blessings of gay unions, ordaining gays and lesbians in partnered relationships, and requiring Lutherans to respect each other’s “bound conscience” on these issues—crossed the “line in the sand” that separates revisionist Christians from orthodox.
That result was a foregone conclusion for critical observers who had been watching the ELCA carefully since its inception in the late eighties. (Among them, of course, was Richard John Neuhaus, who saw clearly the trajectory yet to unfold.) What had been the promise of a renewed and robust Lutheranism in the merger of the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America was aborted before its birth, in 1988. The planners of the new Lutheran church saw to it that those who provided theological guidance to predecessor churches—then almost exclusively white and male—were marginalized from the real decision-making centers of church life.
One of their instruments was a quota system that insured that the more “progressive” elements of the church would be overrepresented. Every committee, task force, and voting body must be comprised of 60 percent laypeople of whom half must be female and 40 percent of clergy of whom half must be female. 10 percent must be people of color or people whose first language is other than English, of whom half must be female. This scheme dramatically reduced the role of white, male pastors in the church.
Other instruments were: making the Bishops merely advisory; categorizing theologians as only one interest group among others; and locating final authority in lay-dominated, semiannual assemblies that could vote even on doctrinal matters, as one fatefully did in August 2009. These bodies made sure there would be “many voices” in the life of the ELCA, and we now have “many voices,” but no authoritative ones. What is left of classical Lutheranism in the ELCA is a mere “aroma in the bottle.”
But church organizations abhor a vacuum. In the absence of a genuine confessional teaching authority, the ELCA has followed liberal Protestantism in adopting a working theology sharply different from its classical confessions. It has substituted the “Gospel of inclusion” for the classic “Gospel of redemption” that emphasizes repentance, forgiveness, and amendment of life. The former diminishes the importance of the Law as the source of both repentance and guidance for Christians. The god of self-esteem promises everyone acceptance just the way they are.
But the ELCA is far more interested in pressing forward the liberationist themes issuing from feminism, multiculturalism, anti-imperialism, and environmentalism. These themes constitute the non-negotiables in ELCA church life. The ELCA bishops recently participated in a workshop that featured a presentation titled “Power, Privilege, and Difference.” Being therefore educated about their propensities to be oppressive, the worthy bishops resolved to have “observers” at all their meetings to monitor for “PP&D” thinking. One might note that they employed no monitors for confessional theology, perhaps because there was nothing of significance to monitor.
The decision to allow the blessing and ordination of gays and lesbians in partnered relationships was the flash point for those who had observed these deep-running liberationalist trends operating in the church for many years. That flash point, however, illuminated the deeper problem of authority in the church. Scripture and its Lutheran confessional interpretation seemed to have been cast aside for the voting process of a Churchwide Assembly that was shaped more by contemporary experience, highly-organized interest groups, and the scarcely veiled agenda of ELCA headquarters.
The ELCA’s proclamation that it held no clear teachings on homosexual conduct, yet allowed the blessing and ordination of partnered homosexuals, individualized and congregationalized the church in one fell swoop. Each individual and congregation has to exercise their own “bound conscience” on these matters. Some individuals may simply leave for other churches or press their congregations to leave the ELCA, while some divert their offerings to purely local causes or participate in organized efforts to renew the church. Most members, however, try to act as if nothing has happened.
Some congregations have left the ELCA for other Lutheran bodies, while others have publicly proclaimed orthodox beliefs and practices and allowed their members to divert their offerings into “bound conscience” funds that cannot be sent on to the ELCA. Most try to avoid these controversies like the plague. Pastors know the tension will cost them membership and support no matter what direction they go.
The national church has a budget far less than the one it began with in 1988, even if one does not account for inflation. Sixty-four of the sixty-five synods have diminished their giving to the national church. All the synods have less to work with.
However, the most interesting fall-out is the organizational changes. The two organizations formed to resist the direction of the ELCA—the Word Alone Network and Lutheran CORE—have redefined themselves. Neither desires to continue organized resistance within the ELCA, which they regard as futile. Both have turned their attention to building new organizations independent of the ELCA, as they seek to provide harbors for those in search of a church beyond their congregations.
