Something for the Beginning of Holy Week

from Stand Firm by Sarah
[Hat tip: Timothy Fountain]

"For we who still stand on the peak of pride, when now we have begun to sense something of the fear of eternity, it is fitting that we fall down in penitence. And when we lie there, simply and humbly acknowledging our infirmity, we are ordered through the consolation of the divine word to rise to brave deeds."

Gregory the Great, 540 - 604
Homily on Ezekiel 2:1-2

DioSC: St. Andrews Mt. Pleasant Votes to Leave TEC

from Stand Firm by Greg Griffith:

St. Andrew's in Mt. Pleasant, the largest parish in the Diocese of South Carolina, just completed its vote on whether to leave the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina. Rector Steve Wood writes on his blog:

This morning at 7.15 am the Vestry of St. Andrew’s Church ~ Mt. Pleasant met and unanimously passed the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the resolution unanimously adopted by the Vestry on March 28, 2010 for this church corporation, parish, and congregation to withdraw from and sever all ties with The Episcopal Church in the United States and to transfer its canonical residence to the Anglican Church in North America or another province of the worldwide Anglican Communion be ratified by the members of this church corporation.


The Parish then met in a Special Meeting at 12.15 pm for the purpose of ratifying and concurring with this decision of the Vestry to withdraw from The Episcopal Church.

The preliminary vote results will be posted at the receptionist’s desk in the lobby of the Ministry Center by 2.00 pm, Monday, 29 March 2010. The certified results will be posted at the same location by 3.00 pm, 2 April 2010, for a period of one week.

I will offer a bit of commentary tomorrow once the preliminary vote results are made known.

St. Andrew's is taking extensive measures to ensure the validity of the process. Wood adds:

Due to the nature of the process we are undertaking it is necessary that certain objective standards/criteria are met. So, for instance, the parish mailing we did two weeks ago was printed, assembled and mailed (with day/time stamp photo accompaniment) by an outside mailing house. Similarly today we have secured a professional parliamentarian to preside at our parish meeting, and, we have secured an accounting firm to distribute, collect and validate each ballot cast.

Grant LeMarquand’s Simply Stunning 10-Minute Summary of the Conservative Position on Homosexuality

from Stand Firm by Sarah Hey:

Dr. LeMarquand received his ThD from Wycliffe College; he is the Academic Dean and Associate Professor of Biblical Studies and Mission at Trinity School for Ministry. From his bio: "Grant's research interests are Pauline Epistles; Synoptic Gospels; the Bible and mission; the New Testament and the Roman imperial world; non-Western, especially African, theology and biblical exegesis; and African church history."

I really wish I could just excerpt the entire three pages and post it here, but you will have to go to the link at the Trinity Seminary [website] and read the rest for yourself.

Imagine, for a moment, your being assigned to the same task. You must, in ten minutes, summarize the conservative position on same-gender non-celibate sexual relationships in front of a group of your own church's "leaders" who are largely hostile to your position, and also in majority persons who do not believe the Gospel,despite affectations otherwise. Many of them are deconstructionists, and therefore innately dishonest and manipulative sophists. Among them are a woman -- the head leader -- who has publicly pronounced against the Gospel repeatedly, as well as engaged in vicious canonical abuses and illegalities, along with scores of lawsuits. What would you say?

Right off the bat, Dr. LeMarquand acknowledges the inability of his words to persuade or influence the vast majority of persons in the room -- just as those of us who are peons in blogland acknowledge the same thing with revisionists. We simply don't share enough of the foundational beliefs in common to be persuasive on either side. So why then does one speak?

This is a brave ten minutes and my hat's off to Dr. LeMarquand:

First of all, let me say that I would not be honest if I said how happy I am to be with you. I am more than aware that the majority of you in the room today, as much as you may welcome me personally, will not pleased with the message that I have come to bring. The process which our theological panel has been through has been congenial, and I can say that all of us – on both sides of this question of same-sex marriage – have come away with new friends and with respect for one another. But we did not enter into this project with joy in our hearts and a song on our lips. Most of us would have preferred to spend a few days chewing glass than going through this work. For someone, such as myself, on the conservative side of this question to be here now, is a bit confusing. I will say things that most of you will find unconvincing and many of you may find offensive. I do this not because I am foolish (although that may be true), or because I am a glutton for punishment, but simply as a witness to what I, and my traditionalist colleagues on the panel, believe to be the truth.

