From Thinking Anglicans:
Friday, 29 January 2010
The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has a press release:
Today Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph James accepted a Special Master’s report detailing the properties the Judge has previously ruled should be controlled by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The Special Master compiled his inventory following the Judge’s order of October 6, 2009, in which he ruled that a 2005 Stipulation agreed to by former diocesan leaders prevented them from continuing to hold diocesan assets.
Today’s order contains provisions intended to make it clear to the financial institutions holding the assets that they should now take their instructions only from designated representatives of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. The order, which takes effect immediately, also requires former diocesan leaders to provide ongoing cooperation to the Diocese to implement the provisions of the Order.
The Diocese plans to quickly make arrangements so that all parishes may again have access to their investment funds that were frozen by financial institutions during the legal proceedings.
A PDF of Judge James’ January 29th order and the public version of the Special Master’s report can be viewed.
Lionel Deimel has additional information.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 29 January 2010 at 11:59pm GMT
Saturday, January 30, 2010
GREENSBORO, NC: God Is Shaking Up His Church, says Anglican Leader
By David W. Virtue in Greensboro
www.virtueonline.org
January 29, 2010
The leader of the Anglican Mission in the Americas (TheAM) says that every 500 years or so God shakes up his church and he is doing it again now.
Speaking to some 1,400 people at the annual winter conference of the fast growing Anglican Mission, the Rt. Rev. Chuck Murphy said the decade had grown from a handful of folks meeting in Singapore in a provincial office into a growing and thriving church committed to reaching 130 million unchurched North Americans.
"The AMIA (now TheAM) kept going by vision and action that caught the wave of the Holy Spirit. We embraced the three streams (catholic, evangelical and charismatic) and trusted in affinity rather than being a settled diocese. We are a mission, nothing more, nothing less than a movement out of Africa. We became the morning stars, a new thing God was doing. We avoided a rush to structure, believing that keeping it fluid and active was the way to go."
Murphy said the conferees came from 37 states and nine countries including the U.S. and Canada, Brazil, Portugal, England, the Netherlands, South Africa and SE Asia. Rwanda sent nine bishops and a bishop elect.
Murphy drew a parallel to the growth of TheAM to the music industry. "IPod and ITunes revolutionized the music industry. They changed the way we listen to music and they have now captured 80% of the music market. However, they did not invent music or music stores but how to deliver music. They saw a need and opportunity and changed the ways things are done. YouTube began with three guys in garage they put their heads together and later sold it to Google for $1.65 billion dollars. They didn't invent video or the Internet, they created a new way to share videos online that has changed our world. They saw an opportunity and took action. The Anglican Mission has done the same. We have not changed the message, only our ability to deliver it in fresh and timely ways."
Murphy, who is also the President of the National Association of Evangelicals, said he is convinced that TheAM is blessed by God and in a position to do something extraordinary in North America in the 21st century.
In his wide-ranging review of the last decade, the leader acknowledged that there were some "bruised relationships along the way" but said the New Testament never glossed over differences people had, including among the apostles.
Touching on the delicate subject of money, Murphy noted that, "money follows vision." The Barna Group, a research and resource company located in Ventura, California, said giving was down in churches and non-profit groups across the country, but TheAM had shot up 14% in donations despite the economic downturn.
"We started with eleven congregations in 2000. Now in 2010 we have 158 congregations and climbing steadily. Some have transferred to the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA,), The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) and the Anglican Province of America (APA). We are seeing one new congregation being birthed every three weeks."
Murphy said there are 62 emerging works in progress. New congregations are coming into existence throughout North America along with new bishops being consecrated to aid the growth. "We have 19 networks guiding, planting and recruiting across North America. We have moved into major urban centers like Los Angeles with its own bishop, the Rt. Rev. Todd Hunter. We have outposts in Vancouver, Boston and New York City. Our work is constantly moving forward."
Murphy noted that even secular writers are now saying God is back. "I want you to dream with me as we look forward. Fifty years from now folks will remember that here we set out on our second missionary journey - another second ten years - with great hope.
"You have to be long term thinkers. We must ask what is God doing in the next ten years. Everybody has got a mission. The next 50 years will be incredible."
Murphy announced that this would be the last winter conference for Rwanda Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and Kigali Bishop John Rucyahana, both of whom faithfully served in the birth of the North American Anglican mission.
END
www.virtueonline.org
January 29, 2010
The leader of the Anglican Mission in the Americas (TheAM) says that every 500 years or so God shakes up his church and he is doing it again now.
Speaking to some 1,400 people at the annual winter conference of the fast growing Anglican Mission, the Rt. Rev. Chuck Murphy said the decade had grown from a handful of folks meeting in Singapore in a provincial office into a growing and thriving church committed to reaching 130 million unchurched North Americans.
"The AMIA (now TheAM) kept going by vision and action that caught the wave of the Holy Spirit. We embraced the three streams (catholic, evangelical and charismatic) and trusted in affinity rather than being a settled diocese. We are a mission, nothing more, nothing less than a movement out of Africa. We became the morning stars, a new thing God was doing. We avoided a rush to structure, believing that keeping it fluid and active was the way to go."
Murphy said the conferees came from 37 states and nine countries including the U.S. and Canada, Brazil, Portugal, England, the Netherlands, South Africa and SE Asia. Rwanda sent nine bishops and a bishop elect.
Murphy drew a parallel to the growth of TheAM to the music industry. "IPod and ITunes revolutionized the music industry. They changed the way we listen to music and they have now captured 80% of the music market. However, they did not invent music or music stores but how to deliver music. They saw a need and opportunity and changed the ways things are done. YouTube began with three guys in garage they put their heads together and later sold it to Google for $1.65 billion dollars. They didn't invent video or the Internet, they created a new way to share videos online that has changed our world. They saw an opportunity and took action. The Anglican Mission has done the same. We have not changed the message, only our ability to deliver it in fresh and timely ways."
Murphy, who is also the President of the National Association of Evangelicals, said he is convinced that TheAM is blessed by God and in a position to do something extraordinary in North America in the 21st century.
In his wide-ranging review of the last decade, the leader acknowledged that there were some "bruised relationships along the way" but said the New Testament never glossed over differences people had, including among the apostles.
Touching on the delicate subject of money, Murphy noted that, "money follows vision." The Barna Group, a research and resource company located in Ventura, California, said giving was down in churches and non-profit groups across the country, but TheAM had shot up 14% in donations despite the economic downturn.
"We started with eleven congregations in 2000. Now in 2010 we have 158 congregations and climbing steadily. Some have transferred to the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA,), The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) and the Anglican Province of America (APA). We are seeing one new congregation being birthed every three weeks."
Murphy said there are 62 emerging works in progress. New congregations are coming into existence throughout North America along with new bishops being consecrated to aid the growth. "We have 19 networks guiding, planting and recruiting across North America. We have moved into major urban centers like Los Angeles with its own bishop, the Rt. Rev. Todd Hunter. We have outposts in Vancouver, Boston and New York City. Our work is constantly moving forward."
Murphy noted that even secular writers are now saying God is back. "I want you to dream with me as we look forward. Fifty years from now folks will remember that here we set out on our second missionary journey - another second ten years - with great hope.
"You have to be long term thinkers. We must ask what is God doing in the next ten years. Everybody has got a mission. The next 50 years will be incredible."
Murphy announced that this would be the last winter conference for Rwanda Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and Kigali Bishop John Rucyahana, both of whom faithfully served in the birth of the North American Anglican mission.
END
Friday, January 29, 2010
HEEBEE-JEEBEES
from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor
The shiver that just went up your spine might have been caused by the fact that Rowan Williams and a number of other theologians are in New York discussing the economy:
Theology’s contribution to economic decision-making goes beyond simply raising the question of “common good”; it also offers a framework into what is being assumed – human motivations — promoted through economic practices, said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams during a Jan. 28 lecture at the 2010 Trinity Institute.
“If we find, as a good many commentators and researchers have observed in recent years, that working practices regularly reward behavior that is undermining of family life — driven or obsessional, relentlessly competitive and adversarial — we have some questions to ask,” he said.
Williams’ lecture “Theology and Economics: Two Different Worlds?” opened day two of the Trinity Institute’s 40th National Theological Conference –”Building an Ethical Economy: Theology and the Market Place,” exploring the intersection between economics and theology, held at Trinity Wall Street in New York’s financial district Jan. 27-29. The conference officially began Jan. 27 in the evening with a Holy Eucharist, where Williams celebrated and Archbishop of Burundi Bernard Ntahoturi preached.
“Economic activity is something people do, one kind of activity among others; and as such it is subject to the same moral considerations as all other activities. It has to be thought about in connection with what we actively want for our humanity,” Williams said.
In exploring the intersection between economics and theology, the conference seeks to explore questions and themes including: “Is capitalism a belief system?”; “What is wealth and how should it be measured?”; “constructive models of economics and consumerism”; and “envision ways to build an economy that is both ethical and just.” The conference includes presentations, panel discussions followed by Q&A sessions and theological reflection groups.
Over the past few years, Williams said, he has repeatedly noted that the word “economy” is at its root a term for “housekeeping,” which has implications as to where the discourse belongs.
“A household is somewhere where life is lived in common; and housekeeping is guaranteeing that this common life has some stability about it that allows the members of the household to grow and flourish and act in useful ways,” he said. “A working household is an environment in which vulnerable people are nurtured and allowed to grow up (children) or wind down (the elderly); it is a background against which active people can go out to labor in various ways to reinforce the security of the household; it is a setting where leisure and creativity can find room in the general business of intensifying and strengthening the relationships that are involved.
“Good housekeeping seeks common well-being so that all these things can happen; and we should note that the one thing required in a background of well-being is stability,” he said.
“‘Housekeeping theory’ is about how we use our intelligence to balance the needs of those involved and to secure trust between them,” Williams said. “A theory that wanders too far from these basics is a recipe for damage to the vulnerable, to the regularity and usefulness of labor and to the possibilities human beings have for renewing (and challenging) themselves through leisure and creativity.”
The same kind of damage, Williams said, results in an economic climate where everything is reduced to the search for maximized profit and unlimited material growth.
“The effects of trying to structure economic life independently of intelligent choice about long-term goals for human beings have become more than usually visible in the last 18 months, and one reason for holding this conference is the growing force of the question ‘what for?’ in our global market. What is the long-term well-being we seek? …” he said.
On one level, there’s nothing particularly harmful about any of this. At the end of this conference, these people will issue a report no one who matters will read containing recommendations no one who matters will pay any attention to. No harm, no foul.
But there’s an underlying assumption here that ought to concern thinking people. Namely, that there is a way for economies to act “ethically” or “justly,” we Christians can determine what that way is and that once we do, we are obliged to work for it.
Which means that the government needs to pass laws to force the economy to be “just” and that we non-politicians need to support politicians who agree.
I think you can see the difficulty. The idea of determining exactly what constitutes a perfectly “just” and “ethical” economy is perfect fodder for the Anglicans because it means that they can talk forever without actually coming up with an answer.
And even if they did, how on Earth would they implement it? By passing laws? If it were possible to pass(more importantly, if men had the desire to pass) laws to make all bad stuff go away, the Bible would never have been written because it would never have needed to be written.
When Dr. Williams says, “If we find, as a good many commentators and researchers have observed in recent years, that working practices regularly reward behavior that is undermining of family life — driven or obsessional, relentlessly competitive and adversarial — we have some questions to ask,” he indicates that he hasn’t gotten his mind around something most intelligent people figured out a long time ago.
Economies are not nice, never have been and never will be.
Most people figured that out before they graduated from college. Does your job require you to work long, driven, obsessional, competitive and adversarial hours, much of these away from your family? You probably make a lot of money.
Me, I’m not any of those things. I work at the Webster Groves Public Library and I don’t make jack. But that’s everyone’s deal. You take into account how much money a job pays, what that job requires of you and what you want from life. And you proceed accordingly.
Want a wife and a family of your own? Those cost money. Maybe what you’d like to do doesn’t pay very much and so you may have to take a job that you don’t particularly care for.
And even if you do work at a job that you don’t hate all the time, you still might not be out of the woods. This is my work schedule this week. Monday through Thursday, I work from 1:00 PM until 9:00 PM. Tomorrow, I’ll work from 8:30 until 4:30, have Saturday off and work Sunday afternoon.
But this week’s Sunday shift only happens every eight weeks or so; usually, my weekend would be clear. Next week, the Monday through Thursday schedule will be the same, I’ll have Friday off, I’ll work Saturday and have Sunday off.
Which is not exactly conducive to week-night Bible studies or similar church activities I’d like to participate in. But I knew that going in and took the job anyway.
What’s your point, Johnson? My point is this: does the Webster Groves Public Library owe me a decent life outside the library? No. All that it owes me is what it has agreed to pay me for my services to it.
Nothing more.
Dr. Williams’ implied notion that we can fiddle with economies in order to make them more “just” is bone-crushingly stupid. It is easier to make the sun rise in the west than it is to make economies consistently and thoroughly “just” or “ethical,” however my gracious lord of Canterbury defines those terms.
The shiver that just went up your spine might have been caused by the fact that Rowan Williams and a number of other theologians are in New York discussing the economy:
Theology’s contribution to economic decision-making goes beyond simply raising the question of “common good”; it also offers a framework into what is being assumed – human motivations — promoted through economic practices, said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams during a Jan. 28 lecture at the 2010 Trinity Institute.
“If we find, as a good many commentators and researchers have observed in recent years, that working practices regularly reward behavior that is undermining of family life — driven or obsessional, relentlessly competitive and adversarial — we have some questions to ask,” he said.
Williams’ lecture “Theology and Economics: Two Different Worlds?” opened day two of the Trinity Institute’s 40th National Theological Conference –”Building an Ethical Economy: Theology and the Market Place,” exploring the intersection between economics and theology, held at Trinity Wall Street in New York’s financial district Jan. 27-29. The conference officially began Jan. 27 in the evening with a Holy Eucharist, where Williams celebrated and Archbishop of Burundi Bernard Ntahoturi preached.
“Economic activity is something people do, one kind of activity among others; and as such it is subject to the same moral considerations as all other activities. It has to be thought about in connection with what we actively want for our humanity,” Williams said.
In exploring the intersection between economics and theology, the conference seeks to explore questions and themes including: “Is capitalism a belief system?”; “What is wealth and how should it be measured?”; “constructive models of economics and consumerism”; and “envision ways to build an economy that is both ethical and just.” The conference includes presentations, panel discussions followed by Q&A sessions and theological reflection groups.
Over the past few years, Williams said, he has repeatedly noted that the word “economy” is at its root a term for “housekeeping,” which has implications as to where the discourse belongs.
“A household is somewhere where life is lived in common; and housekeeping is guaranteeing that this common life has some stability about it that allows the members of the household to grow and flourish and act in useful ways,” he said. “A working household is an environment in which vulnerable people are nurtured and allowed to grow up (children) or wind down (the elderly); it is a background against which active people can go out to labor in various ways to reinforce the security of the household; it is a setting where leisure and creativity can find room in the general business of intensifying and strengthening the relationships that are involved.
“Good housekeeping seeks common well-being so that all these things can happen; and we should note that the one thing required in a background of well-being is stability,” he said.
“‘Housekeeping theory’ is about how we use our intelligence to balance the needs of those involved and to secure trust between them,” Williams said. “A theory that wanders too far from these basics is a recipe for damage to the vulnerable, to the regularity and usefulness of labor and to the possibilities human beings have for renewing (and challenging) themselves through leisure and creativity.”
The same kind of damage, Williams said, results in an economic climate where everything is reduced to the search for maximized profit and unlimited material growth.
“The effects of trying to structure economic life independently of intelligent choice about long-term goals for human beings have become more than usually visible in the last 18 months, and one reason for holding this conference is the growing force of the question ‘what for?’ in our global market. What is the long-term well-being we seek? …” he said.
On one level, there’s nothing particularly harmful about any of this. At the end of this conference, these people will issue a report no one who matters will read containing recommendations no one who matters will pay any attention to. No harm, no foul.
But there’s an underlying assumption here that ought to concern thinking people. Namely, that there is a way for economies to act “ethically” or “justly,” we Christians can determine what that way is and that once we do, we are obliged to work for it.
Which means that the government needs to pass laws to force the economy to be “just” and that we non-politicians need to support politicians who agree.
I think you can see the difficulty. The idea of determining exactly what constitutes a perfectly “just” and “ethical” economy is perfect fodder for the Anglicans because it means that they can talk forever without actually coming up with an answer.
And even if they did, how on Earth would they implement it? By passing laws? If it were possible to pass(more importantly, if men had the desire to pass) laws to make all bad stuff go away, the Bible would never have been written because it would never have needed to be written.
When Dr. Williams says, “If we find, as a good many commentators and researchers have observed in recent years, that working practices regularly reward behavior that is undermining of family life — driven or obsessional, relentlessly competitive and adversarial — we have some questions to ask,” he indicates that he hasn’t gotten his mind around something most intelligent people figured out a long time ago.
Economies are not nice, never have been and never will be.
Most people figured that out before they graduated from college. Does your job require you to work long, driven, obsessional, competitive and adversarial hours, much of these away from your family? You probably make a lot of money.
Me, I’m not any of those things. I work at the Webster Groves Public Library and I don’t make jack. But that’s everyone’s deal. You take into account how much money a job pays, what that job requires of you and what you want from life. And you proceed accordingly.
Want a wife and a family of your own? Those cost money. Maybe what you’d like to do doesn’t pay very much and so you may have to take a job that you don’t particularly care for.
And even if you do work at a job that you don’t hate all the time, you still might not be out of the woods. This is my work schedule this week. Monday through Thursday, I work from 1:00 PM until 9:00 PM. Tomorrow, I’ll work from 8:30 until 4:30, have Saturday off and work Sunday afternoon.
But this week’s Sunday shift only happens every eight weeks or so; usually, my weekend would be clear. Next week, the Monday through Thursday schedule will be the same, I’ll have Friday off, I’ll work Saturday and have Sunday off.
Which is not exactly conducive to week-night Bible studies or similar church activities I’d like to participate in. But I knew that going in and took the job anyway.
What’s your point, Johnson? My point is this: does the Webster Groves Public Library owe me a decent life outside the library? No. All that it owes me is what it has agreed to pay me for my services to it.
Nothing more.
Dr. Williams’ implied notion that we can fiddle with economies in order to make them more “just” is bone-crushingly stupid. It is easier to make the sun rise in the west than it is to make economies consistently and thoroughly “just” or “ethical,” however my gracious lord of Canterbury defines those terms.
Nigerian bishop freed
from The Lead by Ann Fontaine
The Rt. Rev. Peter Imasuen, bishop of the Diocese of Benin, who was kidnapped 5 days ago has been freed. Nigerian news Vanguard reports:
Bishop of Benin Diocese, Anglican Communion, Bishop Peter Imasuen, who was kidnapped on Sunday while returning from a church service, has regained his freedom.
He was said to have arrived home at 11pm Wednesday.
Secretary to Anglican Synod, Benin, Mr. Blessing Osula, who confirmed Imasuen’s release, said he was not maltreated by his abductors
“He was well respected,” Osula said, blaming the incident on the society.
Addressing members of the church later at the Anglican Bishop’s Court, Evbiemwen Street, he said: “God has done it again. Let us not relent in our prayers.
“They are human beings like us. We should pray to God to change them. I don’t know how I went and came back.”
The Rt. Rev. Peter Imasuen, bishop of the Diocese of Benin, who was kidnapped 5 days ago has been freed. Nigerian news Vanguard reports:
Bishop of Benin Diocese, Anglican Communion, Bishop Peter Imasuen, who was kidnapped on Sunday while returning from a church service, has regained his freedom.
He was said to have arrived home at 11pm Wednesday.
Secretary to Anglican Synod, Benin, Mr. Blessing Osula, who confirmed Imasuen’s release, said he was not maltreated by his abductors
“He was well respected,” Osula said, blaming the incident on the society.
Addressing members of the church later at the Anglican Bishop’s Court, Evbiemwen Street, he said: “God has done it again. Let us not relent in our prayers.
“They are human beings like us. We should pray to God to change them. I don’t know how I went and came back.”
MA: Pastor settles in at Christ Church
From The Salem News via TitusOneNine:
Published: January 27, 2010 09:35 am
By Steve Landwehr
STAFF WRITER
HAMILTON — The Rev. Patrick Gray's journey to the pulpit at Christ Church of Hamilton and Wenham wasn't exactly a homecoming, but he was treading on familiar ground.
Gray is a graduate of Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Hamilton. And, he said, "Gordon and Gordon-Conwell have had a profound impact on Christ Church."