The Word Alone Network has become Word Alone Ministries, which provides educational and worship materials, mission opportunities, and theological education for the church that it founded earlier. That church, or better, that “association of congregations,” is the Lutheran Congregations in Ministry for Christ. The LCMC was formed during the fracas over an agreement, between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church, Called to Common Mission, which required ordination to the historic episcopacy for Lutheran pastors and bishops. That requirement was anathema to the mostly Midwestern, low church Lutherans. The LCMC now lists 410 member congregations, with 191 having joined since last August. Among them are some of the largest Lutheran churches in America.
Representing the “evangelical catholic” or high church wing of the church, Lutheran CORE redefined itself after the fiasco of August 2009 as a coalition for the renewal and reconfiguration of Lutheranism in North America. Though it had no initial desire to start yet another Lutheran church, CORE responded to the wave of churches wanting to leave the ELCA for a more “churchly” organization than Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ, and hopes to facilitate the birth of the new North American Lutheran Church next August. It is uncertain just how many congregations will be on board at its founding.
Both CORE and the NALC see themselves as instruments of a reconfiguration of Lutheranism in North America—CORE as an ongoing convocation of Lutheran teaching theologians, and the NALC as an ecclesia embodying those teachings.
Whatever comes of these ventures remains to be seen. If the Holy Spirit blesses them they will flourish and provide new beginnings for Lutheranism in America. For many they are the last, great efforts to live out the promise of Lutheranism as a church on this continent. If they fail, the only remaining option may be a bracing swim across the Tiber.
Robert Benne is Director of the Center for Religion and Society and Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion Emeritus at Roanoke College. His Good and Bad Ways to Think About Religion and Politics will appear this summer.
Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion
Anglican Communion News Service
Posted On : May 28, 2010 7:38 AM
ACNS: ACNS4704
In his Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury encourages Anglicans to pray for renewal in the Spirit and focus on the priority of mission, so that ‘we may indeed do what God asks of us and let all people know that new and forgiven life in Christ is possible’.
The Archbishop acknowledges that Anglicans are experiencing a period of transition in the world: ‘when the voice and witness in the Communion of Christians from the developing world is more articulate and creative than ever, and when the rapidity of social change in ‘developed’ nations leaves even some of the most faithful and traditional Christian communities uncertain where to draw the boundaries in controversial matters – not only sexuality but issues of bioethics, for example, or the complexities of morality in the financial world.’
In response to the current situation the Archbishop makes clear that when a province ‘declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard to see how members of that province can be placed in position where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues…and our faith-and-order related groups’
Dr Williams goes on to makes two specific proposals. Firstly, that members of provinces that are in breach of the three moratoria requested by the Instruments of the Communion should no longer participate in the formal ecumenical dialogues in which the Anglican Communion is engaged. Secondly, that members of these provinces currently serving on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (a body that examines issues of doctrine and authority) should, for the time being, no longer have full membership, but retain the status of consultants. 'This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as acceptable limits of diversity in its practice'.
The Archbishop finally urges that ‘everyone should be reflecting on how to rebuild relations and to move towards a more coherent Anglican identity (which does not mean an Anglican identity with no diversity)’ and to remember that ‘there are things that Anglicans across the world need and want to do together for the care of God’s poor and vulnerable that can and do go on even when division over doctrine or discipline is sharp’. All this entails ‘…praying for a new Pentecost for our Communion. That means above all a vast deepening of our capacity to receive the gift of being adopted sons and daughters of the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It means a deepened capacity to speak of Jesus Christ in the language of our context so that we are heard and the Gospel is made compelling and credible. And it also means a deepened capacity to love and nourish each other within Christ’s Body’.
ENDS
Notes to editors:
Q. Practically, what does this letter mean for Provinces, national or regional churches who have broken any of the moratoria?
A. Representatives of those Provinces, national or regional churches whose decision-making bodies have gone against the agreed moratoria a) will be asked to step down from formal ecumenical dialogues such as those with Orthodox Churches or the Roman Catholic Church, and b) will no longer have any decision-making powers in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order that handles questions of church doctrine and authority.