I have heard it said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. That is, however, exactly what I will be doing for the next minutes – not providing any new insights or fresh thinking but, as straightforwardly as possible, saying the same old thing one more time.

I am also aware that because this time is being spent on this issue, there is no time to discuss the outrageous events in Jos, Nigeria where Anglican Christians are literally being slaughtered in their beds. Something is wrong with our priorities.

1. The conservative position as set forth in our essay and in our response to the paper of the liberal side is that, according to scripture, the Christian tradition and human reason reflecting on scripture, tradition and the order of God’s creation, genital sexual activity is to be expressed only between one man and one woman who are joined together in a covenantal bond of marriage. The purposes of such bonds include mutual help and comfort, the procreation, care and nurture of children, and the restraint of sin. This institution was ordained by God, as we see in the stories of Genesis 1 and 2, as a way in which human beings image God in the world (“God created human beings in his own image...male and female he created them” Gen. 1:27). In the epistle to the Ephesians we are similarly told that the marital union between a man and a woman reflects the love of Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32). Unions other than marital unions between one man and one woman (be they pre-marital, extra-marital, homosexual, polyamorous, polygynous, polyandrous, or any other union) are in themselves disordered and sinful. We have no doubt that God loves, redeems and uses people who are in such unions. We do not believe
those unions themselves to be God’s desire for his people, and we do not believe that the Church should bless such unions or ordain to any ministry those in such unions.

2. The conservative argument for this position is, first of all, based on scripture. It was not our contention that the traditional argument rests entirely on the seven texts in scripture which speak (all of them negatively in some way) about homosexuality. Those texts are discussed in our paper, and I will not repeat the exegesis which can be found there. More importantly, we believe our position to be shaped by the entire story of God’s dealing with humanity as this is given to us in the canon. What we say as a Church about the marriage, therefore, will also say volumes about our Church’s attitude and approach to scripture. It is the conservative contention that the story of the Bible is not just illustrative of something we know from some other source, whether cultural, or personal intuition. Although the liberal side attempts to use scripture as one way of grounding their argument, we believe that their attempt has failed, that they cannot argue that same-sex marriage is a fulfillment of scripture, that their argument is in fact against the plain sense of scripture, and that it reads some parts of scripture in ways that make them (as the XXth of the XXXIX Articles puts it) “repugnant” to other parts of scripture. This is not a biblicist or fundamentalist argument. We are aware of the cultural, literary and theological diversity in scripture, but we also affirm a unity by which those of who are ordained have vowed to shape our lives.

3. Our argument also attempts to buttress our reading of scripture with arguments from natural law. We see these arguments as second-order arguments which help us to understand the reason for the biblical story – scripture says what it does about the goodness of marriage between a man and a woman because that is the good way that God has given us for the good order of the world. In this argument we seek nothing more than to say that scripture moves with the grain of creation, rather than against it.

4. In discussing the witness of scripture we must also mention a subject not as well developed (as Dr. Charry has pointed out) in our essay, that is the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit who “leads us into all truth” (John 16:13). It is our joy that the Holy Spirit does not simply lead us arbitrarily into new and contradictory revelations, but that the Spirit always bears witness to the Son in a way that does not contradict the plain sense of scripture. In our own tradition Richard Hooker bore witness against both the Roman Church of his day and against Protestant “enthusiasts” who claimed to have new revelations which were contradictory to scripture. In spite of their assertion to the contrary, we discern a similar pattern of language about the Spirit in the liberal paper, which claims that the new pattern of marriage which they call “expansionist” is being offered to the Church by the Spirit who has “contrived with social change” to bring about a new understanding. Rather than scripture constraining our feeble hearts and minds as we read scripture, the liberal side asserts that we must be constrained by what is taken as the self-evident experience of same-sex couples and by liberationist trends in our culture.