Gray's arrival at the end of October coincided with a painful split in the church. More than half the congregation broke away to form Christ the Redeemer Anglican Church, in the former St. Alphonsus Catholic church in Beverly.
Its founders left Christ Church over what they called the "moral drift" of the Episcopal Church, where liberals and conservatives have been deeply divided over issues such as the consecration of an openly gay bishop. Some conservatives opted to leave.
Gray said he knew what he was getting into when he took the job, and less than three months after the breakup, he thinks most of his flock is adjusting to the new reality.
"There's always a lament, but I think people are happy here now," he said.
While attendance at the church's three Sunday services used to number about 500, now about 200 of the faithful show up. Gray conceded that's a hit spiritually and financially.
Christ Church isn't the only Episcopal church experiencing departures, it's going on nationwide. But Gray said both sides are handling it gracefully.
"Most people are viewing this as probably the most amicable parting possible for people who have differences," he said.
Tall and slim, Gray doesn't look like he's 39. He comes to Christ Church after seven years as associate rector at the Church of the Advent on Beacon Hill.
Technically, he's the priest-in-charge at Christ Church, but he said that pretty much amounts to being the head pastor. He was hired with a three-year contract, with the chance to become the church's rector at the end.
He was born in Wilmington and raised as a Baptist, but says he fell in love with God through the Episcopal liturgy.
"I didn't find that as a Baptist," he said.
If his office accurately reflects his nature, Gray is the studious sort. All four walls are lined with bookshelves stuffed with reading material. He admits there are some he hasn't got around to reading yet.
"Books are a pastor's resource," he said.
But his sanctum also hints at Gray's lighter side. A very large bird cage is occupied by a white dove named — groan, if you'd like — Lovey Dovey.
She was supposed to be a dog. Gray was in charge of outreach while working in Boston and noticed strangers would stop to talk to people who had dogs or a baby.
"I went to the Salem shelter, but they didn't have any dogs," Gray said. "But they did have this dove."
Lovey Dovey could as well have been named Lucky Ducky. Safe from the predators that likely claimed her former mates years ago, Lovey Dovey has reached the ripe old dove age of 7.
Gray and his wife, Naomi, have been married 12 years. They have a son, Ezra, who is 6 years old and attending the nearby Cutler School. Ella, the couple's daughter, will be 2 in October.
Gray's departure from the Baptist church might have something to do with one of his favorite activities. Some fundamental Baptists prohibit dancing, and Gray and his wife love swing dancing, he said.
Gray said his goal is to "grow the church in all ways." During the Lenten season, he plans to roll out some small group ministries.
"This is a place where people can come and worship God and have fun doing it," Gray said. "But we're not irreverent or irrelevant."
Published: January 27, 2010 09:35 am
By Steve Landwehr
STAFF WRITER
HAMILTON — The Rev. Patrick Gray's journey to the pulpit at Christ Church of Hamilton and Wenham wasn't exactly a homecoming, but he was treading on familiar ground.
Gray is a graduate of Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Hamilton. And, he said, "Gordon and Gordon-Conwell have had a profound impact on Christ Church."
Gray's arrival at the end of October coincided with a painful split in the church. More than half the congregation broke away to form Christ the Redeemer Anglican Church, in the former St. Alphonsus Catholic church in Beverly.
Its founders left Christ Church over what they called the "moral drift" of the Episcopal Church, where liberals and conservatives have been deeply divided over issues such as the consecration of an openly gay bishop. Some conservatives opted to leave.
Gray said he knew what he was getting into when he took the job, and less than three months after the breakup, he thinks most of his flock is adjusting to the new reality.
"There's always a lament, but I think people are happy here now," he said.
While attendance at the church's three Sunday services used to number about 500, now about 200 of the faithful show up. Gray conceded that's a hit spiritually and financially.
Christ Church isn't the only Episcopal church experiencing departures, it's going on nationwide. But Gray said both sides are handling it gracefully.
"Most people are viewing this as probably the most amicable parting possible for people who have differences," he said.
Tall and slim, Gray doesn't look like he's 39. He comes to Christ Church after seven years as associate rector at the Church of the Advent on Beacon Hill.
Technically, he's the priest-in-charge at Christ Church, but he said that pretty much amounts to being the head pastor. He was hired with a three-year contract, with the chance to become the church's rector at the end.
He was born in Wilmington and raised as a Baptist, but says he fell in love with God through the Episcopal liturgy.
"I didn't find that as a Baptist," he said.
If his office accurately reflects his nature, Gray is the studious sort. All four walls are lined with bookshelves stuffed with reading material. He admits there are some he hasn't got around to reading yet.
"Books are a pastor's resource," he said.
But his sanctum also hints at Gray's lighter side. A very large bird cage is occupied by a white dove named — groan, if you'd like — Lovey Dovey.
She was supposed to be a dog. Gray was in charge of outreach while working in Boston and noticed strangers would stop to talk to people who had dogs or a baby.
"I went to the Salem shelter, but they didn't have any dogs," Gray said. "But they did have this dove."
Lovey Dovey could as well have been named Lucky Ducky. Safe from the predators that likely claimed her former mates years ago, Lovey Dovey has reached the ripe old dove age of 7.
Gray and his wife, Naomi, have been married 12 years. They have a son, Ezra, who is 6 years old and attending the nearby Cutler School. Ella, the couple's daughter, will be 2 in October.
Gray's departure from the Baptist church might have something to do with one of his favorite activities. Some fundamental Baptists prohibit dancing, and Gray and his wife love swing dancing, he said.
Gray said his goal is to "grow the church in all ways." During the Lenten season, he plans to roll out some small group ministries.
"This is a place where people can come and worship God and have fun doing it," Gray said. "But we're not irreverent or irrelevant."
Liberals concerned about ACNA amendment
This pertains to the possible recognition of the ACNA by the Church of England synod. ed.
From Thinking Anglicans via The Lead:
Thursday, 28 January 2010
ACNA motion: amendment
The text of the House of Bishops amendment to the ACNA motion is now available:
Item 14 Anglican Church in North America (GS 1764A and 1764B)
The Bishop of Bristol (the Rt Revd Mike Hill) to move as an amendment:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 28 January 2010 at 6:59pm GMT
From Thinking Anglicans via The Lead:
Thursday, 28 January 2010
ACNA motion: amendment
The text of the House of Bishops amendment to the ACNA motion is now available:
Item 14 Anglican Church in North America (GS 1764A and 1764B)
The Bishop of Bristol (the Rt Revd Mike Hill) to move as an amendment:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 28 January 2010 at 6:59pm GMT
"We are desperate but strong in faith"
From the Anglican Communion News Service:
Posted On : January 28, 2010 1:27 PM | Posted By : Webmaster
These are the words of Bishop Jean Zache Duracin of the Episcopal Diocese of Haiti two weeks after the earthquake which has become known simply as 'La Catastrophe'.
In his reflections posted on the website of the Episcopal Diocese of Haiti Bishop Duracin describes the devastation and present living conditions, and his own diocese's outreach to thousands of people who have been made homeless, including childran and disabled people, and many who are wounded. He reflects that for Haiti the course of history has change. He looks to the future, with prayer and in faith, for long-term partnership with others who might accompany the people of Haiti as they work to rebuild and restore.
For more: www.egliseepiscopaledhaiti.org
Posted On : January 28, 2010 1:27 PM | Posted By : Webmaster
These are the words of Bishop Jean Zache Duracin of the Episcopal Diocese of Haiti two weeks after the earthquake which has become known simply as 'La Catastrophe'.
In his reflections posted on the website of the Episcopal Diocese of Haiti Bishop Duracin describes the devastation and present living conditions, and his own diocese's outreach to thousands of people who have been made homeless, including childran and disabled people, and many who are wounded. He reflects that for Haiti the course of history has change. He looks to the future, with prayer and in faith, for long-term partnership with others who might accompany the people of Haiti as they work to rebuild and restore.
For more: www.egliseepiscopaledhaiti.org
'The Bible in the Life of the Church' project launched by the Anglican Communion
From the Anglican Communion News Service:
Posted On : January 28, 2010 1:17 PM | Posted By : Webmaster
‘Our engagement with the Bible has several aspects to it – rather like the different parts of a house. The actual black print on white paper on which the words of the Bible are written resembles the front door of the house – our point of access and welcome. Then as we enter the house we find ourselves standing on Christ the Rock, who is the living foundation-stone of the whole building in which we are located. The walls that separate us room from room can be linked to the different contexts which we bring to our study and exploration of the scriptures, which affect the shape and parameters of our reading. But overarching all, as a roof for the entire building, is the world-wide Church which both embraces and offers a generous boundary for our reading.’
This striking image was offered by Archbishop David Moxon of New Zealand as he opened the first meeting of the Steering Group of ‘The Bible in the Life of the Church’ which gathered at St Andrews House, London, 30 November – 3 December 2009.
‘The Bible in the Life of the Church’ is a major project being undertaken over three years by the Anglican Communion, mandated by the Anglican Consultative Council at its Jamaica meeting in May 2009. It is seeking to discover how Anglican Christians read the Bible, recognising the very diverse contexts we inevitably bring to this reading.
With the support of the Anglican Communion Department of Theological Studies, the work of this Bible project will largely take place in a number of Regional Groups based around theological education institutions in Kenya, Southern Africa, South East Asia, Oceania, North America and Britain. Representatives of each of these regions were present at the opening Steering Group meeting in London and together set up the process that the Regional Groups will seek to follow throughout the coming year.
We are also planning to set up a number of “User Groups” that will enable input from other parts of the Anglican Communion. We also have on the Steering Group members from Latin America and Nigeria. The “User Groups” will take part in the project by testing out material that emerges from the work of the Steering and Regional Groups.
In order to enable the overall task with which this ‘Bible project’ has been entrusted, it has been agreed to ask those who will be participating to undertake first of all some serious biblical engagement with the Fifth Mark of Mission of the Anglican Communion. The Fifth Mark of Mission speaks of the missionary imperative, ‘to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth.’ We hope that, through exploring together a selection of key biblical passages which relate to this theme – widely acknowledged as one of the most crucial challenges facing the Churches and humanity today – we will be able to offer evidence of the way in which we, as Anglicans, actually handle the Bible and to identify principles of biblical interpretation.
Reflecting on the Steering Group meeting, Stephen Lyon, the project's administrator said, ‘those involved left London excited by the possibilities of the project. It will involve the grass roots as well as scholars; encourage an excitement in exploring the Bible; take seriously the diversity of our Communion while acknowledging the foundational place Scripture has always played in our common life.’
Clare Amos, the Anglican Communion’s Director for Theological Studies, echoed this commitment to ensure that the project takes seriously the widest possible range of Anglican experience. ‘At our meeting in London we shared both our high hopes for the task, and a range of creative ways of taking this work forward. We want the people of the Anglican Communion as a whole to share the sense of urgency and importance that the project is generating. It is vital that different regions of the Anglican world are empowered to make their distinctive contributions. Stephen and I believe that among our responsibilities will be to ensure that news about the progress of the work is shared widely. One of the tools for this will be a section dedicated to the project on the Anglican Communion website. So watch this space!’
Members of the Steering Group
Chair: Most Revd David Moxon , Archbishop and Co-Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia and Bishop of Waikato.
Regional Group representatives:
Oceania - Dr Charles Sherlock, Executive Officer, Board of Ministry, Anglican Diocese of Bendigo, Australia.
Southern Africa – Revd Dr Jonathan Draper, the academic coordinator of Biblical
Studies at the School of Religion and Theology part of the University of KwaZulu, South Africa. Also involved will be Prof. Gerald West, Professor in the School of Theology, University of Natal and Director of the Institute for the Study of the Bible, School of Theology, University of Natal.
East Africa - Revd Dr Kabiro wa Gatumu, Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies at St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya.
Europe - Dr David Allen, New Testament lecturer at the Queen’s Foundation, Birmingham, England.
North and Central America - Revd Robert MacSwain OGS, Instructor of Theology and Christian Ethics, School of Theology, University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
South East Asia – Diocese of Singapore.
Theological Consultants:
The Rt Revd Dr Michael Olusina Fape, Bishop of Remo Diocese, Nigeria and a member of the Steering Group in his capacity as the Regional Coordinator for TEAC (Theological Education in the Anglican Communion).
Dr Ellen Davis, Amos Ragan Kearns Distinguished Professor of Bible and Practical Theology, Duke University, North Carolina, USA.
Dr Clara Luz Ajo Lazaro lives and works in Cuba as teacher in the Ecumenical Seminary at Matanzas and will act as a liaison with the CETALC network in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Anglican Communion Office staff:
Mrs Clare Amos, Director of Theological Studies at the ACO
Mr Stephen Lyon, project manager and administrator.
For further information contact Stephen Lyon at stephenplyon@gmail.com
Posted On : January 28, 2010 1:17 PM | Posted By : Webmaster
‘Our engagement with the Bible has several aspects to it – rather like the different parts of a house. The actual black print on white paper on which the words of the Bible are written resembles the front door of the house – our point of access and welcome. Then as we enter the house we find ourselves standing on Christ the Rock, who is the living foundation-stone of the whole building in which we are located. The walls that separate us room from room can be linked to the different contexts which we bring to our study and exploration of the scriptures, which affect the shape and parameters of our reading. But overarching all, as a roof for the entire building, is the world-wide Church which both embraces and offers a generous boundary for our reading.’
This striking image was offered by Archbishop David Moxon of New Zealand as he opened the first meeting of the Steering Group of ‘The Bible in the Life of the Church’ which gathered at St Andrews House, London, 30 November – 3 December 2009.
‘The Bible in the Life of the Church’ is a major project being undertaken over three years by the Anglican Communion, mandated by the Anglican Consultative Council at its Jamaica meeting in May 2009. It is seeking to discover how Anglican Christians read the Bible, recognising the very diverse contexts we inevitably bring to this reading.
With the support of the Anglican Communion Department of Theological Studies, the work of this Bible project will largely take place in a number of Regional Groups based around theological education institutions in Kenya, Southern Africa, South East Asia, Oceania, North America and Britain. Representatives of each of these regions were present at the opening Steering Group meeting in London and together set up the process that the Regional Groups will seek to follow throughout the coming year.
We are also planning to set up a number of “User Groups” that will enable input from other parts of the Anglican Communion. We also have on the Steering Group members from Latin America and Nigeria. The “User Groups” will take part in the project by testing out material that emerges from the work of the Steering and Regional Groups.
In order to enable the overall task with which this ‘Bible project’ has been entrusted, it has been agreed to ask those who will be participating to undertake first of all some serious biblical engagement with the Fifth Mark of Mission of the Anglican Communion. The Fifth Mark of Mission speaks of the missionary imperative, ‘to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth.’ We hope that, through exploring together a selection of key biblical passages which relate to this theme – widely acknowledged as one of the most crucial challenges facing the Churches and humanity today – we will be able to offer evidence of the way in which we, as Anglicans, actually handle the Bible and to identify principles of biblical interpretation.
Reflecting on the Steering Group meeting, Stephen Lyon, the project's administrator said, ‘those involved left London excited by the possibilities of the project. It will involve the grass roots as well as scholars; encourage an excitement in exploring the Bible; take seriously the diversity of our Communion while acknowledging the foundational place Scripture has always played in our common life.’
Clare Amos, the Anglican Communion’s Director for Theological Studies, echoed this commitment to ensure that the project takes seriously the widest possible range of Anglican experience. ‘At our meeting in London we shared both our high hopes for the task, and a range of creative ways of taking this work forward. We want the people of the Anglican Communion as a whole to share the sense of urgency and importance that the project is generating. It is vital that different regions of the Anglican world are empowered to make their distinctive contributions. Stephen and I believe that among our responsibilities will be to ensure that news about the progress of the work is shared widely. One of the tools for this will be a section dedicated to the project on the Anglican Communion website. So watch this space!’
Members of the Steering Group
Chair: Most Revd David Moxon , Archbishop and Co-Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia and Bishop of Waikato.
Regional Group representatives:
Oceania - Dr Charles Sherlock, Executive Officer, Board of Ministry, Anglican Diocese of Bendigo, Australia.
Southern Africa – Revd Dr Jonathan Draper, the academic coordinator of Biblical
Studies at the School of Religion and Theology part of the University of KwaZulu, South Africa. Also involved will be Prof. Gerald West, Professor in the School of Theology, University of Natal and Director of the Institute for the Study of the Bible, School of Theology, University of Natal.
East Africa - Revd Dr Kabiro wa Gatumu, Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies at St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya.
Europe - Dr David Allen, New Testament lecturer at the Queen’s Foundation, Birmingham, England.
North and Central America - Revd Robert MacSwain OGS, Instructor of Theology and Christian Ethics, School of Theology, University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
South East Asia – Diocese of Singapore.
Theological Consultants:
The Rt Revd Dr Michael Olusina Fape, Bishop of Remo Diocese, Nigeria and a member of the Steering Group in his capacity as the Regional Coordinator for TEAC (Theological Education in the Anglican Communion).
Dr Ellen Davis, Amos Ragan Kearns Distinguished Professor of Bible and Practical Theology, Duke University, North Carolina, USA.
Dr Clara Luz Ajo Lazaro lives and works in Cuba as teacher in the Ecumenical Seminary at Matanzas and will act as a liaison with the CETALC network in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Anglican Communion Office staff:
Mrs Clare Amos, Director of Theological Studies at the ACO
Mr Stephen Lyon, project manager and administrator.
For further information contact Stephen Lyon at stephenplyon@gmail.com
'In Jos We Are Coming Face to Face in Confrontation with Satan'
From Christianity Today via TitusOneNine:
SPEAKING OUT
The Anglican Archbishop of Jos speaks out on last week's deadly attacks and the media coverage that followed.
Benjamin A. Kwashi | posted 1/26/2010 09:38AM
Everyone is asking: Why? Why are Muslims and Christians unable to live together in peace on the Jos Plateau? Why is there a continuing recurrence of violence? These are questions people in Nigeria and journalists from all over the world have asked me. I wish I had the answers.
The one thing I do know is that this time, as at other times, Christians once again have become the scapegoat of some evil intention to cause disharmony, separation, pain, destruction of lives and property, and disruption of normal civil life. This to me is evidence of what Jesus meant when he said, "The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).
Evidence of this abundant life can be clearly seen in the progress, health care, and social services, together with the adult education, children's education and also tertiary education which the church brings to a people. These developments are functions of the gospel; they are products and evidence of an effective gospel ministry in any community. This same gospel also prepares people for leadership roles in all spheres of life. It is these fruits of the activity and life of the gospel which now have been suddenly burnt up in flames in one day, as the investments of a lifetime are turned into ashes.
It should be noted that in Jos we are coming face to face in confrontation with Satan and the powers of hell, and only God can save us. There are, however, many Muslims who totally disagree with violence as a means of settling issues, and of course it is not in accordance with the gospel to use violence to settle issues either. What seems to be a recurring decimal is that over time, those who have in the past used violence to settle political issues, economic issues, social matters, intertribal disagreements, or any issue for that matter, now continue to use that same path of violence and cover it up with religion. We must pray against the powers of hell. We must also pray for our state government, our Houses of Assembly at state and federal levels and our law enforcement agents, that they may choose the path of truth and justice, and deal with crime by its proper name, so that no-one, no matter how high or low, no matter of what faith or creed, should be exempt from facing the law.
The national leadership should be lifted up to God, that they may rise beyond a concern for political success and seek to do good and right in all things for the benefit of all people. This is a most urgent prayer request, because Nigeria as a nation has a large and ever-increasing army of leaderless, lawless, unemployable, unemployed, demoralized, and near hopeless youth. This, to my prophetic mind, is the big security issue which the governments at local, state and federal levels are not taking seriously. For example, every crisis in Nigeria in the last ten years has been executed by this generation of young people. With each passing year, they perfect their skills, and when they run out of a supply of money—or when they become bored with any situation—then any opportunity for action gives them satisfaction. This army has no religion, but can choose to go under the name of religion to achieve its motives. They are uneducated, and so their values are totally different, as are their ways of handling weapons or choosing how issues are settled. Please pray for us.
We deeply regret that a matter of work on a building site triggered the present huge setback for the people of Jos and Plateau State. Yet we rejoice that the gospel has not lost its power to save. God is still on the throne and evil will never, ever, have victory over good. We have a gospel to proclaim, and it is this gospel which holds the solution and the remedy for the mayhem, bitterness, anger, frustration and sheer evil which leads to the ruin of individual lives and the ruin which we see all around us in Jos now.
For the rest of the article, go to: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/januaryweb-only/14-21.0.html?start=2
SPEAKING OUT
The Anglican Archbishop of Jos speaks out on last week's deadly attacks and the media coverage that followed.