Q. What are the agreements that have been broken?
A. As far back as 2004, the Anglican Communion leadership agreed to three moratoria: 1) No authorisation of blessings services for same-sex unions; 2) No consecrations of bishops living in same-sex relationships; 3) No cross-border interventions (no bishop authorising any ministry within the diocese of another bishop without explicit permission). These have been affirmed repeatedly in subsequent years at the highest levels of the Communion.
Q. Is anyone being asked to leave the Communion?
A. No. By proposing these actions the Archbishop is working to safeguard the common life of the Communion. His proposals come after several churches broke the Communion's agreed moratoria (their promises to the Communion). Nevertheless the churches concerned remain full members of the Anglican Communion.
Q. Why did the Archbishop decide to issue this letter now?
A. His comments are made at the season of Pentecost when Christians pray for a renewing of the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of communion and of fellowship. The letter also comes shortly after the Episcopal Church broke one of the moratoria by appointing a bishop in a same-sex relationship.
Full text of the letter is below:
Renewal in the Spirit
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion
1. ‘They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to talk in other languages as the Spirit enabled them to speak’ (Acts 2.4). At Pentecost, we celebrate the gift God gives us of being able to communicate the Good News of Jesus Christ in the various languages of the whole human world. The Gospel is not the property of any one group, any one culture or history, but is what God intends for the salvation of all who will listen and respond.
St Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit is also what God gives us so that we can call God ‘Abba, Father’ (Rom. 8.15, Gal. 4.6). The Spirit is given not only so that we can speak to the world about God but so that we can speak to God in the words of his own beloved Son. The Good News we share is not just a story about Jesus but the possibility of living in and through the life of Jesus and praying his prayer to the Father.
And so the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of ‘communion’ or fellowship (II Cor. 13.13). The Spirit allows us to recognise each other as part of the Body of Christ because we can hear in each other the voice of Jesus praying to the Father. We know, in the Spirit, that we who are baptised into Jesus Christ share one life; so that all the diversity of gifting and service in the Church can be seen as the work of one Spirit (I Cor. 12.4). In the Holy Eucharist, this unity in and through the self-offering of Jesus is reaffirmed and renewed as we pray for the Spirit to transform both the bread and wine and ‘ourselves, our souls and bodies’.
When the Church is living by the Spirit, what the world will see is a community of people who joyfully and gratefully hear the prayer of Jesus being offered in each other’s words and lives, and are able to recognise the one Christ working through human diversity. And if the world sees this, the Church is a true sign of hope in a world of bitter conflict and rivalry.
2. From the very first, as the New Testament makes plain, the Church has experienced division and internal hostilities. From the very first, the Church has had to repent of its failure to live fully in the light and truth of the Spirit. Jesus tells us in St John’s gospel that the Spirit of truth will ‘prove the world wrong’ in respect of sin and righteousness and judgement (Jn 16.8). But if the Spirit is leading us all further into the truth, the Spirit will convict the Church too of its wrongness and lead it into repentance. And if the Church is a community where we serve each other in the name of Christ, it is a community where we can and should call each other to repentance in the name of Christ and his Spirit – not to make the other feel inferior (because we all need to be called to repentance) but to remind them of the glory of Christ’s gift and the promise that we lose sight of when we fail in our common life as a Church.
Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation. There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round. It is clear that the official bodies of The Episcopal Church have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been asked of them by others, and the consecration of Canon Mary Glasspool on May 15 has been a clear sign of this. And despite attempts to clarify the situation, activity across provincial boundaries still continues – equally dictated by what people have felt they must in conscience do. Some provinces have within them dioceses that are committed to policies that neither the province as a whole nor the Communion has sanctioned. In several places, not only in North America, Anglicans have not hesitated to involve the law courts in settling disputes, often at great expense and at the cost of the Church’s good name.