Dan Martins Comments on the Theology of the Fall [and the inane theology on the HOBD listserve]

from Stand Firm by Sarah Hey:

Father Martins is a priest in the diocese of Northern Indiana and all I have to say is "preach it, brother!"

From a T19 comment:

Some of you who follow HoB/D may have noticed a discussion of the theological notion of the Fall. Somebody mentioned Down’s Syndrome as an example of something that is a sign of the Fall (as a sort of rhetorical avatar of homosexual orientation, in response to the RC notion of “intrinsic disorder”). It sparked a bit of a firestorm… . I thought such theological muddle-headedness merited some response, which I share herewith:

I think we’re perhaps talking past each other through an imprecise definition of terms. Yes, humankind is created in the image of God, and all of creation was deemed by God as “very good.” This much we get from Genesis, and is, as far as I can tell uncontested. Yet, the witness of Holy Scripture (largely through texts attributed to St Paul, but not exclusively) and the tradition of Christian worship and theology (of which St Augustine is one of the primary explicators, but not the only one) is that sin, evil, and death entered “the world” (i.e. not just human nature, but the entire created order). The manner in which evil was introduced is shrouded in mythical narrative and symbol (of which Genesis 3 is the primary text, but there is also the narrative from Jewish mythology [picked up by early Christian writers] of “Lucifer’s” rebellion against God and that “fallen” angel then being the impetus behind the serpent in Genesis). But the upshot of it all is the notion that the “very good” creation is nonetheless distorted, bent, out of balance, off kilter. This distortion (which is well-described by Lewis both in Mere Christianity and in his “space trilogy”) affects every person, and makes us all both victims and perpetrators (in varying proportions in different people). This is what is meant by the “Fall.” Because of the Fall, children get leukemia. Because of the Fall, young women get raped and murdered while jogging in a park. Because of the Fall, tectonic plates shift and buildings collapse in Haiti. (Yes, geologists have another explanation, which is absolutely true, and not at all in opposition to the theological notion of the Fall.) It is never God’s will that a child get leukemia. It is never God’s will that a young woman get raped and murdered. It is never God’s will that natural disasters destroy human life and property. These things are all a result of the Fall and are what God means to redeem, and the instrumental means of that redemption is what we’re celebrating next week. To say that any element of human experience (such as Down’s Syndrome) is a sign of the Fall is in no way to judge or condemn persons who are touched by that experience. Quite the opposite, in fact: It is a witness to God’s redemptive purposes. The fact that Down’s Syndrome children are so often a fount of love is a testimony to God’s redemptive activity. God NEVER wills Down’s Syndrome. God did not invent Down’s Syndrome. God never “sends” a Down’s Syndrome child into a family. But God the Opportunist is eminently capable of piggy-backing on what is by any measure a tragedy, a sign of the Fall, and hijacking that tragedy to be a means of grace and a sign of redemption. That, in fact, IS the gospel. That is the distilled essence of the Good News, and sharing that news IS the mission of the Church, because it is God’s own mission.

THINKING OUT LOUD

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

After further review, I’m starting to believe that as far as the Anglican situation in South Carolina is concerned, something else might be in play:

"The Episcopal Church (TEC) this past Friday, March 12, filed in the US Supreme Court a brief supporting dissident Episcopal parishioners in the Pawley’s Island area. The brief seeks a writ of certiorari in an effort to overturn the South Carolina Supreme Court’s unanimous September 2009 decision allowing the parish church of All Saints, Waccamaw, to break away from TEC.

"The South Carolina court’s unanimous decision last September was the oldest still-pending court dispute involving the application of the Dennis Canon of The Episcopal Church to a parish’s property. In a wide-ranging decision involving All Saints Parish Church, Waccamaw, which serves the Pawleys Island area, the South Carolina court held that All Saints Parish Church, Waccamaw, is an independent congregation and the true owner of its property outside the jurisdiction of TEC. The property includes the original parish church which is more than 200 years old.

"The appeals brief was filed with the US Supreme court on a petition for a writ of certiorari. Certiorari is a procedure by which a party can ask the US Supreme Court in its discretion to review a case. [The Supreme Court receives thousands of certiorari petitions each year and routinely denies all but about one hundred.] If the court decides to accept the case, it will grant a writ of certiorari. Thus, the US Supreme Court still has to rule whether it will take the case. The All Saint’s parties have until April 23 to file a reply brief on this question."