Benjamin A. Kwashi | posted 1/26/2010 09:38AM
Everyone is asking: Why? Why are Muslims and Christians unable to live together in peace on the Jos Plateau? Why is there a continuing recurrence of violence? These are questions people in Nigeria and journalists from all over the world have asked me. I wish I had the answers.
The one thing I do know is that this time, as at other times, Christians once again have become the scapegoat of some evil intention to cause disharmony, separation, pain, destruction of lives and property, and disruption of normal civil life. This to me is evidence of what Jesus meant when he said, "The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).
Evidence of this abundant life can be clearly seen in the progress, health care, and social services, together with the adult education, children's education and also tertiary education which the church brings to a people. These developments are functions of the gospel; they are products and evidence of an effective gospel ministry in any community. This same gospel also prepares people for leadership roles in all spheres of life. It is these fruits of the activity and life of the gospel which now have been suddenly burnt up in flames in one day, as the investments of a lifetime are turned into ashes.
It should be noted that in Jos we are coming face to face in confrontation with Satan and the powers of hell, and only God can save us. There are, however, many Muslims who totally disagree with violence as a means of settling issues, and of course it is not in accordance with the gospel to use violence to settle issues either. What seems to be a recurring decimal is that over time, those who have in the past used violence to settle political issues, economic issues, social matters, intertribal disagreements, or any issue for that matter, now continue to use that same path of violence and cover it up with religion. We must pray against the powers of hell. We must also pray for our state government, our Houses of Assembly at state and federal levels and our law enforcement agents, that they may choose the path of truth and justice, and deal with crime by its proper name, so that no-one, no matter how high or low, no matter of what faith or creed, should be exempt from facing the law.
The national leadership should be lifted up to God, that they may rise beyond a concern for political success and seek to do good and right in all things for the benefit of all people. This is a most urgent prayer request, because Nigeria as a nation has a large and ever-increasing army of leaderless, lawless, unemployable, unemployed, demoralized, and near hopeless youth. This, to my prophetic mind, is the big security issue which the governments at local, state and federal levels are not taking seriously. For example, every crisis in Nigeria in the last ten years has been executed by this generation of young people. With each passing year, they perfect their skills, and when they run out of a supply of money—or when they become bored with any situation—then any opportunity for action gives them satisfaction. This army has no religion, but can choose to go under the name of religion to achieve its motives. They are uneducated, and so their values are totally different, as are their ways of handling weapons or choosing how issues are settled. Please pray for us.
We deeply regret that a matter of work on a building site triggered the present huge setback for the people of Jos and Plateau State. Yet we rejoice that the gospel has not lost its power to save. God is still on the throne and evil will never, ever, have victory over good. We have a gospel to proclaim, and it is this gospel which holds the solution and the remedy for the mayhem, bitterness, anger, frustration and sheer evil which leads to the ruin of individual lives and the ruin which we see all around us in Jos now.
For the rest of the article, go to: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/januaryweb-only/14-21.0.html?start=2
14 Anglican churches could close in B.C.
This is what happens when liberals lead churches whether it's in B.C. or the DCNY. ed.
CTV News via TitusOneNine:
Jim Beatty on Anglican church attendance decline
Many Anglican churches in Victoria are shutting down because of poor attendance. Jan. 26, 2010. (CTV)
For at least half a century the Anglican leadership has seen the decline and tried to stem the flow by making the church more up-to-date, more relevant, more with-it. Here is the result. And the closing of the churches is about more than a lack of bums in seats. It's also about money, or rather the lack of it. And a lack of volunteers donating their time. No organization can survive under these conditions. By throwing off the very things that make the church attractive and meaningful, they have chased away those in the pews, and those peering in the windows. And yes, I am an Anglican.
Bishop James Cowan of the Anglican Diocese of B.C. says its community numbers are dwindling because churchgoers are aging and no new members are taking their place.
“We are a church saying a crisis could come if we don't act. It is painful.”
A report released Tuesday recommends the closure of 14 churches in the Victoria-area and southern Gulf Islands. Another five would be renamed and become “hub churches” that would provide services in areas affected by closures.
The problem is empty pews. At St. Martin in the Fields, only 37 people regularly attend Sunday service. The same is true at St. Columbia. In both cases, for sale signs could soon pop up on the lawn.
Cowan said parish churches in urban areas need a membership of 150 to keep afloat.
Church members are putting their best face on what is a troubling time for religion. Other churches may face the same painful decisions.
“They're not coming through our doors in sufficient numbers so we must go to them where they are," said Canon Martin Hendy.
Many British Columbians say they're spiritual but not religious, meaning they don't go to church. Anglicans are hoping to reshape things like never before, vowing to turn the church inside out in a search for new followers.
It's anything but traditional for an institution based on tradition.
“Using coffee houses, establishing ourselves in an internet café kind of place, coffee house kind of place, restaurants,” said Bishop James Cowan of the Anglican Diocese of B.C.
The dramatic shift in culture might be necessary, because empty churches can’t be sustained.
“It is a sad story in that there are a lot of challenges ahead,” Reverend Chris Parsons said.
It could be a year or more before the churches are closed and sold. And because attendance problems aren't limited to Anglicans, these extraordinary reforms could soon hit a church near you.
CTV News via TitusOneNine:
Jim Beatty on Anglican church attendance decline
Many Anglican churches in Victoria are shutting down because of poor attendance. Jan. 26, 2010. (CTV)
For at least half a century the Anglican leadership has seen the decline and tried to stem the flow by making the church more up-to-date, more relevant, more with-it. Here is the result. And the closing of the churches is about more than a lack of bums in seats. It's also about money, or rather the lack of it. And a lack of volunteers donating their time. No organization can survive under these conditions. By throwing off the very things that make the church attractive and meaningful, they have chased away those in the pews, and those peering in the windows. And yes, I am an Anglican.
Bishop James Cowan of the Anglican Diocese of B.C. says its community numbers are dwindling because churchgoers are aging and no new members are taking their place.
“We are a church saying a crisis could come if we don't act. It is painful.”
A report released Tuesday recommends the closure of 14 churches in the Victoria-area and southern Gulf Islands. Another five would be renamed and become “hub churches” that would provide services in areas affected by closures.
The problem is empty pews. At St. Martin in the Fields, only 37 people regularly attend Sunday service. The same is true at St. Columbia. In both cases, for sale signs could soon pop up on the lawn.
Cowan said parish churches in urban areas need a membership of 150 to keep afloat.
Church members are putting their best face on what is a troubling time for religion. Other churches may face the same painful decisions.
“They're not coming through our doors in sufficient numbers so we must go to them where they are," said Canon Martin Hendy.
Many British Columbians say they're spiritual but not religious, meaning they don't go to church. Anglicans are hoping to reshape things like never before, vowing to turn the church inside out in a search for new followers.
It's anything but traditional for an institution based on tradition.
“Using coffee houses, establishing ourselves in an internet café kind of place, coffee house kind of place, restaurants,” said Bishop James Cowan of the Anglican Diocese of B.C.
The dramatic shift in culture might be necessary, because empty churches can’t be sustained.
“It is a sad story in that there are a lot of challenges ahead,” Reverend Chris Parsons said.
It could be a year or more before the churches are closed and sold. And because attendance problems aren't limited to Anglicans, these extraordinary reforms could soon hit a church near you.
GREENSBORO, NC: 1,400 Anglicans Gather to Celebrate 10 Years, Press Evangelism
I was one of those who believed at the time that the formation of the AMIA was premature. In retrospect, the rest of us in the ACNA were probably not as attuned to the cliffs that pecusa would three years later jump from. ed.
By David W. Virtue in Greensboro
www.virtueonline.org
January 27, 2010
With hands held high, amid jubilant singing, more than 1,400 Anglicans, many former Episcopalians, thundered hymns of praise as they met for the 10th Winter Conference of the Anglican Mission of the Americas (AMiA) to strategize reaching the next generation for Jesus Christ.
Rwandan Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini explained the initial pain, the remarkable journey and the joy that AMIA has been on, survived and grown over the past decade.
“We thank God for protecting the baby (AMiA). We also celebrate a child to grow. The Anglican Mission is 10 years old it wasn’t easy getting here. It needed resources. We were often stubborn, often rebels, but we learn from our mistakes. We celebrate the challenge. Many of you paid a price but thank God the baby (AMiA) survived. Our hope was not in ourselves but in the Lord,” he said.
Citing Old and New Testament examples, Kolini said that Elijah believed he was the only one left. St Paul did not disobey the vision from heaven because Paul saw that his witness was to be in a court.
“We are not going to keep quiet nor will we remain silent until we see the salvation of the Lord. The church is no longer desolate or empty but full. I am not going to keep quiet for the 130 million unchurched Americans our vision is not limited.”
The Rwandan Archbishop stated this was not the first time in history that bishops have crossed borders. “It started a long time ago. I am with you for another 11 months and my prayer is be obedient and never to keep silent till we meet the Lord. We must keep going till the last day.”
Bishop Donald Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada and recently appointed Dean of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), brought greetings from ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan.
“It is not without significance that the first official duty as the Dean of ACNA is to bring greetings from our family. The last ten years have brought about the unity of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
In his letter to the AMIA gathering, Duncan wrote that the Anglican Mission in the Americas has blazed the path in church multiplication by reaching the unreached.
The Rt. Rev. Charles (Chuck) Murphy, III, Missionary Bishop of the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and chairman of AMIA, said he has no regrets for the last ten years of the journey. “Our fellowship for the mission is like of St. Paul. The Lord has come through.”
Present at the Winter Conference are three Anglican archbishops: Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini, (Rwanda), Archbishop Yong Ping Chung (Southeast Asia, ret.) and Archbishop Moses Tay (Southeast Asia ret.)
Episcopal bishops present include the Rt. Rev. Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison, (S.C. ret.) The Rt. Rev. Alex Dickson, (West Tennessee, ret.). Among AMiA bishops is the former Dean of Trinity School of Ministry and AMiA Bishop John Rodgers.
The three-day conference features speakers the Rev. Mark Batterson, Mrs. Margaret Feinberg, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Todd Hunter, and the Rev. Philip Jones, Mr. David Kinnaman. Acclaimed theologian and scholar Dr. J. I. Packer is offering daily Bible studies.
END
By David W. Virtue in Greensboro
www.virtueonline.org
January 27, 2010
With hands held high, amid jubilant singing, more than 1,400 Anglicans, many former Episcopalians, thundered hymns of praise as they met for the 10th Winter Conference of the Anglican Mission of the Americas (AMiA) to strategize reaching the next generation for Jesus Christ.
Rwandan Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini explained the initial pain, the remarkable journey and the joy that AMIA has been on, survived and grown over the past decade.
“We thank God for protecting the baby (AMiA). We also celebrate a child to grow. The Anglican Mission is 10 years old it wasn’t easy getting here. It needed resources. We were often stubborn, often rebels, but we learn from our mistakes. We celebrate the challenge. Many of you paid a price but thank God the baby (AMiA) survived. Our hope was not in ourselves but in the Lord,” he said.
Citing Old and New Testament examples, Kolini said that Elijah believed he was the only one left. St Paul did not disobey the vision from heaven because Paul saw that his witness was to be in a court.
“We are not going to keep quiet nor will we remain silent until we see the salvation of the Lord. The church is no longer desolate or empty but full. I am not going to keep quiet for the 130 million unchurched Americans our vision is not limited.”
The Rwandan Archbishop stated this was not the first time in history that bishops have crossed borders. “It started a long time ago. I am with you for another 11 months and my prayer is be obedient and never to keep silent till we meet the Lord. We must keep going till the last day.”
Bishop Donald Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada and recently appointed Dean of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), brought greetings from ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan.
“It is not without significance that the first official duty as the Dean of ACNA is to bring greetings from our family. The last ten years have brought about the unity of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
In his letter to the AMIA gathering, Duncan wrote that the Anglican Mission in the Americas has blazed the path in church multiplication by reaching the unreached.
The Rt. Rev. Charles (Chuck) Murphy, III, Missionary Bishop of the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and chairman of AMIA, said he has no regrets for the last ten years of the journey. “Our fellowship for the mission is like of St. Paul. The Lord has come through.”
Present at the Winter Conference are three Anglican archbishops: Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini, (Rwanda), Archbishop Yong Ping Chung (Southeast Asia, ret.) and Archbishop Moses Tay (Southeast Asia ret.)
Episcopal bishops present include the Rt. Rev. Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison, (S.C. ret.) The Rt. Rev. Alex Dickson, (West Tennessee, ret.). Among AMiA bishops is the former Dean of Trinity School of Ministry and AMiA Bishop John Rodgers.
The three-day conference features speakers the Rev. Mark Batterson, Mrs. Margaret Feinberg, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Todd Hunter, and the Rev. Philip Jones, Mr. David Kinnaman. Acclaimed theologian and scholar Dr. J. I. Packer is offering daily Bible studies.
END
Dr. Paul McHugh: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’
From The Living Church via VirtueOnline:
Posted on: January 26, 2010
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, a plenary speaker at this year’s Mere Anglicanism conference, served as the Henry Phipps professor of psychiatry, director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and psychiatrist in chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1975 to 2001. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine named him distinguished service professor in 1998.
Lydia Evans, a lay leader in the Diocese of South Carolina, interviewed Dr. McHugh on a variety of topics. They began by discussing the work of Dr. John Money (1921–2006), who was perhaps best known for his supervision and study of David Peter Reimer’s gender reassignment.
When you joined the Johns Hopkins faculty in 1975, Dr. John Money had been there for nearly 25 years. How much of an opportunity did you have to interact with Dr. Money?
Oh, I had multiple opportunities. He was a member of my department, and I was responsible ultimately for [oversight] of his publications at the end of his life because the university had decided they were untrustworthy.
Were there opportunities to achieve a fairly direct exchange of worldviews?
I had enough of a fight putting an end to sex-change operations and saying that we were no longer going to teach sexuality to the medical students the way he was teaching it. It became clear that I was going to confront [Money’s] approach, and he would have to come and present his material at our grand rounds … but we didn’t have a public debate. He didn’t want to have anything publicly to do with my confrontation, as I was restricting more and more his enterprises. By the way, I certainly had plenty of support within [Johns Hopkins], and that could not have been done without some evidence that the patients weren’t any better for [gender reassignment surgery]. And there continues to be plenty of evidence.
While Money’s work significantly shaped Johns Hopkins’ reputation as an institution focused on progressive care for intersex and transgender conditions, your influence led to a decline in surgical intervention and seriously eroded earlier theories of the plasticity of gender identity.
That’s right. [Evidence from longitudinal studies suggests] that gender identity disorder may well be something imposed upon people out of their wish to live the roles, and the lives, within their social cluster.
How do you view the popular assumption that science has somehow proven that sexual orientation is determined early in childhood, if not before birth?
Well, as I have said, there is no gay gene. And there are factors more influential than biology. If you are a man and you grow up in a rural environment, you are four times less likely to have homosexual relationships than if you grow up in a metropolitan area. That’s not left-handedness. If you are a lesbian, you are much more likely to be college-educated. That’s not something that happens at conception. My point is that we now know that the environment is very important.
On another front, as the sexuality debate within mainline churches seems to have shifted so profoundly in favor of the left, how do you see the debates of the broader culture changing in the next five to ten years?
It really is amazing … I mean, 50 years ago [homosexual behavior] was a crime, and now we’re talking about [same-sex marriage]. Anyone who wants to stick with the tradition is accused of being a biblical literalist or a homophobic racist, because, in part, of the more fundamental change in our society towards permissiveness, that is, easy divorce, cohabitation and concubinage, abortion, pornography … and euthanasia. The issue of the homosexual is not separate … it’s all part and parcel of the pandemonium that the permissive movement has brought. We have just licensed all kinds of behavior.
You have noted the critical influence of social behavior clusters on sexual development. You also mentioned that, early on in your medical training, you knew there were certain things that would disqualify you from becoming a doctor, including poor grades, a criminal record or a failed marriage.
Yes, that’s right. Fundamentally, I expected that, if I did marry, I was supposed to make it a go.
Now, wouldn’t some argue that those were societal expectations which were imposed upon you and your generation?
Yes, and they were good ones — and biblically based, and part and parcel of my commitment to really what amounts to loving relationships. You see, what has happened with the permissive movement is that it has picked up the Freudian confusion of desire and love, making them the same. And with the implication, for example, that I must desire my mother. I don’t desire my mother. I love my mother. Now the fact is that in my marriage, of course, I desired this woman and I felt love for her. Now, 50 years into marriage with her, I still desire her, but now I love her. She's irreplaceable. There is this thing that has come and it's different. This person exists for me as irreplaceable. So, there is this confusion of desire and love. [Homosexuality] is erroneous desire.
Much of what you have said seems to underscore the pivotal role that the ecclesial and parish family plays as a behavioral cluster. What more influential environment might there be than the Church?
This is the point. You’ve got to get the churches … not just the Anglican churches, but the Roman Catholics and the Presbyterians … they’ve got to start talking again about their foundational opinions. There’s an idea of there being different kinds of laws in our world: the natural law, the law of desire … but there is scriptural law that comes out of the Old Testament. And they’ve got to get all of this straight.
Posted on: January 26, 2010
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, a plenary speaker at this year’s Mere Anglicanism conference, served as the Henry Phipps professor of psychiatry, director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and psychiatrist in chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1975 to 2001. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine named him distinguished service professor in 1998.
Lydia Evans, a lay leader in the Diocese of South Carolina, interviewed Dr. McHugh on a variety of topics. They began by discussing the work of Dr. John Money (1921–2006), who was perhaps best known for his supervision and study of David Peter Reimer’s gender reassignment.
When you joined the Johns Hopkins faculty in 1975, Dr. John Money had been there for nearly 25 years. How much of an opportunity did you have to interact with Dr. Money?
Oh, I had multiple opportunities. He was a member of my department, and I was responsible ultimately for [oversight] of his publications at the end of his life because the university had decided they were untrustworthy.
Were there opportunities to achieve a fairly direct exchange of worldviews?
I had enough of a fight putting an end to sex-change operations and saying that we were no longer going to teach sexuality to the medical students the way he was teaching it. It became clear that I was going to confront [Money’s] approach, and he would have to come and present his material at our grand rounds … but we didn’t have a public debate. He didn’t want to have anything publicly to do with my confrontation, as I was restricting more and more his enterprises. By the way, I certainly had plenty of support within [Johns Hopkins], and that could not have been done without some evidence that the patients weren’t any better for [gender reassignment surgery]. And there continues to be plenty of evidence.
While Money’s work significantly shaped Johns Hopkins’ reputation as an institution focused on progressive care for intersex and transgender conditions, your influence led to a decline in surgical intervention and seriously eroded earlier theories of the plasticity of gender identity.
That’s right. [Evidence from longitudinal studies suggests] that gender identity disorder may well be something imposed upon people out of their wish to live the roles, and the lives, within their social cluster.
How do you view the popular assumption that science has somehow proven that sexual orientation is determined early in childhood, if not before birth?
Well, as I have said, there is no gay gene. And there are factors more influential than biology. If you are a man and you grow up in a rural environment, you are four times less likely to have homosexual relationships than if you grow up in a metropolitan area. That’s not left-handedness. If you are a lesbian, you are much more likely to be college-educated. That’s not something that happens at conception. My point is that we now know that the environment is very important.
On another front, as the sexuality debate within mainline churches seems to have shifted so profoundly in favor of the left, how do you see the debates of the broader culture changing in the next five to ten years?
It really is amazing … I mean, 50 years ago [homosexual behavior] was a crime, and now we’re talking about [same-sex marriage]. Anyone who wants to stick with the tradition is accused of being a biblical literalist or a homophobic racist, because, in part, of the more fundamental change in our society towards permissiveness, that is, easy divorce, cohabitation and concubinage, abortion, pornography … and euthanasia. The issue of the homosexual is not separate … it’s all part and parcel of the pandemonium that the permissive movement has brought. We have just licensed all kinds of behavior.
You have noted the critical influence of social behavior clusters on sexual development. You also mentioned that, early on in your medical training, you knew there were certain things that would disqualify you from becoming a doctor, including poor grades, a criminal record or a failed marriage.
Yes, that’s right. Fundamentally, I expected that, if I did marry, I was supposed to make it a go.
Now, wouldn’t some argue that those were societal expectations which were imposed upon you and your generation?
Yes, and they were good ones — and biblically based, and part and parcel of my commitment to really what amounts to loving relationships. You see, what has happened with the permissive movement is that it has picked up the Freudian confusion of desire and love, making them the same. And with the implication, for example, that I must desire my mother. I don’t desire my mother. I love my mother. Now the fact is that in my marriage, of course, I desired this woman and I felt love for her. Now, 50 years into marriage with her, I still desire her, but now I love her. She's irreplaceable. There is this thing that has come and it's different. This person exists for me as irreplaceable. So, there is this confusion of desire and love. [Homosexuality] is erroneous desire.