All are agreed that the disputes arising around these matters threaten to distract us from our main calling as Christ’s Church. The recent Global South encounter in Singapore articulated a strong and welcome plea for the priority of mission in the Communion; and in my own message to that meeting I prayed for a ‘new Pentecost’ for all of us. This is a good season of the year to pray earnestly for renewal in the Spirit, so that we may indeed do what God asks of us and let all people know that new and forgiven life in Christ is possible and that created men and women may by the Spirit’s power be given the amazing liberty to call God ‘Abba, Father!’
It is my own passionate hope that our discussion of the Anglican Covenant in its entirety will help us focus on that priority; the Covenant is nothing if not a tool for mission. I want to stress yet again that the Covenant is not envisaged as an instrument of control. And this is perhaps a good place to clarify that the place given in the final text to the Standing Committee of the Communion introduces no novelty: the Committee is identical to the former Joint Standing Committee, fully answerable in all matters to the ACC and the Primates; nor is there any intention to prevent the Primates in the group from meeting separately. The reference to the Standing Committee reflected widespread unease about leaving certain processes only to the ACC or only to the Primates.
But we are constantly reminded that the priorities of mission are experienced differently in different places, and that trying to communicate the Gospel in the diverse tongues of human beings can itself lead to misunderstandings and failures of communication between Christians. The sobering truth is that often our attempts to share the Gospel effectively in our own setting can create problems for those in other settings.
3. We are at a point in our common life where broken communications and fragile relationships have created a very mistrustful climate. This is not news. But many have a sense that the current risks are greater than ever. Although attitudes to human sexuality have been the presenting cause, I want to underline the fact that what has precipitated the current problem is not simply this issue but the widespread bewilderment and often hurt in different quarters that we have no way of making decisions together so that we are not compromised or undermined by what others are doing. We have not, in other words, found a way of shaping our consciences and convictions as a worldwide body. We have not fully received the Pentecostal gift of mutual understanding for common mission.
It may be said – quite understandably, in one way – that our societies and their assumptions are so diverse that we shall never be able to do this. Yet we are called to seek for mutual harmony and common purpose, and not to lose heart. If the truth of Christ is indeed ultimately one as we all believe, there should be a path of mutual respect and thankfulness that will hold us in union and help us grow in that truth.
Yet at the moment we face a dilemma. To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing. Neither is it a good thing to break away from each other so dramatically that we no longer see Christ in each other and risk trying to create a church of the ‘perfect’ – people like us. It is significant that there are still very many in The Episcopal Church, bishops, clergy and faithful, who want to be aligned with the Communion’s general commitments and directions, such as those who identify as ‘Communion Partners’, who disagree strongly with recent decisions, yet want to remain in visible fellowship within TEC so far as they can. And, as has often been pointed out, there are things that Anglicans across the world need and want to do together for the care of God’s poor and vulnerable that can and do go on even when division over doctrine or discipline is sharp.
4. More and more, Anglicans are aware of living through a time of substantial transition, a time when the structures that have served us need reviewing and refreshing, perhaps radical changing, when the voice and witness in the Communion of Christians from the developing world is more articulate and creative than ever, and when the rapidity of social change in ‘developed’ nations leaves even some of the most faithful and traditional Christian communities uncertain where to draw the boundaries in controversial matters – not only sexuality but issues of bioethics, for example, or the complexities of morality in the financial world.
A time of transition, by definition, does not allow quick solutions to such questions, and it is a time when, ideally, we need more than ever to stay in conversation. As I have said many times before, whatever happens to our structures, we still need to preserve both working relationships and places for exchange and discussion. New vehicles for conversations across these boundaries are being developed with much energy.
But some decisions cannot be avoided. We began by thinking about Pentecost and the diverse peoples of the earth finding a common voice, recognising that each was speaking a truth recognised by all. However, when some part of that fellowship speaks in ways that others find hard to recognise, and that point in a significantly different direction from what others are saying, we cannot pretend there is no problem.
And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal faith-and-order related groups.
I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice. It does not alter what has been said earlier by the Primates’ Meeting about the nature of the moratoria: the request for restraint does not necessarily imply that the issues involved are of equal weight but recognises that they are ‘central factors placing strains on our common life’, in the words of the Primates in 2007. Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future.
I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected. I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.