That [bracketed] part is important; this appeal is a long shot, one which Anglican conservatives recently lost. Granted, Hail Marys sometimes work but the odds against TEO in this particular case have to be considered enormous.

Stay with me.

Since the South Carolina Supreme Court has already demonstrated that it will not prostrate itself before the Dennis Canon and since writs of certiorari are difficult things to obtain, a legal move against the Diocese by TEO would be extremely risky.

If TEO sues South Carolina for not suing some parish that wants to throw in with AMiA and TEO loses, Episcopal Organization authority over South Carolina effectively comes to an end and the Diocese is free to do anything it wants.

South Carolina could vote to join ACNA, it could vote to pursue an independent existence all its own or it could vote to maintain its present ambiguous relationship with TEO, secure in the knowledge that it was effectively independent anyway.

Mrs. Schori’s only option would seem to be her usual “abandonment of communion” scam, deposing Lawrence, firing the Standing Committee, appointing sock puppets in their places and hoping like hell that the South Carolina courts would be fearful of inserting itself into questions of “church governance.”

Thing is, they already have. By deciding the Pawley’s Island case in the way that they did and by deciding it unanimously, the South Carolina Supreme Court has indicated that it won’t automatically and robotically defer to TEO’s arguments.

And the difficulties in obtaining a writ of certiorari from the US Supreme Court suggest that if Mrs. Schori wants to “rebuild” the Episcopal Organization in South Carolina, it will be the liberals who will be renting worship space wherever they can find it.

TLC Editorial: Canonically Permissible Graciousness

From The Living Church via VirtueOnline:

Posted on: March 26, 2010

In September 2009, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told journalist Denis O’Hayer that she would be willing to consecrate another openly gay or lesbian bishop because of her canonical responsibility to “take order for the consecration of bishops, when duly elected” (Canon I.2.3–4).

By December, the Presiding Bishop participated in a meeting of the newly christened Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. That body issued a brief statement affirming the Archbishop of Canterbury’s plea that the Episcopal Church continue to show the gracious restraint asked of it by the Windsor Report.

Now these matters are no longer abstractions. The Presiding Bishop intends to preside at the consecration of the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool on the afternoon of May 15 in Long Beach, Calif.

To put the matter another way, on May 15 the Presiding Bishop intends to do the very thing that the Joint Standing Committee — on which she serves — urged the Episcopal Church not to do. Many readers will remember that the Episcopal Church has walked this path before. In October 2003 the Primates Meeting urged the Episcopal Church not to proceed with consecrating Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire. Weeks later, Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold III served as Bishop Robinson’s chief consecrator.

Granted: Bishops do not set the Episcopal Church’s policy unilaterally. Granted: A majority of bishops and standing committees gave their consent for consecrating Canon Glasspool as a bishop suffragan. Granted: Canon Glasspool will become Bishop Glasspool on May 15, regardless of which three bishops serve as her primary consecrators.

Nevertheless, even a rudimentary grasp of Jesus’ admonition to “let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’” (Matt. 5:37) highlights a conflict between the Episcopal Church’s rhetoric of reconciliation and autonomous actions. Leaders of other Anglican provinces have good reason to think that for some Episcopalians, words have become symbol systems in which today’s yes becomes tomorrow morning’s no.

The gravity of Canon I.2.3–4 notwithstanding, five bishops have been consecrated since 2007 without the Presiding Bishop’s hands touching their heads: John C. Bauerschmidt, Paul E. Lambert, Mark J. Lawrence, Gregory H. Rickel, and Dabney T. Smith. Presiding Bishop Griswold likewise delegated many consecrations during his nine-year tenure.

We ask the Presiding Bishop to consider exercising her own gracious restraint on May 15 by not presiding at the consecrations of Mary Glasspool and of Canon Glasspool’s sister bishop-elect, the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce. We do not ask this lightly. We ask it as a simple acknowledgment that, even if the Episcopal Church has decided the time for gracious restraint has passed, the importance of graciousness in dissent never expires.