Much of what you have said seems to underscore the pivotal role that the ecclesial and parish family plays as a behavioral cluster. What more influential environment might there be than the Church?
This is the point. You’ve got to get the churches … not just the Anglican churches, but the Roman Catholics and the Presbyterians … they’ve got to start talking again about their foundational opinions. There’s an idea of there being different kinds of laws in our world: the natural law, the law of desire … but there is scriptural law that comes out of the Old Testament. And they’ve got to get all of this straight.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Christianity Lite
From First Things:
Mary Eberstadt
Once in a while comes an historical event so momentous, so packed with unexpected force, that it acts like a large wave under still water, propelling us momentarily up from the surface of our times onto a crest, where the wider movements of history may be glimpsed better than before.
Such an event was Benedict XVI’s landmark announcement in October 2009 offering members of the Anglican Communion a fast track into the Catholic Church. Although commentators quickly dubbed this unexpected overture a “gambit,” what it truly exhibits are the characteristics of a move known in chess as a “brilliancy,” an unforeseen bold stroke that stunningly transforms the game. In the short run, knowledgeable people agree, this brilliancy of Benedict’s may not seem to amount to much. Some 1000 Church of England priests may convert and some 300 parishes turn over to Rome—figures that, while significant when measured against the dwindling numbers of practicing Anglicans there, are nonetheless mere drops in the Vatican’s bucket.
But in the longer run—say, over the coming decades—Rome’s move looks consequential in another way. It is the latest and most dramatic example of how orthodoxy, rather than dissent, seems once again to have taken the driver’s seat of Christianity. Every traditionalist who joins the long and already illustrious history of reconversion to the Catholic Church just tips the religious balance more toward Rome. This further weakens a religious communion battered from within by decades of intra-Anglican culture wars. Meanwhile, the progressives left behind may well find the exodus of their adversaries a Pyrrhic victory. How will they possibly make peace with the real majority of Anglicans today—the churches in Africa, whose leaders have repeatedly denounced the Communion’s abandonment of traditional teachings? Questions like these are why a few commentators now speak seriously about something that only recently seemed unthinkable: whether the end of the Anglican Communion itself might now be in sight.
Even so, it is the still longer run of Christian history whose outlines may now be most interesting and unexpected of all. Looking even further out to the horizon from our present moment—at a vista of centuries, rather than mere decades, ahead of us—we may well begin to wonder something else. That is, whether what we are witnessing now is not only the beginning of the end of the Anglican Communion but indeed the end of something even larger: the phenomenon of Christianity Lite itself.
By this I mean the multifaceted institutional experiment, beginning but not ending with the Anglican Communion, of attempting to preserve Christianity while simultaneously jettisoning certain of its traditional teachings—specifically, those regarding sexual morality. Surveying the record to date of what has happened to the churches dedicated to this long-running modern religious experiment, a large historical question now appears: whether the various exercises in this specific kind of dissent from traditional teaching turn out to contain the seeds of their own destruction. The evidence—preliminary but already abundant—suggests that the answer is yes.
If this is so, then the implications for the future of Christianity itself are likely to be profound. If it is Christianity Lite, rather than Christianity proper, that is fatally flawed and ultimately unable to sustain itself, then a rewriting of much of contemporary thought, religious and secular, appears in order. It means that secularization itself may be fundamentally misunderstood. It means that the most unwanted and unfashionable traditional teaching of Christianity, its sexual moral code, demands of the modern mind a new and respectful look. As a strategic matter, it also means that the current battle within the Catholic Church between traditionalists and dissenters must go to the traditionalists, lest the dissenters or cafeteria Catholics take the same path that the churches of Christianity Lite have followed: down, down, down.
All these are just preliminary examples of what is at stake in contemplating the great experiment of Christianity Lite—which is why the evidence for its failure is so compelling and important.
Let us note at the outset that this use of the phrase Christianity Lite is not intended to describe all of contemporary Protestantism—far from it. Plenty of non-Catholic churches have not rejected the traditional Christian moral code, including some of the most vibrant in the world today. Nor is the phrase intended to imply that sexual issues are the only theological issues dividing Christendom these days. Obviously, all kinds of differences—at least, official differences—remain over perennial lightning rods: papal infallibility, the theological status of Mary, the role and ordination of women, predestination, justification, and the rest of the theological controversies historically responsible for tearing Christendom apart.
But standing once again atop that wave in time prompted by Benedict’s announcement, we can see clearly that these are not the kind of issues that divide the Catholic Church from the churches of Christianity Lite today. As of now—and as has been true for some time—those churches have increasingly defined themselves as dissenting on one issue above all others: They have jettisoned one or another or all of the teachings of traditional Christian sexual morality.
Certainly ordinary parishioners see things this way. Ask any contemporary Mainline Protestant what most distinguishes his or her version of Christianity from that of Roman Catholicism, and you will likely get some version of this response: Catholics are still hung up on sex, and we’re not. They prohibit things like divorce and birth control and abortion and homosexuality, and we don’t. Moreover, this rendition of the facts would be essentially correct. At this particular moment in Christian history, it is sex—not Mary or the saints or predestination or purgatory or papal infallibility or good works—that is the Rubicon no one can really imagine these particular Protestants crossing again.
How did sex, of all subjects, come to occupy such a prominent place in the division of Christendom? In a sense, the potential was always there. From the first believers on up, the stern stuff of the Christian moral code has been cause for commentary—to say nothing of complaint. “Not all men can receive this saying,” the disciples are told when Jesus puts divorce off limits. Observers throughout history, Christian or not, have agreed: that particular moral teaching and its corollaries are hard indeed. From pagan Rome two thousand years ago to secular Western Europe today, the Church’s rules about sex have amounted to saying no, no, and no to things about which non-Christians have gotten to say yes or why not.
Even so, there is no denying that the traditional rules do seem more problematic now than ever before. Widespread abortion, ubiquitous pornography, diminished social opprobrium, and above all easy and effective contraception: All have divided recreation from procreation as never before in history. They have also been the driving force behind the embrace of Christianity Lite itself. After all, many would say, hasn’t this explosion of sexual expression made what was once a difficult moral code practically an impossible one? Shouldn’t the proper Christian response be one of mercy, rather than censure—including a merciful rewriting of the moral rules in these particularly difficult times?
Yet to say that the sexual revolution made Christianity Lite inevitable, as many people would, is to miss an important historical point. It was the Anglicans who first started picking apart the tapestry of Christian sexual morality—hundreds of years ago, long before the sexual revolution, and over one particular thread: divorce. In fact, in a fascinating development now visible in retrospect, the Anglican departure over divorce appears as the template for all subsequent exercises in Christianity Lite.
For about two centuries, and despite its having been midwifed into existence by the divorcing Henry VIII, the Church of England held fast to the same principle of the indissolubility of marriage on which the rest of Christian tradition insisted. According to a history of divorce called Untying The Knot, by Roderick Phillips, “no bishop, archbishop, or incumbent of high Anglican office in the first half of the seventeenth century supported the legalization of divorce.”
Even so, this early dedication to principle would turn out not to hold, ultimately eroding one priest and one parish at a time. In the United States, Phillips reports, Anglican churches soon were relaxing the strictest restrictions, making divorce more or less easy to come by depending on where one lived. Meanwhile, although the Church of England lagged behind the Episcopalians, by the mid-eighteenth century divorce was theoretically and practically available by an act of Parliament—a recourse that, although not widely exercised, went to show that exceptions to the indissolubility principle could be made.
Then came another turn of the theological wheel that could not have been foreseen by the first reformers. As of the General Synod in 2002, divorced Anglicans could now remarry in the Church. A spokesman noted carefully at the time: “This does not automatically guarantee the right of divorced people to remarry in Church.” But such cautions were plainly a matter of whistling in the dark. If Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles can now marry in the Church—having already married and been divorced from other people—why should every other Anglican not enjoy the same mercy?
Thus does the Anglican attempt to lighten up the Christian moral code over the specific issue of divorce exhibit a clear pattern that appears over and over in the history of the experiment of Christianity Lite: First, limited exceptions are made to a rule; next, those exceptions are no longer limited and become the unremarkable norm; finally, that new norm is itself sanctified as theologically acceptable.
Exactly that pattern emerges in another example of the historical attempt to disentangle a thread of moral teaching out of the whole: the dissent about artificial contraception. Here, too, Anglicans took the historical lead. Throughout most of its history, all of Christianity—even divided Christianity—upheld the teaching that artificial contraception was wrong. Not until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 was that unity shattered by the subsequently famous Resolution 15, in which the Anglicans called for exceptions to the rule in certain difficult, carefully delineated marital (and only marital) circumstances.
Exactly as had happened with divorce, the Anglican okaying of contraception was born largely of compassion for human frailty and dedicated to the idea that such cases would be mere exceptions to the theological rule. Thus Resolution 15 itself—for all that it was a radical break with two millennia of Christian teaching—abounded with careful language about the limited character of its reform, including “strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.”
And also as had happened with divorce, the effort to hold the line at such carefully drawn borders soon proved futile. In short order, not only was birth control theologically approved in certain difficult circumstances but, soon thereafter, it was regarded as the norm. Nor was that all. In a third turn of the reformist wheel that no one attending Lambeth in 1930 could have seen coming, artificial contraception went on to be sanctioned by some prominent members of the Anglican Communion not only as an option but in fact as the better moral choice. By the time of Episcopal Bishop James Pike, only a quarter century or so later, it was possible for a leading Christian to declare (as he did) that parents who should not be having a child were not only permitted to use contraception but were, in fact, under a moral obligation to use the most effective forms of contraception obtainable.
Bishop Pike was only one of many leaders of Christianity Lite to participate in this same theological process leading from normalization to sanctification. Although the Eastern Orthodox churches sided generally with Rome on the issue of contraception, most Protestant churches ended up following the same script as the Anglicans—moving one by one from reluctant acceptance in special circumstances, to acceptance in most or all circumstances, and finally (in some cases) to complete theological inversion. No less an authority than the Baptist evangelist Billy Graham, for example, eventually embraced birth control to cope with what he called the “terrifying and tragic problem” of overpopulation.
In just a few decades, in other words—following the same pattern as divorce—contraception in the churches of Christianity Lite went from being an unfortunate option, to an unremarkable option, to the theologically preferable option in some cases. Now consider a third example of the same historical pattern holding in another area: dissent over traditional Christian teachings against homosexuality.
Although homosexuality may be the most explosive current example of the effort to reshape Christianity into a religion more congenial to modern sexual practice, it is actually new to that party. As many on both sides of the divide have had occasion to remark, homosexual behavior has been proscribed throughout history, by Judaism as well as Christianity, until very, very recently—including in the churches of Christianity Lite. (Henry VIII, to name one prominent example, invoked the alleged homosexuality of the monks as part of his justification for appropriating the monasteries.)
Yet “extraordinarily enough,” as William Murchison puts it in his book Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity (2009), “a question barely at the boundary of general consciousness thirty years ago has assumed central importance to the present life and future of the Episcopal Church.” Why this remarkable transformation? In part, because the reformers at Lambeth and elsewhere did not foresee something else that in retrospect appears obvious: The chain of logic leading from the occasional acceptance of contraception to the open celebration of homosexuality would prove surprisingly sound.
That is precisely why the change in doctrine over contraception has been used repeatedly by Anglican leaders to justify proposed changes in religious attitudes toward homosexuality. Robert Runcie, for example, former archbishop of Canterbury, explained his own personal decision to ordain practicing homosexuals on exactly those grounds. In a BBC radio interview in 1996, he cited the Lambeth Conference of 1930, observing that “once the Church signalled . . . that sexual activity was for human delight and a blessing even if it was divorced from any idea of procreation . . . once you’ve said that sexual activity is . . . pleasing to God in itself, then what about people who are engaged in same-sex expression and who are incapable of heterosexual expression?”
Similarly, archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has also retrospectively connected the dots between approving purposely sterile sex for heterosexuals on the one hand and extending the same theological courtesy to homosexuals on the other. As he observed in a lecture in 1989, three years before he became bishop, “In a church which accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts or on a problematic and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.”
Thus, in retrospect, does the modern Anglican path—from careful, even reluctant line-drawing over contraception at Lambeth in 1930, to divorced noncelibate homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson today—appear not only unsurprising but practically inevitable. Put differently, the rejection of the ban on birth control was not incidental to the Anglicans’ subsequent implosion over homosexuality. It was what started it.
Moreover, as of the December 2009 ordination in Los Angeles of the Episcopal Church’s second noncelibate gay bishop, it is clear that homosexuality’s theological status—like that of contraception before it—is now moving from an option to a religiously approved option. It therefore joins divorce and contraception in the signature religious cycle of Christianity Lite, conferring on a once prohibited sexual practice a theological seal of approval.
Another clear pattern has also emerged in retrospect from the ongoing experiment in Christianity Lite: Rewriting the rules about sex does not, historically speaking, end with sex. Time and again, that rewriting has coincided with departures from traditional teaching in other areas too.
Consider, for example, the aforementioned Episcopal bishop James Pike, whose religious career is one of many that could be cited to illustrate the point. As noted, his views on contraception perfectly fit the cycle of Christianity Lite. He not only approved of the use of artificial birth control but sometimes insisted on it and even became chairman of the clergymen’s national advisory committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation.
Yet Pike’s dissent from traditional Christian teaching, far from being confined to matters of sexual morality, only widened over the years. By the 1960s, this pioneer of sexual ethics had also come to question other longstanding Christian beliefs—the virgin birth, the Incarnation, the Trinity, and original sin among them. In 1966, Bishop Pike was even formally censured by the Episcopal House of Bishops—a highly unusual outcome that speaks volumes about just how theologically radical he had become, even by the elastic and forgiving standards of the Episcopalians of America.
Now consider the related example of professor Joseph Fletcher, another ordained Episcopal priest who contributed intellectually to Christianity Lite. Thirty-six years stand between the Lambeth Conference of 1930 and the publication of his landmark book, Situational Ethics. Primarily concerned (of course) with matters sexual, Fletcher argued that there is “nothing intrinsically good or evil per se in any sexual act” and that, on such grounds, conventional sexual morality deserved jettisoning.
Yet the example of Fletcher shows clearly how such dissent has a way of spreading into other doctrinal areas. By the end of his life, this Episcopal priest—who would later identify himself as an atheist—had parted company with Christian orthodoxy on one hot-button issue after another: abortion, infanticide, cloning, euthanasia, and more.
The same is true of the theological journey of one more prominent Episcopalian whose religious journey began—but did not end—with lightening up Christian sexual morality: Bishop John Shelby Spong of Newark. Time magazine called his Living in Sin: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality (1988) “probably the most radical pronouncement on sex ever issued by a bishop.” It advocated the by-now familiar list of sexual selections from the contemporary cafeteria menu—from blessing homosexual unions to all the rest of “freeing the Bible from literalistic imprisonment.”
Yet Bishop Spong’s radicalism, though obviously jumpstarted by sex, did not end there any more than Bishop Pike’s or Reverend Fletcher’s did. It, too, has broadened to include wide-ranging dissent over practically everything else. Spong says he believes in God but is not a theist, for example, and he also denies that Jesus either performed miracles or rose from the dead. So consistent is his record that Albert Mohler, the traditionalist president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once remarked of Spong that “heretics are rarely excommunicated these days. Instead, they go on book tours.”
These examples are among many that could be cited to illustrate an important point: Even in the hands of its ablest defenders, Christianity Lite has proven time and again to be incapable of limiting itself to the rules about sex alone. Once traditional sexual morality is dispensed with in whole or in part, it is hard, apparently, to keep the rest of Church teaching off the chopping block. To switch metaphors, which came first, the egg of dissent over sex—or the chicken of dissent over other doctrinal issues? We do not need to know the answer to grasp the point: History shows that Christianity Lite cannot seem to have one without the other.
This same pattern of dissent over sexuality, followed by decline in both numbers and practice, also appears clearly in the other churches dedicated to Christianity Lite, those of the Protestant mainline in addition to the Episcopal Church. Here, too, the speed with which both practice and principle have unraveled bears scrutiny.
In 1930, for example, the initial reaction among America’s Lutherans to Lambeth’s Resolution 15 was disbelief bordering on hostility. Margaret Sanger was denounced in an official Lutheran newspaper as a “she devil,” and numerous pastors took to the pulpits and op-ed pages with blistering complaints about the Anglicans’ theological capitulation. Nonethless, by 1954, the Lutherans, too, were encouraging contraception in order to make sure that any child born would be valued “both for itself and in relation to the time of its birth.” By 1991, the Evangelical Lutheran Church was not only okaying contraception but also officially urging widespread instruction in “sex education” and pregnancy prevention for youngsters.
In all, it has been an about-face that certainly would have shocked the Lutherans of yesteryear—beginning with Martin Luther himself, who once called contraception “far more atrocious than incest or adultery.”
Also like the Anglicans, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has proven that one thread could not be teased out of the moral garment without pulling others out too. In 1991, a Social Statement found that abortion—regarded as murder almost universally throughout Christian history—could be a morally responsible choice in certain circumstances. That same year, the Churchwide Assembly (CWA), the leading legislative body of the church, affirmed that “gay and lesbian people . . . are welcome to participate fully in the life of the congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.” Less than two decades later, in 2009, official tolerance for individuals with homosexual tendencies had transposed into something else: official approval of the sexual practice of homosexuality, enshrined in the decision to allow noncelibate homosexuals to serve as pastors.
This leads to a third pattern arising from the experiment of Christianity Lite: the ongoing and inarguable institutional decline of the churches that have tried it. Today, the ELCA—the largest and most liberal of the Lutheran bodies of America—faces the same fate as the Anglican Communion: threats of schism, departing parishes, diminishing funds, and the rest of the institutional woes that have gone hand in hand with the abandonment of dogma.
The same fate also threatens the rest of the mainline Protestant churches—in addition to the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, and the American Baptist Church. As Joseph Bottum observed last year in these pages, in his wide-ranging essay about the collapse, “The death of the Mainline is the central historical fact of our time: the event that distinguishes the past several decades from every other period in American history.” In December 2009, the Barna Group was the latest to report that all the mainline churches appear to be “on the precipice of a decline.” Across the board, funding is down, numbers are down, numbers of the young are especially down, and missionaries—one particularly good measure of the vibrancy of belief—are diminishing apace. Even the kind of social work for which Christian churches have been renowned is also down: Mainline volunteerism, according to the new Barna numbers, has dropped a shocking 21 percent since 1998.
Yet, as Bottum and others have observed, even as decline and disarray have so ruthlessly visited the churches of the mainline—the same churches that are now wholly owned subsidiaries of Christianity Lite—so have the more traditional-minded Protestant institutions proved comparatively robust. Since Dean Kelley’s work in the 1970s, culminating in the book Why Strict Churches Are Strong, observers have tried to make sense of that phenomenon. Interestingly, traditional Protestant churches and pastors are holding the institutional line today as Christianity Lite is not. Some are also actively seeking to recover aspects of the moral code that they themselves once jettisoned.
Abortion—about which some traditional-minded Protestant churches are more absolutist now than they used to be—is one example. Even more unexpected is the rethinking by some prominent Protestants of artificial contraception. This ongoing reconsideration is one of the least followed and potentially consequential religious stories of our day. It is happening in part because these leaders do not want their churches to go the way of the Anglican Communion and the mainline, and in part because of what some religious leaders now take to be the lessons of experience. The sexual revolution has been polarizing indeed—leading some churches into abandoning the old rules about sex altogether, even as it sends others back to a new understanding of why they may have existed in the first place.
Does the relaxing of dogma drive people from church, or does the decline in attendance push leaders to relax dogma? As with the previous discussion of dissent, we do not really need to know the answer in all its causal complexity. All we really need to know—as the brilliant convert and teacher Monsignor Ronald Knox observed in an essay some eighty years ago, “The Decline of Dogma and the Decline of Church Membership”—is that “the evacuation of the pew and the jettisoning of cargo from the pulpit” have been going on side by side for as long as Christianity Lite has been attempted. As with doctrinal dissent, it seems, where one appears, the other is sure to follow.
Christianity Lite has left enough evidence in its wake for us to judge the final outcome of that great experiment: It is a failure. The effort to throw out the unwanted bathwater of the sexual code has taken the baby—the rest of Christian practice and belief—along with it.
What accounts for this epochal, perhaps even counterintuitive outcome—one that surely would have shocked the original architects of this grand religious experiment, most of whom longed only for a Christianity with a happier human face?