5. In our dealings with other Christian communions, we do not seek to deny our diversity; but there is an obvious problem in putting forward representatives of the Communion who are consciously at odds with what the Communion has formally requested or stipulated. This does not seem fair to them or to our partners. In our dealings with each other, we need to be clear that conscientious decisions may be taken in good faith, even for what are held to be good theological or missional reasons, and yet have a cost when they move away from what is recognisable and acceptable within the Communion. Thus – to take a very different kind of example – there have been and there are Anglicans who have a strong conscientious objection to infant baptism. Their views deserve attention, respect and careful study, they should be engaged in serious dialogue – but it would be eccentric to place such people in a position where their view was implicitly acknowledged as one of a range of equally acceptable convictions, all of which could be taken as representatively Anglican.
Yet no-one should be celebrating such public recognition of divisions and everyone should be reflecting on how to rebuild relations and to move towards a more coherent Anglican identity (which does not mean an Anglican identity with no diversity, a point once again well made by the statement from the Singapore meeting). Some complain that we are condemned to endless meetings that achieve nothing. I believe that in fact we have too few meetings that allow proper mutual exploration. It may well be that such encounters need to take place in a completely different atmosphere from the official meetings of the Communion’s representative bodies, and this needs some imaginative thought and planning. Much work is already going into making this more possible.
But if we do conclude that some public marks of ‘distance’, as the Windsor Continuation Group put it, are unavoidable if our Communion bodies are not to be stripped of credibility and effectiveness, the least Christian thing we can do is to think that this absolves us from prayer and care for each other, or continuing efforts to make sense of each other.
We are praying for a new Pentecost for our Communion. That means above all a vast deepening of our capacity to receive the gift of being adopted sons and daughters of the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It means a deepened capacity to speak of Jesus Christ in the language of our context so that we are heard and the Gospel is made compelling and credible. And it also means a deepened capacity to love and nourish each other within Christ’s Body – especially to love and nourish, as well as to challenge, those whom Christ has given us as neighbours with whom we are in deep and painful dispute.
One remarkable symbol of promise for our Communion is the generous gift received by the Diocese of Jerusalem from His Majesty the King of Jordan, who has provided a site on the banks of the Jordan River, at the traditional site of Our Lord’s Baptism, for the construction of an Anglican church. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of blessing the foundation stone of this church and viewing the plans for its design. It will be a worthy witness at this historic site to the Anglican tradition, a sign of real hope for the long-suffering Christians of the region, and something around which the Communion should gather as a focus of common commitment in Christ and his Spirit. I hope that many in the Communion will give generous support to the project.
‘We have the mind of Christ’ says St Paul (I Cor. 2.16); and, as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has recently written, this means that we must have a ‘kenotic’, a self-emptying approach to each other in the Church. May the Spirit create this in us daily and lead us into that wholeness of truth which is only to be found in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus.
I wish you all God’s richest blessing at this season.
+Rowan Cantuar:
Lambeth Palace
Pentecost 2010
Posted On : May 28, 2010 7:38 AM
ACNS: ACNS4704
In his Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury encourages Anglicans to pray for renewal in the Spirit and focus on the priority of mission, so that ‘we may indeed do what God asks of us and let all people know that new and forgiven life in Christ is possible’.
The Archbishop acknowledges that Anglicans are experiencing a period of transition in the world: ‘when the voice and witness in the Communion of Christians from the developing world is more articulate and creative than ever, and when the rapidity of social change in ‘developed’ nations leaves even some of the most faithful and traditional Christian communities uncertain where to draw the boundaries in controversial matters – not only sexuality but issues of bioethics, for example, or the complexities of morality in the financial world.’
In response to the current situation the Archbishop makes clear that when a province ‘declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard to see how members of that province can be placed in position where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues…and our faith-and-order related groups’
Dr Williams goes on to makes two specific proposals. Firstly, that members of provinces that are in breach of the three moratoria requested by the Instruments of the Communion should no longer participate in the formal ecumenical dialogues in which the Anglican Communion is engaged. Secondly, that members of these provinces currently serving on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (a body that examines issues of doctrine and authority) should, for the time being, no longer have full membership, but retain the status of consultants. 'This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as acceptable limits of diversity in its practice'.