SHOWDOWN

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Mark Lawrence has three words for Katharine Jefferts Schori. Bring it on:

"I come now to the reason why this Annual Diocesan Convention was postponed. If the challenges I mentioned above were not enough for a diocese to face in a downturned economy, since our Special Convention in October, which addressed the many theological challenges before us, an entirely new challenge has surfaced: A constitutional question about the ability of a diocese to govern its common life in a way that is obedient to the teaching of the Bible, the received heritage of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, and in accordance with The Constitution & Canons of The Episcopal Church. In December of 2009 our Chancellor, Mr. Wade Logan, was finally informed by a local attorney that he had been retained by the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor. In a subsequent series of letters he presented himself as “South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church” and requested numerous of items of the Bishop and Standing Committee, as well as information regarding parishes in this diocese. This way of presenting himself fails to acknowledge that this diocese is the only recognized body of The Episcopal Church within the lower half of South Carolina. There is no other representative or ecclesiastical authority of The Episcopal Church here but our Bishop and Standing Committee. Furthermore, this was carried out without the Presiding Bishop even so much as calling me. Subsequently, the Presiding Bishop has stated publicly, as well as to privately to me, that the retaining of this attorney was in keeping with the mutual litigation in the Pawleys Island case of All Saints’ Parish versus All Saints’, the Diocese of South Carolina and TEC. But as I had pointed out to her privately, and Bishop Ed Salmon made clear during a brief discussion at the recent House of Bishop’s Meeting at Camp Allen, in the prior circumstances the Diocese and The Presiding Bishop’s Office were partners in a law suit in which both were named by the other party. This present matter is quite different. The retaining of counsel now has all the signs of an adversarial relationship—one of monitoring through a non-constitutional and non-canonical incursion how a Diocesan Bishop and Standing Committee may choose to deal with its priests and parishes.

"What is astonishing is that this Diocese of South Carolina, while seeking to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, historic Anglicanism and the received teaching of the Anglican Communion as expressed through its four Instruments of Unity, as well as to The Book of Common Prayer, and adhering to The Constitution & Canons of this Church, has experienced incursions not authorized by these very constitution and canons. A reference here to Powel Mills Dawley’s book in the Church Teaching Series, The Episcopal Church and Its Work, may be helpful for many. Writing of the Presiding Bishop’s authority, Professor Dawley notes, “[He] exercises no direct pastoral oversight of his own, nor does he possess visitatorial or juridical powers within the independent dioceses of the Episcopal Church.” The absence of the Presiding Bishop having juridical powers within an independent diocese makes the hiring of an attorney by the Presiding Bishop’s office an unauthorized act. The stated purpose for her incursion is the protection of Church property. Whether there are other more disruptive reasons for such non-canonical intrusion can only be surmised. But in addressing only this stated purpose we can summarize that the Presiding Bishop has decided that the best way to resolve the challenges TEC faces over profound questions of doctrine, morality and discipline is to interpret the so called Dennis Canon as demanding that every diocese institute litigation in the secular courts with parishes that decide to depart, therein exercising coercive power to the fullest extent of the law regardless of the local issues, or the decisions of the diocesan bishop and Standing Committee.