One answer appears obvious enough. If enough people over enough time turn their backs on the injunction to be fruitful and multiply, eventually their churches will cease being fruitful and multiplying, too. Recent sociology confirms this elementary if perhaps unwelcome point. In research published in 2005 in Christian Century, three sociologists (Andrew Greeley, Michael Hout, and Melissa Wilde) argued that “simple demographics” between 1900 and 1975 explained around three-quarters of the decline in mainline churches (Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist). By contrast, they pointed out, during those same years membership rose in more conservative Protestant churches (Baptist, Assembly of God, Pentecostal, and so on). The difference was that women in the former churches were using artificial contraception before or instead of women in the latter ones—in sum, that “the so-called decline of the Mainline may ultimately be attributable to its earlier approval of contraception.”
A second reason that the experiment of Christianity Lite seems destined sooner or later to self-destruct may be this rule of thumb: People who cannot be expected to obey in difficult matters cannot be expected to obey in easier ones either. In the 1950s, almost half the population of the Church of England attended services on Sunday. By 2000, that figure was around 7 percent, and that includes Charismatic and Pentecostal affiliates. Such declines, of course, have become common across the churches of Christianity Lite. Clearly, making life easier for those in the pews has not made them any likelier to sit there, and probably less so.
One final reason also suggests itself for why Christianity Lite is in decline while orthodoxy seems comparatively energetic—this despite the fact that Catholicism itself still reels from years of devastating sexual scandals, coupled with constant assault from secularism. That is what might be called the hidden power of the Christian moral code: its by now undeniable resonance with at least some human beings.
In his classic work A History of Christianity, first published in 1953, Kenneth Scott Latourette ponders one great puzzle of history:
How shall we account for the fact that, beginning as what to the casual observer must have appeared a small and obscure sect of Judaism, before its first five centuries were out had become the faith of the Roman state and of the vast majority of the population of that realm and had spread eastward as far as Central Asia and probably India and Ceylon and westward into far away Ireland?
Of course there is no single answer to his question. Nonetheless, the master historian himself cites Christianity’s surprisingly strong combination of flexibility and inclusivity on the one hand and “uncompromising adherence to its basic convictions” on the other. “In striking contrast with the easy-going syncretism” of the time, he emphasizes, “Christianity was adamant on what it regarded as basic principles.”
And right from the beginning, those principles were understood to include matters of sexual morality— especially matters of sexual morality. The pagans, the early Christians were instructed, could have it all: their idols, their infanticide, their contraception, their abortion, their homosexuality; the Christians couldn’t. The Jews could have their divorce; the Christians couldn’t. And on the list of forbidden practices went. Of course, these were not the only features that distinguished Christianity from other sects. But from the beginning, they were not only fundamental features of Christianity, and not only features that put many people off. They were also, and are still, features that drew other people in.
“The age had in it much of moral corruption,” Latourette wrote, speaking of the Roman Empire. “Yet it also had consciences which revolted against the excesses of the day. A religion that offered high moral standards and the power to attain them would be welcomed by the more serious.” What was true as Christianity took the Greco-Roman world by storm remains true today. The more decadent the age, the more does the forceful insistence that there is a right and wrong about matters of sex exert a gravitational pull all its own. The failure to recognize that power—one experienced by converts from St. Paul, to St.Augustine, to some of the Anglicans studying the Catechism today—may be one final and underappreciated factor that has led to Christianity Lite’s undoing.
As a cautionary note, nothing about this analysis of where we are now guarantees Christian orthodoxy any kind of victory. Many modern Catholics, perhaps a majority, are themselves cafeteria Catholics—the in-house version of Christianity Lite. Over time, their churches can be expected to drift and decline like those of the theological experiment of which they are a part. Nor will the demise of Christianity Lite happen dramatically enough for today’s traditionalists to gain momentum from it. No doubt centuries will be required before the experiment’s churches finally become whatever they will ultimately become—shelters, mosques, nightclubs, concert halls. Meanwhile, other questions about the future shape of Christianity—about what will become of traditional-minded Protestants, say, beginning with the Global South Anglicans—remain just as dim. From the top of any historical wave, we can see only so much.
But the one thing we can spy as of this moment is noteworthy enough: the beginning of the end not only of Anglicanism as the world has known it in the past century but also of the other churches that similarly joined their fates to that of Christianity Lite. It is hard to overstate how momentous their unraveling is—or how bracing a slap in the modern face. After all, if there is a single point to which modern, enlightened people have been agreeing for a long time now, it is that the antiquated sexual notions of the Catholic Church are an anachronism that had to go for the sake of a kinder, gentler Christianity.
It would be more than passing strange if, at the end of the day, that very anachronism were to turn out to be something that could not be sacrificed after all—not without having everything else fall down, anyway. Then again, it wouldn’t be the first time in Christian history that a piece rejected by the builders turned out to be the cornerstone.
MARY EBERSTADT is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, contributing writer to First Things, and author most recently of The Loser Letters: A Comic Tale of Life, Death, and Atheism .
h/t Fr. Ian Montgomery
Mary Eberstadt
Once in a while comes an historical event so momentous, so packed with unexpected force, that it acts like a large wave under still water, propelling us momentarily up from the surface of our times onto a crest, where the wider movements of history may be glimpsed better than before.
Such an event was Benedict XVI’s landmark announcement in October 2009 offering members of the Anglican Communion a fast track into the Catholic Church. Although commentators quickly dubbed this unexpected overture a “gambit,” what it truly exhibits are the characteristics of a move known in chess as a “brilliancy,” an unforeseen bold stroke that stunningly transforms the game. In the short run, knowledgeable people agree, this brilliancy of Benedict’s may not seem to amount to much. Some 1000 Church of England priests may convert and some 300 parishes turn over to Rome—figures that, while significant when measured against the dwindling numbers of practicing Anglicans there, are nonetheless mere drops in the Vatican’s bucket.
But in the longer run—say, over the coming decades—Rome’s move looks consequential in another way. It is the latest and most dramatic example of how orthodoxy, rather than dissent, seems once again to have taken the driver’s seat of Christianity. Every traditionalist who joins the long and already illustrious history of reconversion to the Catholic Church just tips the religious balance more toward Rome. This further weakens a religious communion battered from within by decades of intra-Anglican culture wars. Meanwhile, the progressives left behind may well find the exodus of their adversaries a Pyrrhic victory. How will they possibly make peace with the real majority of Anglicans today—the churches in Africa, whose leaders have repeatedly denounced the Communion’s abandonment of traditional teachings? Questions like these are why a few commentators now speak seriously about something that only recently seemed unthinkable: whether the end of the Anglican Communion itself might now be in sight.
Even so, it is the still longer run of Christian history whose outlines may now be most interesting and unexpected of all. Looking even further out to the horizon from our present moment—at a vista of centuries, rather than mere decades, ahead of us—we may well begin to wonder something else. That is, whether what we are witnessing now is not only the beginning of the end of the Anglican Communion but indeed the end of something even larger: the phenomenon of Christianity Lite itself.
By this I mean the multifaceted institutional experiment, beginning but not ending with the Anglican Communion, of attempting to preserve Christianity while simultaneously jettisoning certain of its traditional teachings—specifically, those regarding sexual morality. Surveying the record to date of what has happened to the churches dedicated to this long-running modern religious experiment, a large historical question now appears: whether the various exercises in this specific kind of dissent from traditional teaching turn out to contain the seeds of their own destruction. The evidence—preliminary but already abundant—suggests that the answer is yes.
If this is so, then the implications for the future of Christianity itself are likely to be profound. If it is Christianity Lite, rather than Christianity proper, that is fatally flawed and ultimately unable to sustain itself, then a rewriting of much of contemporary thought, religious and secular, appears in order. It means that secularization itself may be fundamentally misunderstood. It means that the most unwanted and unfashionable traditional teaching of Christianity, its sexual moral code, demands of the modern mind a new and respectful look. As a strategic matter, it also means that the current battle within the Catholic Church between traditionalists and dissenters must go to the traditionalists, lest the dissenters or cafeteria Catholics take the same path that the churches of Christianity Lite have followed: down, down, down.
All these are just preliminary examples of what is at stake in contemplating the great experiment of Christianity Lite—which is why the evidence for its failure is so compelling and important.
Let us note at the outset that this use of the phrase Christianity Lite is not intended to describe all of contemporary Protestantism—far from it. Plenty of non-Catholic churches have not rejected the traditional Christian moral code, including some of the most vibrant in the world today. Nor is the phrase intended to imply that sexual issues are the only theological issues dividing Christendom these days. Obviously, all kinds of differences—at least, official differences—remain over perennial lightning rods: papal infallibility, the theological status of Mary, the role and ordination of women, predestination, justification, and the rest of the theological controversies historically responsible for tearing Christendom apart.
But standing once again atop that wave in time prompted by Benedict’s announcement, we can see clearly that these are not the kind of issues that divide the Catholic Church from the churches of Christianity Lite today. As of now—and as has been true for some time—those churches have increasingly defined themselves as dissenting on one issue above all others: They have jettisoned one or another or all of the teachings of traditional Christian sexual morality.
Certainly ordinary parishioners see things this way. Ask any contemporary Mainline Protestant what most distinguishes his or her version of Christianity from that of Roman Catholicism, and you will likely get some version of this response: Catholics are still hung up on sex, and we’re not. They prohibit things like divorce and birth control and abortion and homosexuality, and we don’t. Moreover, this rendition of the facts would be essentially correct. At this particular moment in Christian history, it is sex—not Mary or the saints or predestination or purgatory or papal infallibility or good works—that is the Rubicon no one can really imagine these particular Protestants crossing again.
How did sex, of all subjects, come to occupy such a prominent place in the division of Christendom? In a sense, the potential was always there. From the first believers on up, the stern stuff of the Christian moral code has been cause for commentary—to say nothing of complaint. “Not all men can receive this saying,” the disciples are told when Jesus puts divorce off limits. Observers throughout history, Christian or not, have agreed: that particular moral teaching and its corollaries are hard indeed. From pagan Rome two thousand years ago to secular Western Europe today, the Church’s rules about sex have amounted to saying no, no, and no to things about which non-Christians have gotten to say yes or why not.
Even so, there is no denying that the traditional rules do seem more problematic now than ever before. Widespread abortion, ubiquitous pornography, diminished social opprobrium, and above all easy and effective contraception: All have divided recreation from procreation as never before in history. They have also been the driving force behind the embrace of Christianity Lite itself. After all, many would say, hasn’t this explosion of sexual expression made what was once a difficult moral code practically an impossible one? Shouldn’t the proper Christian response be one of mercy, rather than censure—including a merciful rewriting of the moral rules in these particularly difficult times?
Yet to say that the sexual revolution made Christianity Lite inevitable, as many people would, is to miss an important historical point. It was the Anglicans who first started picking apart the tapestry of Christian sexual morality—hundreds of years ago, long before the sexual revolution, and over one particular thread: divorce. In fact, in a fascinating development now visible in retrospect, the Anglican departure over divorce appears as the template for all subsequent exercises in Christianity Lite.
For about two centuries, and despite its having been midwifed into existence by the divorcing Henry VIII, the Church of England held fast to the same principle of the indissolubility of marriage on which the rest of Christian tradition insisted. According to a history of divorce called Untying The Knot, by Roderick Phillips, “no bishop, archbishop, or incumbent of high Anglican office in the first half of the seventeenth century supported the legalization of divorce.”
Even so, this early dedication to principle would turn out not to hold, ultimately eroding one priest and one parish at a time. In the United States, Phillips reports, Anglican churches soon were relaxing the strictest restrictions, making divorce more or less easy to come by depending on where one lived. Meanwhile, although the Church of England lagged behind the Episcopalians, by the mid-eighteenth century divorce was theoretically and practically available by an act of Parliament—a recourse that, although not widely exercised, went to show that exceptions to the indissolubility principle could be made.
Then came another turn of the theological wheel that could not have been foreseen by the first reformers. As of the General Synod in 2002, divorced Anglicans could now remarry in the Church. A spokesman noted carefully at the time: “This does not automatically guarantee the right of divorced people to remarry in Church.” But such cautions were plainly a matter of whistling in the dark. If Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles can now marry in the Church—having already married and been divorced from other people—why should every other Anglican not enjoy the same mercy?
Thus does the Anglican attempt to lighten up the Christian moral code over the specific issue of divorce exhibit a clear pattern that appears over and over in the history of the experiment of Christianity Lite: First, limited exceptions are made to a rule; next, those exceptions are no longer limited and become the unremarkable norm; finally, that new norm is itself sanctified as theologically acceptable.
Exactly that pattern emerges in another example of the historical attempt to disentangle a thread of moral teaching out of the whole: the dissent about artificial contraception. Here, too, Anglicans took the historical lead. Throughout most of its history, all of Christianity—even divided Christianity—upheld the teaching that artificial contraception was wrong. Not until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 was that unity shattered by the subsequently famous Resolution 15, in which the Anglicans called for exceptions to the rule in certain difficult, carefully delineated marital (and only marital) circumstances.
Exactly as had happened with divorce, the Anglican okaying of contraception was born largely of compassion for human frailty and dedicated to the idea that such cases would be mere exceptions to the theological rule. Thus Resolution 15 itself—for all that it was a radical break with two millennia of Christian teaching—abounded with careful language about the limited character of its reform, including “strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.”
And also as had happened with divorce, the effort to hold the line at such carefully drawn borders soon proved futile. In short order, not only was birth control theologically approved in certain difficult circumstances but, soon thereafter, it was regarded as the norm. Nor was that all. In a third turn of the reformist wheel that no one attending Lambeth in 1930 could have seen coming, artificial contraception went on to be sanctioned by some prominent members of the Anglican Communion not only as an option but in fact as the better moral choice. By the time of Episcopal Bishop James Pike, only a quarter century or so later, it was possible for a leading Christian to declare (as he did) that parents who should not be having a child were not only permitted to use contraception but were, in fact, under a moral obligation to use the most effective forms of contraception obtainable.
Bishop Pike was only one of many leaders of Christianity Lite to participate in this same theological process leading from normalization to sanctification. Although the Eastern Orthodox churches sided generally with Rome on the issue of contraception, most Protestant churches ended up following the same script as the Anglicans—moving one by one from reluctant acceptance in special circumstances, to acceptance in most or all circumstances, and finally (in some cases) to complete theological inversion. No less an authority than the Baptist evangelist Billy Graham, for example, eventually embraced birth control to cope with what he called the “terrifying and tragic problem” of overpopulation.
In just a few decades, in other words—following the same pattern as divorce—contraception in the churches of Christianity Lite went from being an unfortunate option, to an unremarkable option, to the theologically preferable option in some cases. Now consider a third example of the same historical pattern holding in another area: dissent over traditional Christian teachings against homosexuality.
Although homosexuality may be the most explosive current example of the effort to reshape Christianity into a religion more congenial to modern sexual practice, it is actually new to that party. As many on both sides of the divide have had occasion to remark, homosexual behavior has been proscribed throughout history, by Judaism as well as Christianity, until very, very recently—including in the churches of Christianity Lite. (Henry VIII, to name one prominent example, invoked the alleged homosexuality of the monks as part of his justification for appropriating the monasteries.)
Yet “extraordinarily enough,” as William Murchison puts it in his book Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity (2009), “a question barely at the boundary of general consciousness thirty years ago has assumed central importance to the present life and future of the Episcopal Church.” Why this remarkable transformation? In part, because the reformers at Lambeth and elsewhere did not foresee something else that in retrospect appears obvious: The chain of logic leading from the occasional acceptance of contraception to the open celebration of homosexuality would prove surprisingly sound.
That is precisely why the change in doctrine over contraception has been used repeatedly by Anglican leaders to justify proposed changes in religious attitudes toward homosexuality. Robert Runcie, for example, former archbishop of Canterbury, explained his own personal decision to ordain practicing homosexuals on exactly those grounds. In a BBC radio interview in 1996, he cited the Lambeth Conference of 1930, observing that “once the Church signalled . . . that sexual activity was for human delight and a blessing even if it was divorced from any idea of procreation . . . once you’ve said that sexual activity is . . . pleasing to God in itself, then what about people who are engaged in same-sex expression and who are incapable of heterosexual expression?”
Similarly, archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has also retrospectively connected the dots between approving purposely sterile sex for heterosexuals on the one hand and extending the same theological courtesy to homosexuals on the other. As he observed in a lecture in 1989, three years before he became bishop, “In a church which accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts or on a problematic and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.”
Thus, in retrospect, does the modern Anglican path—from careful, even reluctant line-drawing over contraception at Lambeth in 1930, to divorced noncelibate homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson today—appear not only unsurprising but practically inevitable. Put differently, the rejection of the ban on birth control was not incidental to the Anglicans’ subsequent implosion over homosexuality. It was what started it.
Moreover, as of the December 2009 ordination in Los Angeles of the Episcopal Church’s second noncelibate gay bishop, it is clear that homosexuality’s theological status—like that of contraception before it—is now moving from an option to a religiously approved option. It therefore joins divorce and contraception in the signature religious cycle of Christianity Lite, conferring on a once prohibited sexual practice a theological seal of approval.
Another clear pattern has also emerged in retrospect from the ongoing experiment in Christianity Lite: Rewriting the rules about sex does not, historically speaking, end with sex. Time and again, that rewriting has coincided with departures from traditional teaching in other areas too.
Consider, for example, the aforementioned Episcopal bishop James Pike, whose religious career is one of many that could be cited to illustrate the point. As noted, his views on contraception perfectly fit the cycle of Christianity Lite. He not only approved of the use of artificial birth control but sometimes insisted on it and even became chairman of the clergymen’s national advisory committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation.
Yet Pike’s dissent from traditional Christian teaching, far from being confined to matters of sexual morality, only widened over the years. By the 1960s, this pioneer of sexual ethics had also come to question other longstanding Christian beliefs—the virgin birth, the Incarnation, the Trinity, and original sin among them. In 1966, Bishop Pike was even formally censured by the Episcopal House of Bishops—a highly unusual outcome that speaks volumes about just how theologically radical he had become, even by the elastic and forgiving standards of the Episcopalians of America.
Now consider the related example of professor Joseph Fletcher, another ordained Episcopal priest who contributed intellectually to Christianity Lite. Thirty-six years stand between the Lambeth Conference of 1930 and the publication of his landmark book, Situational Ethics. Primarily concerned (of course) with matters sexual, Fletcher argued that there is “nothing intrinsically good or evil per se in any sexual act” and that, on such grounds, conventional sexual morality deserved jettisoning.
Yet the example of Fletcher shows clearly how such dissent has a way of spreading into other doctrinal areas. By the end of his life, this Episcopal priest—who would later identify himself as an atheist—had parted company with Christian orthodoxy on one hot-button issue after another: abortion, infanticide, cloning, euthanasia, and more.
The same is true of the theological journey of one more prominent Episcopalian whose religious journey began—but did not end—with lightening up Christian sexual morality: Bishop John Shelby Spong of Newark. Time magazine called his Living in Sin: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality (1988) “probably the most radical pronouncement on sex ever issued by a bishop.” It advocated the by-now familiar list of sexual selections from the contemporary cafeteria menu—from blessing homosexual unions to all the rest of “freeing the Bible from literalistic imprisonment.”
Yet Bishop Spong’s radicalism, though obviously jumpstarted by sex, did not end there any more than Bishop Pike’s or Reverend Fletcher’s did. It, too, has broadened to include wide-ranging dissent over practically everything else. Spong says he believes in God but is not a theist, for example, and he also denies that Jesus either performed miracles or rose from the dead. So consistent is his record that Albert Mohler, the traditionalist president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once remarked of Spong that “heretics are rarely excommunicated these days. Instead, they go on book tours.”
These examples are among many that could be cited to illustrate an important point: Even in the hands of its ablest defenders, Christianity Lite has proven time and again to be incapable of limiting itself to the rules about sex alone. Once traditional sexual morality is dispensed with in whole or in part, it is hard, apparently, to keep the rest of Church teaching off the chopping block. To switch metaphors, which came first, the egg of dissent over sex—or the chicken of dissent over other doctrinal issues? We do not need to know the answer to grasp the point: History shows that Christianity Lite cannot seem to have one without the other.
This same pattern of dissent over sexuality, followed by decline in both numbers and practice, also appears clearly in the other churches dedicated to Christianity Lite, those of the Protestant mainline in addition to the Episcopal Church. Here, too, the speed with which both practice and principle have unraveled bears scrutiny.