The Archbishop finally urges that ‘everyone should be reflecting on how to rebuild relations and to move towards a more coherent Anglican identity (which does not mean an Anglican identity with no diversity)’ and to remember that ‘there are things that Anglicans across the world need and want to do together for the care of God’s poor and vulnerable that can and do go on even when division over doctrine or discipline is sharp’. All this entails ‘…praying for a new Pentecost for our Communion. That means above all a vast deepening of our capacity to receive the gift of being adopted sons and daughters of the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It means a deepened capacity to speak of Jesus Christ in the language of our context so that we are heard and the Gospel is made compelling and credible. And it also means a deepened capacity to love and nourish each other within Christ’s Body’.
ENDS
Notes to editors:
Q. Practically, what does this letter mean for Provinces, national or regional churches who have broken any of the moratoria?
A. Representatives of those Provinces, national or regional churches whose decision-making bodies have gone against the agreed moratoria a) will be asked to step down from formal ecumenical dialogues such as those with Orthodox Churches or the Roman Catholic Church, and b) will no longer have any decision-making powers in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order that handles questions of church doctrine and authority.
Q. What are the agreements that have been broken?
A. As far back as 2004, the Anglican Communion leadership agreed to three moratoria: 1) No authorisation of blessings services for same-sex unions; 2) No consecrations of bishops living in same-sex relationships; 3) No cross-border interventions (no bishop authorising any ministry within the diocese of another bishop without explicit permission). These have been affirmed repeatedly in subsequent years at the highest levels of the Communion.
Q. Is anyone being asked to leave the Communion?
A. No. By proposing these actions the Archbishop is working to safeguard the common life of the Communion. His proposals come after several churches broke the Communion's agreed moratoria (their promises to the Communion). Nevertheless the churches concerned remain full members of the Anglican Communion.
Q. Why did the Archbishop decide to issue this letter now?
A. His comments are made at the season of Pentecost when Christians pray for a renewing of the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of communion and of fellowship. The letter also comes shortly after the Episcopal Church broke one of the moratoria by appointing a bishop in a same-sex relationship.
Full text of the letter is below:
Renewal in the Spirit
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion
1. ‘They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to talk in other languages as the Spirit enabled them to speak’ (Acts 2.4). At Pentecost, we celebrate the gift God gives us of being able to communicate the Good News of Jesus Christ in the various languages of the whole human world. The Gospel is not the property of any one group, any one culture or history, but is what God intends for the salvation of all who will listen and respond.
St Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit is also what God gives us so that we can call God ‘Abba, Father’ (Rom. 8.15, Gal. 4.6). The Spirit is given not only so that we can speak to the world about God but so that we can speak to God in the words of his own beloved Son. The Good News we share is not just a story about Jesus but the possibility of living in and through the life of Jesus and praying his prayer to the Father.
And so the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of ‘communion’ or fellowship (II Cor. 13.13). The Spirit allows us to recognise each other as part of the Body of Christ because we can hear in each other the voice of Jesus praying to the Father. We know, in the Spirit, that we who are baptised into Jesus Christ share one life; so that all the diversity of gifting and service in the Church can be seen as the work of one Spirit (I Cor. 12.4). In the Holy Eucharist, this unity in and through the self-offering of Jesus is reaffirmed and renewed as we pray for the Spirit to transform both the bread and wine and ‘ourselves, our souls and bodies’.
When the Church is living by the Spirit, what the world will see is a community of people who joyfully and gratefully hear the prayer of Jesus being offered in each other’s words and lives, and are able to recognise the one Christ working through human diversity. And if the world sees this, the Church is a true sign of hope in a world of bitter conflict and rivalry.