"All this is a profound overreach of the Presiding Bishop’s authority. Certainly I know there are many within TEC who strongly disagree with my theological commitments, and regardless of how monolithic people may believe this diocese to be, there are those within this diocese who share their disagreement. I acknowledge this and respect it. Even more, some do not like the strong statements I have made criticizing certain actions and resolutions successive General Conventions have affirmed, as well as the steps that many leaders of the “national” Church have taken, tearing the fabric of the Anglican Communion. But the thing we are confronting now is not a challenge of this nature. It is a challenge to how for over two hundred years The Episcopal Church has carried out its mission and ministry. It is one of the ironies of this time that we in a diocese like South Carolina, which has been one of the most vigorous critics of the “national” church, should be the ones that are called to defend the polity of TEC—to defend the way Episcopalians have for so long carried out their mission. But history is full of such paradoxes. In standing up and protecting our autonomy or independence as a diocese in TEC, in protecting the diocesan bishop’s authority to shepherd the parishes and missions of his diocese, and in defending the bishop and, in his absence, the Standing Committee as the Ecclesiastical Authority, we are in fact defending how TEC has carried out its ministry and mission for these many years. Every Diocesan Bishop, every Standing Committee, indeed every Episcopalian ought to know that if this is allowed to stand, that if The Presiding Bishop and her chancellor are allowed to hire an attorney in a diocese of this Church, to look over the shoulder of any bishop or worse dictate to that Bishop or Standing Committee how they are to deal with the parishes and missions under their care, imposing upon them mandates or directives as to how they disburse or purchase property then we have entered into a new era of unprecedented hierarchy, and greater autocratic leadership from the Presiding Bishop’s office and his or her chancellor. It may then be the case that a chancellor who has heretofore been only a counsel of advice for the PB can now function, without election, confirmation or canonical authority, as the de facto chancellor of the Church, exercising power not authorized by this Church and therein dictating to the dioceses of this church how they shall deal with their parishes and property.

"Recently, the Presiding Bishop and I have had a respectful conversation about this matter, during which she asserted once again what she has stated publicly on many occasions. That she has responsibility for the whole Church. That the property of The Episcopal Church must be protected and this is one of her duties. But if so, it is a duty that she has assumed, not one stated in the Constitution & Canons, nor assumed by any previous Presiding Bishop. The PB’s role is to guide the work that the several dioceses perform together as may be voted upon by General Convention. It is not to direct the work or ministry of the independent dioceses that make up the Episcopal Church. That has always been the role of the Bishop of the Diocese and the various elected bodies of the local diocese. The Standing Committee, the Bishop and perhaps the Board of Trustees of the local diocese alone have charge in various ways over these matters of property. As a case in point, should a diocese decide to purchase property to plant a congregation, or alienate or sell the property it possess, it seeks no further authority than itself for such action. So too if a diocese chooses to close a congregation there is no higher authority than the bishop. The Presiding Bishop’s decision to hire counsel in South Carolina leads us all into such precarious waters that every diocese and bishop in this Church ought to be concerned, lest the polity and practice of TEC be changed by a precedent without constitutional or canonical authority. As I have said to our various deanery gatherings, and as I stated to the Presiding Bishop, precedent unchallenged may establish practice and practice unchallenged in time may turn to policy. Therefore, we have a constitutional and canonical obligation to demand the removal of her legal counsel. Especially is this fitting in that her public defense of her position was that they had previously had counsel in this diocese to assist in the Pawleys Island law suit. Since the case is now finished there should be no further reason for such a retainer. Unfortunately, after lengthy and respectful conversation, the Presiding Bishop and I stand looking at one another across a wide, deep and seemingly unbridgeable theological and canonical chasm. At present both of us have signaled a willingness to continue the conversation even if it requires phone conversations from vastly different area codes."

And with that, Mark Lawrence has just crossed the Rubicon. Will Lawrence’s stance cost him? Of course it will; with this message, the Bishop has just painted a bullseye on his chasuble and his tenure as an “official” Episcopal bishop can now be measured in months rather than years.

Should Lawrence’s line in the sand have happened sooner? Absolutely.

But one of the things that irritates me the most about Anglican conservatives is this need to continually argue about what should have happened, where the line in the sand should have been drawn.

Guess what? The line wasn’t drawn where we think it should have been drawn and we’re not back there anymore, we’re here. So what say we deal with actual reality rather than the reality we think should have been?

Is Mark Lawrence going to get run? No doubt whatsoever. Does South Carolina have some difficult choices ahead? Yup. Will they make the correct call?

That remains to be seen.

WELL-OILED MACHINE

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Things are apparently running so smoothly in his diocese, wherever that might be, that homosexual bishop Gene Robinson, who is the homosexual Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of As-If-It-Still-Matters-At-This-Point, has taken on a new gig:

"Today the Center for American Progress announced that the IX Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Who-Gives-A-Crap, the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson, has joined American Progress as a part-time Senior Fellow.

"Bishop Robinson will bring a well-respected religious perspective to framing and addressing various areas of public policy, including economic justice, immigration, LGBT rights, health care, and the environment.