In 1930, for example, the initial reaction among America’s Lutherans to Lambeth’s Resolution 15 was disbelief bordering on hostility. Margaret Sanger was denounced in an official Lutheran newspaper as a “she devil,” and numerous pastors took to the pulpits and op-ed pages with blistering complaints about the Anglicans’ theological capitulation. Nonethless, by 1954, the Lutherans, too, were encouraging contraception in order to make sure that any child born would be valued “both for itself and in relation to the time of its birth.” By 1991, the Evangelical Lutheran Church was not only okaying contraception but also officially urging widespread instruction in “sex education” and pregnancy prevention for youngsters.
In all, it has been an about-face that certainly would have shocked the Lutherans of yesteryear—beginning with Martin Luther himself, who once called contraception “far more atrocious than incest or adultery.”
Also like the Anglicans, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has proven that one thread could not be teased out of the moral garment without pulling others out too. In 1991, a Social Statement found that abortion—regarded as murder almost universally throughout Christian history—could be a morally responsible choice in certain circumstances. That same year, the Churchwide Assembly (CWA), the leading legislative body of the church, affirmed that “gay and lesbian people . . . are welcome to participate fully in the life of the congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.” Less than two decades later, in 2009, official tolerance for individuals with homosexual tendencies had transposed into something else: official approval of the sexual practice of homosexuality, enshrined in the decision to allow noncelibate homosexuals to serve as pastors.
This leads to a third pattern arising from the experiment of Christianity Lite: the ongoing and inarguable institutional decline of the churches that have tried it. Today, the ELCA—the largest and most liberal of the Lutheran bodies of America—faces the same fate as the Anglican Communion: threats of schism, departing parishes, diminishing funds, and the rest of the institutional woes that have gone hand in hand with the abandonment of dogma.
The same fate also threatens the rest of the mainline Protestant churches—in addition to the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, and the American Baptist Church. As Joseph Bottum observed last year in these pages, in his wide-ranging essay about the collapse, “The death of the Mainline is the central historical fact of our time: the event that distinguishes the past several decades from every other period in American history.” In December 2009, the Barna Group was the latest to report that all the mainline churches appear to be “on the precipice of a decline.” Across the board, funding is down, numbers are down, numbers of the young are especially down, and missionaries—one particularly good measure of the vibrancy of belief—are diminishing apace. Even the kind of social work for which Christian churches have been renowned is also down: Mainline volunteerism, according to the new Barna numbers, has dropped a shocking 21 percent since 1998.
Yet, as Bottum and others have observed, even as decline and disarray have so ruthlessly visited the churches of the mainline—the same churches that are now wholly owned subsidiaries of Christianity Lite—so have the more traditional-minded Protestant institutions proved comparatively robust. Since Dean Kelley’s work in the 1970s, culminating in the book Why Strict Churches Are Strong, observers have tried to make sense of that phenomenon. Interestingly, traditional Protestant churches and pastors are holding the institutional line today as Christianity Lite is not. Some are also actively seeking to recover aspects of the moral code that they themselves once jettisoned.
Abortion—about which some traditional-minded Protestant churches are more absolutist now than they used to be—is one example. Even more unexpected is the rethinking by some prominent Protestants of artificial contraception. This ongoing reconsideration is one of the least followed and potentially consequential religious stories of our day. It is happening in part because these leaders do not want their churches to go the way of the Anglican Communion and the mainline, and in part because of what some religious leaders now take to be the lessons of experience. The sexual revolution has been polarizing indeed—leading some churches into abandoning the old rules about sex altogether, even as it sends others back to a new understanding of why they may have existed in the first place.
Does the relaxing of dogma drive people from church, or does the decline in attendance push leaders to relax dogma? As with the previous discussion of dissent, we do not really need to know the answer in all its causal complexity. All we really need to know—as the brilliant convert and teacher Monsignor Ronald Knox observed in an essay some eighty years ago, “The Decline of Dogma and the Decline of Church Membership”—is that “the evacuation of the pew and the jettisoning of cargo from the pulpit” have been going on side by side for as long as Christianity Lite has been attempted. As with doctrinal dissent, it seems, where one appears, the other is sure to follow.
Christianity Lite has left enough evidence in its wake for us to judge the final outcome of that great experiment: It is a failure. The effort to throw out the unwanted bathwater of the sexual code has taken the baby—the rest of Christian practice and belief—along with it.
What accounts for this epochal, perhaps even counterintuitive outcome—one that surely would have shocked the original architects of this grand religious experiment, most of whom longed only for a Christianity with a happier human face?
One answer appears obvious enough. If enough people over enough time turn their backs on the injunction to be fruitful and multiply, eventually their churches will cease being fruitful and multiplying, too. Recent sociology confirms this elementary if perhaps unwelcome point. In research published in 2005 in Christian Century, three sociologists (Andrew Greeley, Michael Hout, and Melissa Wilde) argued that “simple demographics” between 1900 and 1975 explained around three-quarters of the decline in mainline churches (Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist). By contrast, they pointed out, during those same years membership rose in more conservative Protestant churches (Baptist, Assembly of God, Pentecostal, and so on). The difference was that women in the former churches were using artificial contraception before or instead of women in the latter ones—in sum, that “the so-called decline of the Mainline may ultimately be attributable to its earlier approval of contraception.”
A second reason that the experiment of Christianity Lite seems destined sooner or later to self-destruct may be this rule of thumb: People who cannot be expected to obey in difficult matters cannot be expected to obey in easier ones either. In the 1950s, almost half the population of the Church of England attended services on Sunday. By 2000, that figure was around 7 percent, and that includes Charismatic and Pentecostal affiliates. Such declines, of course, have become common across the churches of Christianity Lite. Clearly, making life easier for those in the pews has not made them any likelier to sit there, and probably less so.
One final reason also suggests itself for why Christianity Lite is in decline while orthodoxy seems comparatively energetic—this despite the fact that Catholicism itself still reels from years of devastating sexual scandals, coupled with constant assault from secularism. That is what might be called the hidden power of the Christian moral code: its by now undeniable resonance with at least some human beings.
In his classic work A History of Christianity, first published in 1953, Kenneth Scott Latourette ponders one great puzzle of history:
How shall we account for the fact that, beginning as what to the casual observer must have appeared a small and obscure sect of Judaism, before its first five centuries were out had become the faith of the Roman state and of the vast majority of the population of that realm and had spread eastward as far as Central Asia and probably India and Ceylon and westward into far away Ireland?
Of course there is no single answer to his question. Nonetheless, the master historian himself cites Christianity’s surprisingly strong combination of flexibility and inclusivity on the one hand and “uncompromising adherence to its basic convictions” on the other. “In striking contrast with the easy-going syncretism” of the time, he emphasizes, “Christianity was adamant on what it regarded as basic principles.”
And right from the beginning, those principles were understood to include matters of sexual morality— especially matters of sexual morality. The pagans, the early Christians were instructed, could have it all: their idols, their infanticide, their contraception, their abortion, their homosexuality; the Christians couldn’t. The Jews could have their divorce; the Christians couldn’t. And on the list of forbidden practices went. Of course, these were not the only features that distinguished Christianity from other sects. But from the beginning, they were not only fundamental features of Christianity, and not only features that put many people off. They were also, and are still, features that drew other people in.
“The age had in it much of moral corruption,” Latourette wrote, speaking of the Roman Empire. “Yet it also had consciences which revolted against the excesses of the day. A religion that offered high moral standards and the power to attain them would be welcomed by the more serious.” What was true as Christianity took the Greco-Roman world by storm remains true today. The more decadent the age, the more does the forceful insistence that there is a right and wrong about matters of sex exert a gravitational pull all its own. The failure to recognize that power—one experienced by converts from St. Paul, to St.Augustine, to some of the Anglicans studying the Catechism today—may be one final and underappreciated factor that has led to Christianity Lite’s undoing.
As a cautionary note, nothing about this analysis of where we are now guarantees Christian orthodoxy any kind of victory. Many modern Catholics, perhaps a majority, are themselves cafeteria Catholics—the in-house version of Christianity Lite. Over time, their churches can be expected to drift and decline like those of the theological experiment of which they are a part. Nor will the demise of Christianity Lite happen dramatically enough for today’s traditionalists to gain momentum from it. No doubt centuries will be required before the experiment’s churches finally become whatever they will ultimately become—shelters, mosques, nightclubs, concert halls. Meanwhile, other questions about the future shape of Christianity—about what will become of traditional-minded Protestants, say, beginning with the Global South Anglicans—remain just as dim. From the top of any historical wave, we can see only so much.
But the one thing we can spy as of this moment is noteworthy enough: the beginning of the end not only of Anglicanism as the world has known it in the past century but also of the other churches that similarly joined their fates to that of Christianity Lite. It is hard to overstate how momentous their unraveling is—or how bracing a slap in the modern face. After all, if there is a single point to which modern, enlightened people have been agreeing for a long time now, it is that the antiquated sexual notions of the Catholic Church are an anachronism that had to go for the sake of a kinder, gentler Christianity.
It would be more than passing strange if, at the end of the day, that very anachronism were to turn out to be something that could not be sacrificed after all—not without having everything else fall down, anyway. Then again, it wouldn’t be the first time in Christian history that a piece rejected by the builders turned out to be the cornerstone.
MARY EBERSTADT is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, contributing writer to First Things, and author most recently of The Loser Letters: A Comic Tale of Life, Death, and Atheism .
h/t Fr. Ian Montgomery
CHARLESTON, SC: Theologian and Psychiatrist Reject Gay Marriage and Homosexual Behavior
By David W. Virtue in Charleston
www.virtueonline.org
January 25, 2010
A leading Johns Hopkins psychiatrist and a Presbyterian theologian say same-sex marriages have no basis in biology, psychology, or sociology -- spiritually, biblically or theologically.
Speaking to several hundred Anglicans and Episcopalians at the annual Mere Anglican conference at St. Philip’s Episcopal Church in Charleston, the Rev. Dr. A. J. Robert Gagnon said that on the subject of marriage, Jesus raised the standard above the Mosaic Law. “Jesus did not move towards greater license. He unilaterally closed the remaining loopholes in the Law of Moses rejecting the ‘hardness of heart’ notion of Moses which cut men a break and He gave a whole different view on sexual ethics.
“Jesus is not an example of the the Silence of the Lamb on sexuality issues,” said Gagnon. “God deliberately designed complementarity - sexual pairing – as the norm for humankind. Jesus’ view of marriage could not change at will. Jesus saw the mosaic accommodation and needed to erase it. Jesus adopted a back to creation model of human sexuality. Jesus argues his case from the two sexes at creation.”
Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice said, “Genesis 2:18-20 refers to woman with the expression “as his counterpart” or “complement,” Hebrew kĕnegdô, where the component word neged denotes both similarity corresponding to (i.e. similarity on the human level) and difference opposite (i.e. difference as regards a distinct sex extracted from him). That is why the story of Genesis 2:21-24 presents the image of two sexes emerging from one flesh (illustrating the point of sexual complements) as the basis for the two sexes, man and woman, reuniting into “one flesh.” By its very nature, sexual intercourse was designed for sexual complements or counterparts.
“If in a heterosexual union two sexual halves unite to constitute a sexual whole, the logic of a homosexual union, by analogy, is that two half-males unite to form a single whole male; or two half-female unite to form a single whole female. A half unites sexually with its complementary half. To regard one’s self, if male, as completed sexually by another male is to make an implicit statement that one does not regard one’s particular gender as being intact apart from such a union. The same goes for a female-female sexual union. This is both sexual self-deception (one’s maleness or femaleness is already intact) and sexual narcissism (one is erotically aroused by one’s own essential sex).
“That is why the apostle Paul in Romans 1:24-27 refers to homosexual acts as intrinsically ‘dishonoring’ for the participants, even when the relationship is conducted in the context of care and commitment. Similarly, most would acknowledge the dishonoring character of an adult-committed incestuous bond, which tries to make of ‘one flesh’ two persons who in terms of kinship are already of the same flesh.”
The Presbyterian theologian said even the Essene Qumran community (a Jewish religious group that flourished from the 2nd century) rejected taking two wives in their lives because the foundation of creation is “male and female made Hethem” texts Jesus later cited.
Gagnon noted that the Noah’s ark narrative glossed over the twoness of the new creation indicating that a third part was neither necessary nor desirable. “The twoness of the sexes, male and female, is the basis for limiting the number of partners in a sexual union. Gen 1:27, Gen 1-2 Mk 10:2-12, and Gen 1:2 confirm this.”
Citing Romans 1:19-20 and 24-27, Gagnon said that the Scriptures are opposed to all forms of same sex unions. Stage 1 is found in Romans 1: 19-20 that is about God’s power.
Homosexuality invites the judgment of God. It is idolatry. Homosexuality is a God substitute, said Gagnon.
The wrath of God will happen, said Gagnon. “The first stage is that God steps back. He allows them to heap up their sins. This is an interim period that leads to cataclysm at the end. Idolatry and same-sex intercourse together constitutes a frontal assault on the work of the creator in nature. Instead of recognizing their creation in God’s image and dominion over animals they rebel against the created order. God widens indictment in Romans Chapter 2.
“The truth about God is visible and apparent in material creation. Likewise the truth about God’s will for sex is visible in our gendered bodies. Men and women are designed for sex with each other.”
Gagnon said that medical evidence shows that lesbians have a higher incidence of mental health issues as well as short term relationships.
“Sexual ethics over which Christology is joined cannot make sexuality a second tier issue. In what sense then is Christ still Lord if they are separated? At the end it is about reclaiming people for the kingdom of God.”
Dr. Paul McHugh
“There is a received opinion about homosexual behavior, most of it is wrong. There is the notion that one is gay by nature, an innate tendency like being left handed and any attempt to hinder is tantamount to racism. This opinion is unproven and quite unsettled in psychology, biology and sociological studies. In many ways data tends to refute this,” said Dr. Paul McHugh Professor of Psychiatry at John Hopkins University. “Scientific research has not established any genetic causation for homosexual orientation, he told the Mere Anglican conference.
“Genes seem to be the ultimate source. If 50% of identical twins, one of whom is homosexual, somehow proves this genetic influence is simply not true. The data indicates some genetic influences are in play, but Genetic identity does not bring uniformity such as eye color. Many other behaviors including crime, over eating can incline but not compel us. Genes are one of the many influences. For psychiatrists like me, the genetic biological concept as biologically compelled are built in.”
McHugh said there is no such thing as the vacated self. “There are emerging homosexual preferences in adolescence around the lack of parental influences, usually the father. The truth is advocacy and sexual politics play a stronger role than the psychological role. Today politics and social opinion are playing more of a role in determining behavior.”
The psychiatrist also stated that Kinsey’s findings are not sound social science. “Kinsey was a secular Elmer Gantry. He was a fervent missionary for this new movement. Kinsey chose samples of convenience. Kinsey was an ideological bully. He said that 50% of men were adulterous and 25% of women were adulterous and 10% male homosexuality. These figures are a fiction.”
McHugh said the AIDS epidemic roused the nation. “It broke down the resistance people had. The “Sex in America” report in 1994 controverts most of Kinsey’s report. The truth is 85% of people have one partner in a given year. This is why AIDs did not sweep the nation. Homosexuals represent only 2% – 4% of people. Homosexuality is not a built in biologically based trait.”
Social Cluster Research
McHugh spoke about the emerging science of the social cluster. “I am unpersuaded that homosexuality is built in. We should not allow gay and lesbian clubs, it creates social clustering. We become the groups we self identify with. A slim person among heavy people will sooner or later gain weight. Biological, psychological and social studies seem to bear that out. This is not about intolerance but incompatibility. The tragedy is that we are seeing the triumph of feelings over reason in the university.
“I don’t think we will find a gay gene or crime gene. I am sure it is not going to boil down to a gay gene.
“I’m a Roman Catholic married to an Anglican woman and I see the church in a death spiral over sexuality issues. We are facing a new enterprise which proposes a permissive world - a pandemonium of permissiveness and hedonism that neglects the meaning of human beings. We need to teach the meaning of the psychological and social domains in which we live.
“What does science really teach us about or sexual natures? Desire and love are not the same. Differentiating is important. Despite Freud I loved my mother, I did not desire her. Desire is a way to love. The love experience and commitment of the love experience is a great challenge.
“Marriage is not simple the joining of two people in a sexual relationship. It is also about kinship. We need to teach other… to remoralize ourselves. We need a message of coherent lives to face the permissive world we are in so we can stand against pornography, homosexuality and divorce.”
Asked if the gay community is ready to be open to this idea of their biological orientation and nature, McHugh said, “homosexuals are in deep conflict with science today and the question is will knowledge enhance their dignity or is it an enterprise that will ultimately lead to their reduction.”
Americans, he said, have become such victims of the “politics of deviance” that objective scholarship is brushed aside in favor of what is deemed to be politically correct.
www.virtueonline.org
January 25, 2010
A leading Johns Hopkins psychiatrist and a Presbyterian theologian say same-sex marriages have no basis in biology, psychology, or sociology -- spiritually, biblically or theologically.
Speaking to several hundred Anglicans and Episcopalians at the annual Mere Anglican conference at St. Philip’s Episcopal Church in Charleston, the Rev. Dr. A. J. Robert Gagnon said that on the subject of marriage, Jesus raised the standard above the Mosaic Law. “Jesus did not move towards greater license. He unilaterally closed the remaining loopholes in the Law of Moses rejecting the ‘hardness of heart’ notion of Moses which cut men a break and He gave a whole different view on sexual ethics.
“Jesus is not an example of the the Silence of the Lamb on sexuality issues,” said Gagnon. “God deliberately designed complementarity - sexual pairing – as the norm for humankind. Jesus’ view of marriage could not change at will. Jesus saw the mosaic accommodation and needed to erase it. Jesus adopted a back to creation model of human sexuality. Jesus argues his case from the two sexes at creation.”
Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice said, “Genesis 2:18-20 refers to woman with the expression “as his counterpart” or “complement,” Hebrew kĕnegdô, where the component word neged denotes both similarity corresponding to (i.e. similarity on the human level) and difference opposite (i.e. difference as regards a distinct sex extracted from him). That is why the story of Genesis 2:21-24 presents the image of two sexes emerging from one flesh (illustrating the point of sexual complements) as the basis for the two sexes, man and woman, reuniting into “one flesh.” By its very nature, sexual intercourse was designed for sexual complements or counterparts.
“If in a heterosexual union two sexual halves unite to constitute a sexual whole, the logic of a homosexual union, by analogy, is that two half-males unite to form a single whole male; or two half-female unite to form a single whole female. A half unites sexually with its complementary half. To regard one’s self, if male, as completed sexually by another male is to make an implicit statement that one does not regard one’s particular gender as being intact apart from such a union. The same goes for a female-female sexual union. This is both sexual self-deception (one’s maleness or femaleness is already intact) and sexual narcissism (one is erotically aroused by one’s own essential sex).
“That is why the apostle Paul in Romans 1:24-27 refers to homosexual acts as intrinsically ‘dishonoring’ for the participants, even when the relationship is conducted in the context of care and commitment. Similarly, most would acknowledge the dishonoring character of an adult-committed incestuous bond, which tries to make of ‘one flesh’ two persons who in terms of kinship are already of the same flesh.”
The Presbyterian theologian said even the Essene Qumran community (a Jewish religious group that flourished from the 2nd century) rejected taking two wives in their lives because the foundation of creation is “male and female made Hethem” texts Jesus later cited.
Gagnon noted that the Noah’s ark narrative glossed over the twoness of the new creation indicating that a third part was neither necessary nor desirable. “The twoness of the sexes, male and female, is the basis for limiting the number of partners in a sexual union. Gen 1:27, Gen 1-2 Mk 10:2-12, and Gen 1:2 confirm this.”
Citing Romans 1:19-20 and 24-27, Gagnon said that the Scriptures are opposed to all forms of same sex unions. Stage 1 is found in Romans 1: 19-20 that is about God’s power.
Homosexuality invites the judgment of God. It is idolatry. Homosexuality is a God substitute, said Gagnon.
The wrath of God will happen, said Gagnon. “The first stage is that God steps back. He allows them to heap up their sins. This is an interim period that leads to cataclysm at the end. Idolatry and same-sex intercourse together constitutes a frontal assault on the work of the creator in nature. Instead of recognizing their creation in God’s image and dominion over animals they rebel against the created order. God widens indictment in Romans Chapter 2.
“The truth about God is visible and apparent in material creation. Likewise the truth about God’s will for sex is visible in our gendered bodies. Men and women are designed for sex with each other.”
Gagnon said that medical evidence shows that lesbians have a higher incidence of mental health issues as well as short term relationships.
“Sexual ethics over which Christology is joined cannot make sexuality a second tier issue. In what sense then is Christ still Lord if they are separated? At the end it is about reclaiming people for the kingdom of God.”