2. From the very first, as the New Testament makes plain, the Church has experienced division and internal hostilities. From the very first, the Church has had to repent of its failure to live fully in the light and truth of the Spirit. Jesus tells us in St John’s gospel that the Spirit of truth will ‘prove the world wrong’ in respect of sin and righteousness and judgement (Jn 16.8). But if the Spirit is leading us all further into the truth, the Spirit will convict the Church too of its wrongness and lead it into repentance. And if the Church is a community where we serve each other in the name of Christ, it is a community where we can and should call each other to repentance in the name of Christ and his Spirit – not to make the other feel inferior (because we all need to be called to repentance) but to remind them of the glory of Christ’s gift and the promise that we lose sight of when we fail in our common life as a Church.
Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation. There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round. It is clear that the official bodies of The Episcopal Church have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been asked of them by others, and the consecration of Canon Mary Glasspool on May 15 has been a clear sign of this. And despite attempts to clarify the situation, activity across provincial boundaries still continues – equally dictated by what people have felt they must in conscience do. Some provinces have within them dioceses that are committed to policies that neither the province as a whole nor the Communion has sanctioned. In several places, not only in North America, Anglicans have not hesitated to involve the law courts in settling disputes, often at great expense and at the cost of the Church’s good name.
All are agreed that the disputes arising around these matters threaten to distract us from our main calling as Christ’s Church. The recent Global South encounter in Singapore articulated a strong and welcome plea for the priority of mission in the Communion; and in my own message to that meeting I prayed for a ‘new Pentecost’ for all of us. This is a good season of the year to pray earnestly for renewal in the Spirit, so that we may indeed do what God asks of us and let all people know that new and forgiven life in Christ is possible and that created men and women may by the Spirit’s power be given the amazing liberty to call God ‘Abba, Father!’
It is my own passionate hope that our discussion of the Anglican Covenant in its entirety will help us focus on that priority; the Covenant is nothing if not a tool for mission. I want to stress yet again that the Covenant is not envisaged as an instrument of control. And this is perhaps a good place to clarify that the place given in the final text to the Standing Committee of the Communion introduces no novelty: the Committee is identical to the former Joint Standing Committee, fully answerable in all matters to the ACC and the Primates; nor is there any intention to prevent the Primates in the group from meeting separately. The reference to the Standing Committee reflected widespread unease about leaving certain processes only to the ACC or only to the Primates.
But we are constantly reminded that the priorities of mission are experienced differently in different places, and that trying to communicate the Gospel in the diverse tongues of human beings can itself lead to misunderstandings and failures of communication between Christians. The sobering truth is that often our attempts to share the Gospel effectively in our own setting can create problems for those in other settings.
3. We are at a point in our common life where broken communications and fragile relationships have created a very mistrustful climate. This is not news. But many have a sense that the current risks are greater than ever. Although attitudes to human sexuality have been the presenting cause, I want to underline the fact that what has precipitated the current problem is not simply this issue but the widespread bewilderment and often hurt in different quarters that we have no way of making decisions together so that we are not compromised or undermined by what others are doing. We have not, in other words, found a way of shaping our consciences and convictions as a worldwide body. We have not fully received the Pentecostal gift of mutual understanding for common mission.
It may be said – quite understandably, in one way – that our societies and their assumptions are so diverse that we shall never be able to do this. Yet we are called to seek for mutual harmony and common purpose, and not to lose heart. If the truth of Christ is indeed ultimately one as we all believe, there should be a path of mutual respect and thankfulness that will hold us in union and help us grow in that truth.
Yet at the moment we face a dilemma. To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing. Neither is it a good thing to break away from each other so dramatically that we no longer see Christ in each other and risk trying to create a church of the ‘perfect’ – people like us. It is significant that there are still very many in The Episcopal Church, bishops, clergy and faithful, who want to be aligned with the Communion’s general commitments and directions, such as those who identify as ‘Communion Partners’, who disagree strongly with recent decisions, yet want to remain in visible fellowship within TEC so far as they can. And, as has often been pointed out, there are things that Anglicans across the world need and want to do together for the care of God’s poor and vulnerable that can and do go on even when division over doctrine or discipline is sharp.
4. More and more, Anglicans are aware of living through a time of substantial transition, a time when the structures that have served us need reviewing and refreshing, perhaps radical changing, when the voice and witness in the Communion of Christians from the developing world is more articulate and creative than ever, and when the rapidity of social change in ‘developed’ nations leaves even some of the most faithful and traditional Christian communities uncertain where to draw the boundaries in controversial matters – not only sexuality but issues of bioethics, for example, or the complexities of morality in the financial world.
A time of transition, by definition, does not allow quick solutions to such questions, and it is a time when, ideally, we need more than ever to stay in conversation. As I have said many times before, whatever happens to our structures, we still need to preserve both working relationships and places for exchange and discussion. New vehicles for conversations across these boundaries are being developed with much energy.
But some decisions cannot be avoided. We began by thinking about Pentecost and the diverse peoples of the earth finding a common voice, recognising that each was speaking a truth recognised by all. However, when some part of that fellowship speaks in ways that others find hard to recognise, and that point in a significantly different direction from what others are saying, we cannot pretend there is no problem.
And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal faith-and-order related groups.
I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice. It does not alter what has been said earlier by the Primates’ Meeting about the nature of the moratoria: the request for restraint does not necessarily imply that the issues involved are of equal weight but recognises that they are ‘central factors placing strains on our common life’, in the words of the Primates in 2007. Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future.
I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected. I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.
5. In our dealings with other Christian communions, we do not seek to deny our diversity; but there is an obvious problem in putting forward representatives of the Communion who are consciously at odds with what the Communion has formally requested or stipulated. This does not seem fair to them or to our partners. In our dealings with each other, we need to be clear that conscientious decisions may be taken in good faith, even for what are held to be good theological or missional reasons, and yet have a cost when they move away from what is recognisable and acceptable within the Communion. Thus – to take a very different kind of example – there have been and there are Anglicans who have a strong conscientious objection to infant baptism. Their views deserve attention, respect and careful study, they should be engaged in serious dialogue – but it would be eccentric to place such people in a position where their view was implicitly acknowledged as one of a range of equally acceptable convictions, all of which could be taken as representatively Anglican.
Yet no-one should be celebrating such public recognition of divisions and everyone should be reflecting on how to rebuild relations and to move towards a more coherent Anglican identity (which does not mean an Anglican identity with no diversity, a point once again well made by the statement from the Singapore meeting). Some complain that we are condemned to endless meetings that achieve nothing. I believe that in fact we have too few meetings that allow proper mutual exploration. It may well be that such encounters need to take place in a completely different atmosphere from the official meetings of the Communion’s representative bodies, and this needs some imaginative thought and planning. Much work is already going into making this more possible.
But if we do conclude that some public marks of ‘distance’, as the Windsor Continuation Group put it, are unavoidable if our Communion bodies are not to be stripped of credibility and effectiveness, the least Christian thing we can do is to think that this absolves us from prayer and care for each other, or continuing efforts to make sense of each other.
We are praying for a new Pentecost for our Communion. That means above all a vast deepening of our capacity to receive the gift of being adopted sons and daughters of the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It means a deepened capacity to speak of Jesus Christ in the language of our context so that we are heard and the Gospel is made compelling and credible. And it also means a deepened capacity to love and nourish each other within Christ’s Body – especially to love and nourish, as well as to challenge, those whom Christ has given us as neighbours with whom we are in deep and painful dispute.
One remarkable symbol of promise for our Communion is the generous gift received by the Diocese of Jerusalem from His Majesty the King of Jordan, who has provided a site on the banks of the Jordan River, at the traditional site of Our Lord’s Baptism, for the construction of an Anglican church. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of blessing the foundation stone of this church and viewing the plans for its design. It will be a worthy witness at this historic site to the Anglican tradition, a sign of real hope for the long-suffering Christians of the region, and something around which the Communion should gather as a focus of common commitment in Christ and his Spirit. I hope that many in the Communion will give generous support to the project.
‘We have the mind of Christ’ says St Paul (I Cor. 2.16); and, as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has recently written, this means that we must have a ‘kenotic’, a self-emptying approach to each other in the Church. May the Spirit create this in us daily and lead us into that wholeness of truth which is only to be found in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus.
I wish you all God’s richest blessing at this season.
+Rowan Cantuar:
Lambeth Palace
Pentecost 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)