Dr. Paul McHugh
“There is a received opinion about homosexual behavior, most of it is wrong. There is the notion that one is gay by nature, an innate tendency like being left handed and any attempt to hinder is tantamount to racism. This opinion is unproven and quite unsettled in psychology, biology and sociological studies. In many ways data tends to refute this,” said Dr. Paul McHugh Professor of Psychiatry at John Hopkins University. “Scientific research has not established any genetic causation for homosexual orientation, he told the Mere Anglican conference.
“Genes seem to be the ultimate source. If 50% of identical twins, one of whom is homosexual, somehow proves this genetic influence is simply not true. The data indicates some genetic influences are in play, but Genetic identity does not bring uniformity such as eye color. Many other behaviors including crime, over eating can incline but not compel us. Genes are one of the many influences. For psychiatrists like me, the genetic biological concept as biologically compelled are built in.”
McHugh said there is no such thing as the vacated self. “There are emerging homosexual preferences in adolescence around the lack of parental influences, usually the father. The truth is advocacy and sexual politics play a stronger role than the psychological role. Today politics and social opinion are playing more of a role in determining behavior.”
The psychiatrist also stated that Kinsey’s findings are not sound social science. “Kinsey was a secular Elmer Gantry. He was a fervent missionary for this new movement. Kinsey chose samples of convenience. Kinsey was an ideological bully. He said that 50% of men were adulterous and 25% of women were adulterous and 10% male homosexuality. These figures are a fiction.”
McHugh said the AIDS epidemic roused the nation. “It broke down the resistance people had. The “Sex in America” report in 1994 controverts most of Kinsey’s report. The truth is 85% of people have one partner in a given year. This is why AIDs did not sweep the nation. Homosexuals represent only 2% – 4% of people. Homosexuality is not a built in biologically based trait.”
Social Cluster Research
McHugh spoke about the emerging science of the social cluster. “I am unpersuaded that homosexuality is built in. We should not allow gay and lesbian clubs, it creates social clustering. We become the groups we self identify with. A slim person among heavy people will sooner or later gain weight. Biological, psychological and social studies seem to bear that out. This is not about intolerance but incompatibility. The tragedy is that we are seeing the triumph of feelings over reason in the university.
“I don’t think we will find a gay gene or crime gene. I am sure it is not going to boil down to a gay gene.
“I’m a Roman Catholic married to an Anglican woman and I see the church in a death spiral over sexuality issues. We are facing a new enterprise which proposes a permissive world - a pandemonium of permissiveness and hedonism that neglects the meaning of human beings. We need to teach the meaning of the psychological and social domains in which we live.
“What does science really teach us about or sexual natures? Desire and love are not the same. Differentiating is important. Despite Freud I loved my mother, I did not desire her. Desire is a way to love. The love experience and commitment of the love experience is a great challenge.
“Marriage is not simple the joining of two people in a sexual relationship. It is also about kinship. We need to teach other… to remoralize ourselves. We need a message of coherent lives to face the permissive world we are in so we can stand against pornography, homosexuality and divorce.”
Asked if the gay community is ready to be open to this idea of their biological orientation and nature, McHugh said, “homosexuals are in deep conflict with science today and the question is will knowledge enhance their dignity or is it an enterprise that will ultimately lead to their reduction.”
Americans, he said, have become such victims of the “politics of deviance” that objective scholarship is brushed aside in favor of what is deemed to be politically correct.
Response by the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh
ALL-IN
from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor
As the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh reads it, Ken Price is holding 3-9 off-suited:
We were gratified to read, in your letter of January 20, that you were writing in a conciliatory spirit. As you know, a number of us in the Diocese have been working diligently with those in your fold to find helpful ways of moving forward in this difficult season. As the Standing Committee of the Diocese, we heartily endorse your desire for conversation with us, especially if it leads to concrete ways in which we might work through our mutual misunderstandings and divisions. For our part, we in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh continue to be eager to welcome back those parishes and clergy who have left our diocese. As you know, we continue to recognize the orders of those clergy who have left the diocese and make no claim on the property of parishes who are in your fold, making any transition back to us a simple transaction.
To this end, we would be grateful if a few of us, clergy and lay leaders in the diocese, could meet with you at your earliest convenience to see how we might together forge a better way forward, particularly concerning the litigation that is currently before the courts.
It would be most helpful to all if we could discuss our mutual hopes, desires and concerns for the future in a way that created space for reconciliation in the truth of the Gospel and mission in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor
As the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh reads it, Ken Price is holding 3-9 off-suited:
We were gratified to read, in your letter of January 20, that you were writing in a conciliatory spirit. As you know, a number of us in the Diocese have been working diligently with those in your fold to find helpful ways of moving forward in this difficult season. As the Standing Committee of the Diocese, we heartily endorse your desire for conversation with us, especially if it leads to concrete ways in which we might work through our mutual misunderstandings and divisions. For our part, we in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh continue to be eager to welcome back those parishes and clergy who have left our diocese. As you know, we continue to recognize the orders of those clergy who have left the diocese and make no claim on the property of parishes who are in your fold, making any transition back to us a simple transaction.
To this end, we would be grateful if a few of us, clergy and lay leaders in the diocese, could meet with you at your earliest convenience to see how we might together forge a better way forward, particularly concerning the litigation that is currently before the courts.
It would be most helpful to all if we could discuss our mutual hopes, desires and concerns for the future in a way that created space for reconciliation in the truth of the Gospel and mission in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Conference Discusses Sex and Theology
From The Living Church via TitusOneNine:
Posted on: January 25, 2010
What do 250 Anglicans talk about when they gather in one of the most majestic antebellum ecclesiastical structures in the South?
They talk about sex, but also about broader social questions. The theme for this year’s Mere Anglicanism conference, which met on Jan. 21-23, was “Human Identity: Gender, Marriage, and Sexuality — Speculation or Revelation?” The annual Charleston-based conference, which moved this year from the Cathedral of St Luke and St. Paul to the larger St. Philip’s, addressed modern culture from the perspective of balanced, traditional, biblically based Anglican theology.
Participants discussed how the institution of marriage is struggling amid a sexually permissive society. Statistics show that today the number of cohabiting couples has risen 600 percent since the 1970s. Gay marriage, while still disapproved of by the majority of the population, has become legal in several states and is increasingly accepted by mainline churches, including the Episcopal Church.
Paul McHugh, a professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that scientific research has not established any genetic causation for homosexual orientation. When asked if his paper might appear in The American Journal of Psychiatry, he smiled and said, “No.” Americans, he said, have become such victims of the “politics of deviance” that objective scholarship is brushed aside in favor of what is deemed to be politically correct.
Robert Gagnon, an associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, addressed the argument that St. Paul condemned only exploitative or pederastic homosexual behavior and he knew nothing of homosexual orientation or partnerships among peers. Dr. Gagnon argued that both were well- known in ancient Greece and Rome, and — while tolerated — were often condemned even by pagan writers.
Edith Humphrey, the William F. Orr professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, critiqued the writings of three theologians: Carter Heyward, Sarah Coakley and Eugene F. Rogers, Jr. Dr. Humphrey was especially critical of Dr. Rogers’ comparing human sexual intimacy to the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Rev. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, recently retired bishop of the Church of England’s Diocese of Rochester, spoke on theological differences between Christianity and Islam. The bishop cited Yale scholar Lamin Sanneh, a convert from Islam, who argues that the Bible, in contrast to the Quran, has an innate “translatability,” and therefore impels believers to shape their own cultures. The Bible’s very plasticity invites engagement with each new culture rather than retreat.
The Rev. Mario Bergner, an Anglican priest and former college drama teacher, described his journey out of homosexuality and into a new life as the married father of five. Speaking of how online porn presents a new challenge to Christians, he confessed that he has a lock on his own computer that is monitored by his wife and others to whom he is accountable.
Other plenary speakers highlighted the importance of marriage and the need for churches to confront the divorce culture and the growing epidemic of cohabitation.
Michael and Harriet McManus, founders of Marriage Savers, urged churches to help couples prepare for marriage. Churches in more than 200 cities have committed themselves to a common marriage preparation program.
The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, preached at the closing Eucharist on how God removes layer upon layer of sin from Christians’ lives in order to set them free.
Next year’s conference will be in honor of the Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina and a member of Mere Anglicanism’s steering committee.
(The Rev.) Peter C. Moore
Posted on: January 25, 2010
What do 250 Anglicans talk about when they gather in one of the most majestic antebellum ecclesiastical structures in the South?
They talk about sex, but also about broader social questions. The theme for this year’s Mere Anglicanism conference, which met on Jan. 21-23, was “Human Identity: Gender, Marriage, and Sexuality — Speculation or Revelation?” The annual Charleston-based conference, which moved this year from the Cathedral of St Luke and St. Paul to the larger St. Philip’s, addressed modern culture from the perspective of balanced, traditional, biblically based Anglican theology.
Participants discussed how the institution of marriage is struggling amid a sexually permissive society. Statistics show that today the number of cohabiting couples has risen 600 percent since the 1970s. Gay marriage, while still disapproved of by the majority of the population, has become legal in several states and is increasingly accepted by mainline churches, including the Episcopal Church.
Paul McHugh, a professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that scientific research has not established any genetic causation for homosexual orientation. When asked if his paper might appear in The American Journal of Psychiatry, he smiled and said, “No.” Americans, he said, have become such victims of the “politics of deviance” that objective scholarship is brushed aside in favor of what is deemed to be politically correct.
Robert Gagnon, an associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, addressed the argument that St. Paul condemned only exploitative or pederastic homosexual behavior and he knew nothing of homosexual orientation or partnerships among peers. Dr. Gagnon argued that both were well- known in ancient Greece and Rome, and — while tolerated — were often condemned even by pagan writers.
Edith Humphrey, the William F. Orr professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, critiqued the writings of three theologians: Carter Heyward, Sarah Coakley and Eugene F. Rogers, Jr. Dr. Humphrey was especially critical of Dr. Rogers’ comparing human sexual intimacy to the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Rev. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, recently retired bishop of the Church of England’s Diocese of Rochester, spoke on theological differences between Christianity and Islam. The bishop cited Yale scholar Lamin Sanneh, a convert from Islam, who argues that the Bible, in contrast to the Quran, has an innate “translatability,” and therefore impels believers to shape their own cultures. The Bible’s very plasticity invites engagement with each new culture rather than retreat.
The Rev. Mario Bergner, an Anglican priest and former college drama teacher, described his journey out of homosexuality and into a new life as the married father of five. Speaking of how online porn presents a new challenge to Christians, he confessed that he has a lock on his own computer that is monitored by his wife and others to whom he is accountable.
Other plenary speakers highlighted the importance of marriage and the need for churches to confront the divorce culture and the growing epidemic of cohabitation.
Michael and Harriet McManus, founders of Marriage Savers, urged churches to help couples prepare for marriage. Churches in more than 200 cities have committed themselves to a common marriage preparation program.
The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, preached at the closing Eucharist on how God removes layer upon layer of sin from Christians’ lives in order to set them free.
Next year’s conference will be in honor of the Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina and a member of Mere Anglicanism’s steering committee.
(The Rev.) Peter C. Moore
Christopher Johnson on pecusa sartorial splendor
From Midwest Conservative Journal (you'll need to go there for the pics):
Most people remember where they were and what they were doing when they first saw this now-legendary picture of Katharine Jefferts Schori’s most famous bad vestment display. No doubt, phrases like, “Welcome to Episcopal Burger, may I take your order?” and “The Presiding Bishop’s head is currently experiencing technical difficulties, please stand by,” among a great many others, immediately ran through your mind. You probably think that the Presiding Bishop reached the apogee of horrible liturgical vestment taste here and that she cannot possibly outdo herself.
Most people remember where they were and what they were doing when they first saw this now-legendary picture of Katharine Jefferts Schori’s most famous bad vestment display. No doubt, phrases like, “Welcome to Episcopal Burger, may I take your order?” and “The Presiding Bishop’s head is currently experiencing technical difficulties, please stand by,” among a great many others, immediately ran through your mind. You probably think that the Presiding Bishop reached the apogee of horrible liturgical vestment taste here and that she cannot possibly outdo herself.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
GEORGIA: Former Evangelical Seminary President Preaches at Liberal Bishop's Consecration
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
January 25, 2010
In a move that is sending shockwaves among evangelical Episcopalians across the country, the former Dean of Trinity School for Ministry (TSM) preached the official sermon at the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Scott Anson Benhase, the 10th bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia on Saturday, a bishop known for his liberal views on human sexuality.
The Very Rev. Paul Zahl is the former President and Dean of the evangelical Trinity School for Ministry (TSM) in Ambridge, PA. Benhase was a priest in the Diocese of Washington before becoming bishop. On his staff was an openly gay man. In his sermons Benhase has affirmed his beliefs in same-sex rites and the practice of open communion.
Benhase and Zahl are said to be close personal friends. Benhase was ordained and consecrated by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Twenty three Episcopal bishops attended the consecration.
"I was shocked when I heard this," one Episcopal bishop told VOL. "It sends precisely the wrong message. Jefferts Schori will exploit this to her advantage."
"At a time when evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are either leaving The Episcopal Church or coalescing into groups like Communion Partners, this sends a signal that all is well in TEC when it is not," an orthodox priest told VOL.
"What in heaven's name was he thinking when he agreed to do this?" asked another priest.
Personal friendship aside, Benhase is no lover of the theology of Zahl. If the new bishop continues the lawsuit against Christ Church, Savannah, seeking to win back the property from the rector and parishioners, it will send very mixed signals to liberals and evangelicals alike over sexuality and property lawsuits.
"For a former president of an evangelical seminary to endorse and embrace a man whose theology is at odds with his own and the historic Christian faith on sexuality gives the impression that for some evangelicals at least, sexuality issues can now be regarded as second tier and can be dismissed for the greater cause of unity. That simply won't happen," said an orthodox priest.
Zahl was not available for comment and there was no copy of his sermon. When a VOL reporter called his home in Winter Garden, Florida, she was advised that he preaches without a printed text.
Benhase replaces the outgoing Rt. Rev. Henry I. Louttit, who is retiring after serving 15 years as bishop of the diocese.
END
www.virtueonline.org
January 25, 2010
In a move that is sending shockwaves among evangelical Episcopalians across the country, the former Dean of Trinity School for Ministry (TSM) preached the official sermon at the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Scott Anson Benhase, the 10th bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia on Saturday, a bishop known for his liberal views on human sexuality.
The Very Rev. Paul Zahl is the former President and Dean of the evangelical Trinity School for Ministry (TSM) in Ambridge, PA. Benhase was a priest in the Diocese of Washington before becoming bishop. On his staff was an openly gay man. In his sermons Benhase has affirmed his beliefs in same-sex rites and the practice of open communion.
Benhase and Zahl are said to be close personal friends. Benhase was ordained and consecrated by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Twenty three Episcopal bishops attended the consecration.
"I was shocked when I heard this," one Episcopal bishop told VOL. "It sends precisely the wrong message. Jefferts Schori will exploit this to her advantage."
"At a time when evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are either leaving The Episcopal Church or coalescing into groups like Communion Partners, this sends a signal that all is well in TEC when it is not," an orthodox priest told VOL.
"What in heaven's name was he thinking when he agreed to do this?" asked another priest.
Personal friendship aside, Benhase is no lover of the theology of Zahl. If the new bishop continues the lawsuit against Christ Church, Savannah, seeking to win back the property from the rector and parishioners, it will send very mixed signals to liberals and evangelicals alike over sexuality and property lawsuits.
"For a former president of an evangelical seminary to endorse and embrace a man whose theology is at odds with his own and the historic Christian faith on sexuality gives the impression that for some evangelicals at least, sexuality issues can now be regarded as second tier and can be dismissed for the greater cause of unity. That simply won't happen," said an orthodox priest.
Zahl was not available for comment and there was no copy of his sermon. When a VOL reporter called his home in Winter Garden, Florida, she was advised that he preaches without a printed text.
Benhase replaces the outgoing Rt. Rev. Henry I. Louttit, who is retiring after serving 15 years as bishop of the diocese.
END
An early report on the Glasspool consents
from The Lead by Jim Naughton
In our unofficial, and probably incomplete tally, Canon Mary Glasspool of Maryland has received support from 15 of the 20 dioceses that have voted on whether to consent to her election as suffragan bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles. We aren't putting out calls, just receiving information on occasion from sources we trust, so if you can add to our list, please do.
Standing Committees voting yes:
California
Chicago
Delaware
East Tennessee
Hawai'i
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Northern Michigan
Pennsylvania
Rochester
San Joaquin
Texas
Vermont
Wyoming
Standing Committees voting no
Dallas
Georgia
Lexington
Tennessee
West Texas
Revised to delete Rhode Island as a supporting diocese per Bill Locke's comment. We've also added Massachusetts and deleted Maryland per emails and comments.
In our unofficial, and probably incomplete tally, Canon Mary Glasspool of Maryland has received support from 15 of the 20 dioceses that have voted on whether to consent to her election as suffragan bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles. We aren't putting out calls, just receiving information on occasion from sources we trust, so if you can add to our list, please do.
Standing Committees voting yes:
California
Chicago
Delaware
East Tennessee
Hawai'i
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Northern Michigan
Pennsylvania
Rochester
San Joaquin
Texas
Vermont
Wyoming
Standing Committees voting no
Dallas
Georgia
Lexington
Tennessee
West Texas
Revised to delete Rhode Island as a supporting diocese per Bill Locke's comment. We've also added Massachusetts and deleted Maryland per emails and comments.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Nigerian bishop abducted
from The Lead by Torey Lightcap
The Rt. Rev. Peter Imasuen, bishop of the Diocese of Benin (in Edo State) in the Anglican Church of Nigeria, has been kidnapped, different sources there are reporting.
In addition to serving as bishop, Imasuen is also listed as Chairman of the Edo State chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria, though his name is not mentioned in any such capacity on the CAN web site.
[Bear in mind that this is breaking news, and that information can come overnight from Africa in a scattershot style. Nigeria is six hours ahead of the U.S. Eastern Time Zone.]
From This Day Online:
Imasuen was abducted in front of his official residence, Bishop Court, at Iyaro area in Benin City, at about 12:30p.m. while returning from church service.
According to investigations, he was said to have been trailed by the kidnappers from the St. Matthew Cathedral located along Sakponba Road, where he conducted a church service.
Witnesses disclosed that the suspected kidnappers, who wielded sophisticated weapons, forced their way into the Bishop Court and attacked the securityman on duty.
From PUNCH:
The abduction of the cleric occurred shortly after the withdrawal of the soldiers attached to the Joint Military Task Force in the state, codenamed “Operation Thunderstorm.”
Operation Thunderstorm is the special security outfit put in place by Governor Adams Oshiomhole, to checkmate the alarming spate of abductions and violent crimes in the state last year.
The bishop was said to have been abducted on his way to his residence at the Iyaro area of the city while returning from the Sunday church service at St. Mathew Cathedral, Sakponba Road, Benin.
Nigerian Compass:
Before [the withdrawal of Operation Thunderstorm], the joint security outfit in the state was said to have kept armed robbers and kidnappers at bay. There was protest by labour unions and civil society groups in the state capital last week, following the sudden withdrawal of the soldiers by the military on the orders of the Minister of Defence, General Godwin Abbe.
From an older post at the blog Not the same stream, which has a lot on the enormity of the conflict in the Diocese of Benin:
The Diocese of Benin in the Anglican Church of Nigeria seems a troubled place. And I was intrigued to find they have an official Dir. Of Security/Protocol, the Revd Canon Nosa Ben-Shallom. I wonder how many other Dioceses in the Communion have a director of security?
But I guess they need it. In October 2008 police protection was sought apparently because Igbo worshippers wanted exclusive control of a Church in Benin City....
The Rt. Rev. Peter Imasuen, bishop of the Diocese of Benin (in Edo State) in the Anglican Church of Nigeria, has been kidnapped, different sources there are reporting.
In addition to serving as bishop, Imasuen is also listed as Chairman of the Edo State chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria, though his name is not mentioned in any such capacity on the CAN web site.
[Bear in mind that this is breaking news, and that information can come overnight from Africa in a scattershot style. Nigeria is six hours ahead of the U.S. Eastern Time Zone.]
From This Day Online:
Imasuen was abducted in front of his official residence, Bishop Court, at Iyaro area in Benin City, at about 12:30p.m. while returning from church service.
According to investigations, he was said to have been trailed by the kidnappers from the St. Matthew Cathedral located along Sakponba Road, where he conducted a church service.
Witnesses disclosed that the suspected kidnappers, who wielded sophisticated weapons, forced their way into the Bishop Court and attacked the securityman on duty.
From PUNCH:
The abduction of the cleric occurred shortly after the withdrawal of the soldiers attached to the Joint Military Task Force in the state, codenamed “Operation Thunderstorm.”
Operation Thunderstorm is the special security outfit put in place by Governor Adams Oshiomhole, to checkmate the alarming spate of abductions and violent crimes in the state last year.
The bishop was said to have been abducted on his way to his residence at the Iyaro area of the city while returning from the Sunday church service at St. Mathew Cathedral, Sakponba Road, Benin.
Nigerian Compass:
Before [the withdrawal of Operation Thunderstorm], the joint security outfit in the state was said to have kept armed robbers and kidnappers at bay. There was protest by labour unions and civil society groups in the state capital last week, following the sudden withdrawal of the soldiers by the military on the orders of the Minister of Defence, General Godwin Abbe.
From an older post at the blog Not the same stream, which has a lot on the enormity of the conflict in the Diocese of Benin:
The Diocese of Benin in the Anglican Church of Nigeria seems a troubled place. And I was intrigued to find they have an official Dir. Of Security/Protocol, the Revd Canon Nosa Ben-Shallom. I wonder how many other Dioceses in the Communion have a director of security?
But I guess they need it. In October 2008 police protection was sought apparently because Igbo worshippers wanted exclusive control of a Church in Benin City....
TECism - ECUSA's Heresy
from Anglican Curmudgeon by A. S. Haley
ECUSA uses as its expert in its church property litigation Dr. Robert Bruce Mullin, who teaches the history of American religion and other subjects at General Theological Seminary in New York. He has filed two declarations in support of ECUSA's and Bishop Gulick's motion for partial summary judgment in the Fort Worth litigation, of which the first gives his version of ECUSA's history (the second deals with the history of the Diocese of Fort Worth). Much of the response (download link here) recently filed by ECUSA/Bishop Gulick in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals (in the mandamus proceedings to review District Judge Chupp's refusal to strike the pleadings filed in the name of the "Diocese of Fort Worth" and its Corporation by attorneys hired by Bishop Gulick) depends on Professor Mullin's first declaration. Before discussing the response itself, therefore, I would like to take a closer look at what Dr. Mullin is saying, and its implications for ECUSA's ongoing litigation over church properties.
Professor Mullin engages repeatedly in a rhetorical fallacy which I have mentioned in these pages before. The original Greek name for it is synecdoche: it means "mistaking the part for the whole" (or vice versa). In the context of ECUSA, it has become such a feature of the Episcoleft's worldview that it may be said to amount to a full-blown heresy, or false belief. It is particularly well set off by today's Gospel reading, from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (ch. 12):
12:12 For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body – though many – are one body, so too is Christ. 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit. 12:14 For in fact the body is not a single member, but many. 12:15 If the foot says, “Since I am not a hand, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that. 12:16 And if the ear says, “Since I am not an eye, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that.12:17 If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part would exercise the sense of smell? 12:18 But as a matter of fact, God has placed each of the members in the body just as he decided. 12:19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 12:20 So now there are many members, but one body.
Paul makes the point that many individual members make up the one body of Christ, just as different members make up the body. In exactly the same way, there are currently 106 dioceses (plus four candidate dioceses) which make up the Episcopal Church (USA). Being well-trained in the school of Greek rhetoric, Paul has no trouble distinguishing the parts from the whole: "If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part would exercise the sense of smell?" There can be no synecdoche for Paul; he is far too skilled to fall into that trap.
Now fast-forward some two thousand years. The powers that be at 815 Second Avenue have taken synechdoche, as I say, to the level of a full-blown heresy. Indeed, I propose to dub it the "TEC" heresy (in which TEC could be said to stand for "Total Episcopal Claptrap"). Uniquely, however -- apart from all the previous "isms" of church heresy -- TECism can be clearly expressed in a single, simple mathematical inequality: it teaches that
106 + 4 < "TEC"
Or, said in an equivalent way, "TEC" > 106 +4.
At this point most mathematicians would object, and say that since 106 + 4 = 110, therefore "TEC" must stand for a number that is greater than 110. TECism, however, goes beyond mere mathematics: we are talking of a full-blown, separate religion, by which the abstraction which is "TEC" is considered as a deity of its own, exercising powers and capabilities beyond that of any single diocese, or group of dioceses -- which in the end, after all, must act through mere mortals. Not so with "TEC". Thus it would be even more mathematically accurate to write the equation as: TEC >> 106 + 4 (meaning "TEC is very much greater than 106 + 4").
And just why does this constitute a heresy? Begin with the fact that it is a claim about a religious body that is made up of its individual members. Recall what Paul says, a little further on in the chapter quoted earlier: "Instead, God has blended together the body, giving greater honor to the lesser member, so that there may be no division in the body, but the members may have mutual concern for one another. If one member suffers, everyone suffers with it. If a member is honored, all rejoice with it." (1 Cor. 12:24b-26.) Thus the body is completely dependent on each of its members -- the lesser along with the greater. It is not true to say that the body is "greater than" the sum of its parts, because the body can be nothing other than the sum of its parts. Without any one of its parts, the body cannot function as it should, and is thereby diminished.
Not so with TECism. Just read the following passage from Professor Mullin's declaration linked earlier (this is a summary paragraph [no. 145] at the end):
"The General Convention - with its House of Bishops and House of Clerical and Lay Deputies - represents the highest authority within the Church. It determines the Book of Common Prayer and who shall be bishops in the Church. Its legislation instructs on education, clerical responsibilities, rules for ordination, discipline, and many other vital matters. Over the history of the Church, it has been the final authority. The relationship of the General Convention to the Constitution of the Church is fundamentally different from the relationship of the Federal Government to the U.S. Constitution. The General Convention was the author of the Constitution and alone has the power to amend it."
According to Professor Mullin, there is this abstraction, which he calls "General Convention", which does everything in the Church, from drafting the Church's own Constitution, to selecting bishops and instructing on education, clerical responsibilities and rules for ordination. But just what is this "General Convention?
It is made up of the delegations and bishops from individual member dioceses. It is no "supreme executive", having a continuous existence and single mind that remains coherent and uniform over time, like an individual person. Instead, General Convention completely reconstitutes itself every three years -- for a period of just ten days at most. The General Convention of the moment is not bound by any prior Convention, and cannot itself bind any future Convention.
Because General Convention can act only through its deputies and bishops, it is, correctly speaking, simply a collection of individuals. It "acts" or "decides" by taking votes. Usually they are simple voice votes, but on more important matters they are roll call votes by each order in each diocese. (Only the House of Bishops acts at all times by majority vote of its members, who constitute a single order in the Church.) Nevertheless, even when voting by orders, the overall concept of General Convention is that a concurrence by the majority of the member dioceses is necessary for any action or decision to be taken.
Professor Mullin's analysis, by way of contrast, replaces the members of an unincorporated group with an abstract, impersonal entity that is supposedly superior to the group itself, and that supposedly exercises supreme powers over that group. But as we have just seen, this "entity" is nothing other than what you and I would call a "majority."
Think about it for a moment: unincorporated groups can only act through majorities of their members. If Bill and Jane and Mary and Tom and Bob and Cathy and Jim all come together in a group, how can they decide on what their rules are? The first thing they have to do is enter into a contract with each other whereby they each agree to abide by certain rules. This contract is called either a "Constitution" or "Articles of Association". The document spells out what things may be decided by majority vote, and what things have to be decided by a supermajority (or perhaps even a unanimous) vote. At a minimum, it will spell out what kind of notice is required for members to vote on changes, and how many members will constitute a quorum to vote on proposed changes.
It may also, as an option, provide for officers of the group, and delegate to them certain powers and duties in the name of the group. (Note that ECUSA's Constitution does not provide for any "officers" of the Church other than the Presiding Bishop -- to whom it assigns no specific duties, responsibilities or functions. By implication from the title, what the Presiding Bishop does is to preside -- over General Convention, when both Houses are meeting in joint session, and over the House of Bishops when it is not. The Canons add a few specific functions, such as being the Church's "Chief Pastor and Primate" -- but with no primatial authority over other bishops or clergy.)
Assuming that the group designates no representative officers to speak or act on its behalf, the only way the group can do or decide anything is by taking a vote of its members. Each member then represents him- or herself, and if enough of them agree in accordance with the Articles, then the group is said to "decide" to do x. But that is just rhetorical shorthand for saying that "a majority of the members voted to do x." The dissenters, if any, are free not to join in whatever x is -- for example, if the group votes to endorse a specific position, the dissenters are free to publicize that they do not go along with the majority. And if the disagreement is strong enough, the dissenters are free to disaffiliate from the group: just as the law protects a person's freedom of association, so it also protects that person's freedom to dissociate (because the one is the obverse of the other). There is no voluntary association that has any constitutional means of preventing a member from leaving.
It is only the TECism heresy that makes "TEC" into some monolithic organization whose members are forever bound to it, as the States are to the Union (at least, after the Civil War). But the Union, unlike ECUSA, is not a voluntary association. It is a creature of sovereign governments who have indissolubly joined together and fused their sovereignty into a single sovereignty at the national level, while retaining (as to their citizens) their own sovereignty at the State level. No diocese alone is a sovereign government, and no combination of them together can create a sovereignty of its own. This is particularly true of a religious organization, where only God Himself is sovereign.
Professor Mullin thus rewrites ECUSA's history, to make it appear as though throughout there was this single sovereign entity, "General Convention", ruling supreme over the whole Church and making consistent decisions throughout its history. There is no recognition of how the various Conventions over the years differed from one another, and took differing positions -- some of which were at odds with the Constitution and Canons adopted by previous Conventions.
Even now, we have General Convention 2009 presuming to wink at the institution of blessings of a same-sex civil marriage (in those States that recognize such unions) as a kind of "generous pastoral response" to those couples, which is nevertheless completely contrary to the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer regarding the blessings of a civil marriage. Needless to say, no single General Convention alone has any power to alter the Book of Common Prayer -- which is a point that again undercuts the heresy of TECism. For the General Convention which meets three years later and ratifies a change to the BCP is not the same General Convention as the one that first authorized the change to be sent out to the respective dioceses for their consideration. Different people make them up, and even a deputy who represents the same diocese at successive Conventions can change his or her mind, and vote one way the first time, and the opposite way the second time.
The most that can be said of ECUSA's 220-year-old history is that various majorities of various General Conventions assembled over the years have approved various provisions in the Constitution and Canons, which are always subject to change by future Conventions, acting again through particular majorities in accordance with the rules for voting.
Once Professor Mullin's declaration is analyzed in this light, and each bald assertion is carefully recast to reflect what was actually going on at the time, the whole edifice he has so blithely erected crumbles into smithereens. Indeed, the very fact that such a heresy could be put forth in a court of law by a single individual who claims to represent the "whole Episcopal Church" -- without any proper procedures or preliminary deliberations by the membership to appoint him as their legal representative -- is itself a demonstration of the falsity of TECism, as I have observed before. Imagine the Pope allowing some minor bishop to come into court without any authority from him whatsoever, and to presume to speak on behalf of the entire Roman Catholic Church. It could never happen, and that is why the Roman Catholic Church is truly hierarchical, while ECUSA is not.
ECUSA uses as its expert in its church property litigation Dr. Robert Bruce Mullin, who teaches the history of American religion and other subjects at General Theological Seminary in New York. He has filed two declarations in support of ECUSA's and Bishop Gulick's motion for partial summary judgment in the Fort Worth litigation, of which the first gives his version of ECUSA's history (the second deals with the history of the Diocese of Fort Worth). Much of the response (download link here) recently filed by ECUSA/Bishop Gulick in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals (in the mandamus proceedings to review District Judge Chupp's refusal to strike the pleadings filed in the name of the "Diocese of Fort Worth" and its Corporation by attorneys hired by Bishop Gulick) depends on Professor Mullin's first declaration. Before discussing the response itself, therefore, I would like to take a closer look at what Dr. Mullin is saying, and its implications for ECUSA's ongoing litigation over church properties.
Professor Mullin engages repeatedly in a rhetorical fallacy which I have mentioned in these pages before. The original Greek name for it is synecdoche: it means "mistaking the part for the whole" (or vice versa). In the context of ECUSA, it has become such a feature of the Episcoleft's worldview that it may be said to amount to a full-blown heresy, or false belief. It is particularly well set off by today's Gospel reading, from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (ch. 12):
12:12 For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body – though many – are one body, so too is Christ. 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit. 12:14 For in fact the body is not a single member, but many. 12:15 If the foot says, “Since I am not a hand, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that. 12:16 And if the ear says, “Since I am not an eye, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that.12:17 If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part would exercise the sense of smell? 12:18 But as a matter of fact, God has placed each of the members in the body just as he decided. 12:19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 12:20 So now there are many members, but one body.
Paul makes the point that many individual members make up the one body of Christ, just as different members make up the body. In exactly the same way, there are currently 106 dioceses (plus four candidate dioceses) which make up the Episcopal Church (USA). Being well-trained in the school of Greek rhetoric, Paul has no trouble distinguishing the parts from the whole: "If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part would exercise the sense of smell?" There can be no synecdoche for Paul; he is far too skilled to fall into that trap.
Now fast-forward some two thousand years. The powers that be at 815 Second Avenue have taken synechdoche, as I say, to the level of a full-blown heresy. Indeed, I propose to dub it the "TEC" heresy (in which TEC could be said to stand for "Total Episcopal Claptrap"). Uniquely, however -- apart from all the previous "isms" of church heresy -- TECism can be clearly expressed in a single, simple mathematical inequality: it teaches that
106 + 4 < "TEC"
Or, said in an equivalent way, "TEC" > 106 +4.
At this point most mathematicians would object, and say that since 106 + 4 = 110, therefore "TEC" must stand for a number that is greater than 110. TECism, however, goes beyond mere mathematics: we are talking of a full-blown, separate religion, by which the abstraction which is "TEC" is considered as a deity of its own, exercising powers and capabilities beyond that of any single diocese, or group of dioceses -- which in the end, after all, must act through mere mortals. Not so with "TEC". Thus it would be even more mathematically accurate to write the equation as: TEC >> 106 + 4 (meaning "TEC is very much greater than 106 + 4").
And just why does this constitute a heresy? Begin with the fact that it is a claim about a religious body that is made up of its individual members. Recall what Paul says, a little further on in the chapter quoted earlier: "Instead, God has blended together the body, giving greater honor to the lesser member, so that there may be no division in the body, but the members may have mutual concern for one another. If one member suffers, everyone suffers with it. If a member is honored, all rejoice with it." (1 Cor. 12:24b-26.) Thus the body is completely dependent on each of its members -- the lesser along with the greater. It is not true to say that the body is "greater than" the sum of its parts, because the body can be nothing other than the sum of its parts. Without any one of its parts, the body cannot function as it should, and is thereby diminished.
Not so with TECism. Just read the following passage from Professor Mullin's declaration linked earlier (this is a summary paragraph [no. 145] at the end):
"The General Convention - with its House of Bishops and House of Clerical and Lay Deputies - represents the highest authority within the Church. It determines the Book of Common Prayer and who shall be bishops in the Church. Its legislation instructs on education, clerical responsibilities, rules for ordination, discipline, and many other vital matters. Over the history of the Church, it has been the final authority. The relationship of the General Convention to the Constitution of the Church is fundamentally different from the relationship of the Federal Government to the U.S. Constitution. The General Convention was the author of the Constitution and alone has the power to amend it."
According to Professor Mullin, there is this abstraction, which he calls "General Convention", which does everything in the Church, from drafting the Church's own Constitution, to selecting bishops and instructing on education, clerical responsibilities and rules for ordination. But just what is this "General Convention?
It is made up of the delegations and bishops from individual member dioceses. It is no "supreme executive", having a continuous existence and single mind that remains coherent and uniform over time, like an individual person. Instead, General Convention completely reconstitutes itself every three years -- for a period of just ten days at most. The General Convention of the moment is not bound by any prior Convention, and cannot itself bind any future Convention.
Because General Convention can act only through its deputies and bishops, it is, correctly speaking, simply a collection of individuals. It "acts" or "decides" by taking votes. Usually they are simple voice votes, but on more important matters they are roll call votes by each order in each diocese. (Only the House of Bishops acts at all times by majority vote of its members, who constitute a single order in the Church.) Nevertheless, even when voting by orders, the overall concept of General Convention is that a concurrence by the majority of the member dioceses is necessary for any action or decision to be taken.
Professor Mullin's analysis, by way of contrast, replaces the members of an unincorporated group with an abstract, impersonal entity that is supposedly superior to the group itself, and that supposedly exercises supreme powers over that group. But as we have just seen, this "entity" is nothing other than what you and I would call a "majority."
Think about it for a moment: unincorporated groups can only act through majorities of their members. If Bill and Jane and Mary and Tom and Bob and Cathy and Jim all come together in a group, how can they decide on what their rules are? The first thing they have to do is enter into a contract with each other whereby they each agree to abide by certain rules. This contract is called either a "Constitution" or "Articles of Association". The document spells out what things may be decided by majority vote, and what things have to be decided by a supermajority (or perhaps even a unanimous) vote. At a minimum, it will spell out what kind of notice is required for members to vote on changes, and how many members will constitute a quorum to vote on proposed changes.
It may also, as an option, provide for officers of the group, and delegate to them certain powers and duties in the name of the group. (Note that ECUSA's Constitution does not provide for any "officers" of the Church other than the Presiding Bishop -- to whom it assigns no specific duties, responsibilities or functions. By implication from the title, what the Presiding Bishop does is to preside -- over General Convention, when both Houses are meeting in joint session, and over the House of Bishops when it is not. The Canons add a few specific functions, such as being the Church's "Chief Pastor and Primate" -- but with no primatial authority over other bishops or clergy.)
Assuming that the group designates no representative officers to speak or act on its behalf, the only way the group can do or decide anything is by taking a vote of its members. Each member then represents him- or herself, and if enough of them agree in accordance with the Articles, then the group is said to "decide" to do x. But that is just rhetorical shorthand for saying that "a majority of the members voted to do x." The dissenters, if any, are free not to join in whatever x is -- for example, if the group votes to endorse a specific position, the dissenters are free to publicize that they do not go along with the majority. And if the disagreement is strong enough, the dissenters are free to disaffiliate from the group: just as the law protects a person's freedom of association, so it also protects that person's freedom to dissociate (because the one is the obverse of the other). There is no voluntary association that has any constitutional means of preventing a member from leaving.
It is only the TECism heresy that makes "TEC" into some monolithic organization whose members are forever bound to it, as the States are to the Union (at least, after the Civil War). But the Union, unlike ECUSA, is not a voluntary association. It is a creature of sovereign governments who have indissolubly joined together and fused their sovereignty into a single sovereignty at the national level, while retaining (as to their citizens) their own sovereignty at the State level. No diocese alone is a sovereign government, and no combination of them together can create a sovereignty of its own. This is particularly true of a religious organization, where only God Himself is sovereign.
Professor Mullin thus rewrites ECUSA's history, to make it appear as though throughout there was this single sovereign entity, "General Convention", ruling supreme over the whole Church and making consistent decisions throughout its history. There is no recognition of how the various Conventions over the years differed from one another, and took differing positions -- some of which were at odds with the Constitution and Canons adopted by previous Conventions.
Even now, we have General Convention 2009 presuming to wink at the institution of blessings of a same-sex civil marriage (in those States that recognize such unions) as a kind of "generous pastoral response" to those couples, which is nevertheless completely contrary to the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer regarding the blessings of a civil marriage. Needless to say, no single General Convention alone has any power to alter the Book of Common Prayer -- which is a point that again undercuts the heresy of TECism. For the General Convention which meets three years later and ratifies a change to the BCP is not the same General Convention as the one that first authorized the change to be sent out to the respective dioceses for their consideration. Different people make them up, and even a deputy who represents the same diocese at successive Conventions can change his or her mind, and vote one way the first time, and the opposite way the second time.
The most that can be said of ECUSA's 220-year-old history is that various majorities of various General Conventions assembled over the years have approved various provisions in the Constitution and Canons, which are always subject to change by future Conventions, acting again through particular majorities in accordance with the rules for voting.
Once Professor Mullin's declaration is analyzed in this light, and each bald assertion is carefully recast to reflect what was actually going on at the time, the whole edifice he has so blithely erected crumbles into smithereens. Indeed, the very fact that such a heresy could be put forth in a court of law by a single individual who claims to represent the "whole Episcopal Church" -- without any proper procedures or preliminary deliberations by the membership to appoint him as their legal representative -- is itself a demonstration of the falsity of TECism, as I have observed before. Imagine the Pope allowing some minor bishop to come into court without any authority from him whatsoever, and to presume to speak on behalf of the entire Roman Catholic Church. It could never happen, and that is why the Roman Catholic Church is truly hierarchical, while ECUSA is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)