“Bishop Robinson has demonstrated extraordinary leadership and courage during his decades serving the Episcopal Church as a pastor, and even longer being a champion of fairness and equality for the people of some state or other, Bishop Robinson isn’t sure, except that he thinks it might begin with a M or an N or something” said John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. “We are so pleased that his teachings will help inform our work.”

I might have changed some of the wording of that release.

DSC: 219th Diocesan Convention Approves All Resolutions

From the Diocese of South Carolina via TitusOneNine:

All resolutions previously proposed for the 219th Diocesan Convention were passed. Resolution 2 was passed with one ammendment further strenghtening its resolve.

Resolution R-1 2010 Convention

Offered by: The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, The Very Rev. Peet Dickinson, The Rev. Jeff Miller, The Rev. Arthur Jenkins, The Rev. Canon Jim Lewis, The Rev . James Taylor, The Rev. Rick Luoni , The Rev. Karl Burns, The Rev. Greg Snyder, The Rev. Marshall Huey, The Rev. Louise Weld, The Rev. Jennie C. Olbrych, The Very Rev. Craige Borrett

Subject: Recognition of the Heritage and a proclamation of the Identity of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina

RESOLVED, That this 219th Convention acknowledges that for more than three centuries this Diocese has represented the Anglican expression of the faith once for all delivered to the saints; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that we declare to all that we understand ourselves to be a gospel diocese, called to proclaim an evangelical faith, embodied in a catholic order, and empowered and transformed through the Holy Spirit; and be it further

RESOLVED, that we promise under God not to swerve in our belief that above all Jesus came into the world to save the lost, that those who do not know Christ need to be brought into a personal and saving relationship with him, and that those who do know Christ need to be taught by the Holy Scriptures faithfully to follow him all the days of their lives to the Glory of God the Father

Resolution R-2 2010 Convention

Offered by: The Standing Committee

Subject: Response to Ecclesiastical Intrusions by the Presiding Bishop

RESOLVED, That this 219th Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina affirms its legal and ecclesiastical authority as a sovereign diocese within the Episcopal Church, and be it further

RESOLVED, That this Convention declares the Presiding Bishop has no authority to retain attorneys in this Diocese that present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, and be it finally

RESOLVED, That the Diocese of South Carolina demands that the Presiding Bishop withdraw and terminate the engagement of all such legal counsel in South Carolina as has been obtained contrary to the express will of this Diocese, which is The Episcopal Church within its borders.

Resolution R-3 2010 Convention

Offered by: The Standing Committee

Subject: Addition of Canon XXXVII Of The Ecclesiastical Authority

The Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese is the Bishop. If there is no Bishop, the Standing Committee is the Ecclesiastical Authority. The Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese, with the advice and counsel of the Chancellor, is the sole and final authority with respect to any dispute concerning the interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of this Diocese and its interpretations shall be final and binding in all respects.

Resolution R-4 2010 Convention

Offered by: The Standing Committee

Subject: Amendment Canon XXX

Prohibiting the Desecration of Consecrated Buildings and the Alienation of Church Property Without Consent of The Ecclesiastical Authority and the Standing Committee
Resolved, that the following Section be added to Canon XXX.
Section 6. "It is within the power of the Ecclesiastical Authority of this Diocese to provide a generous pastoral response to parishes in conflict with the Diocese or Province, as the Ecclesiastical Authority judges necessary, to preserve the unity and integrity of the Diocese."

Explanation:

1. The actions of the Presiding Bishop’s office, now publicly acknowledged, have demonstrated a clear willingness and intent both to legally pursue congregations we consider parishes in good standing, and attempt to utilize diocesan resources to do so.

2. We’ve experienced now as a diocese, in the All Saints, Pawleys Island litigation, the destructive force of such litigation; how it has created animosities and divisions that are not easily healed. It has failed as a positive cohesive force for maintaining the unity of the church and has in fact had precisely the opposite effect. Christians are suing Christians (I Cor. 6:1-8); the reputation of the church is marred, and vital resources are diverted from essential Kingdom work. None of this is honoring to our Savior.

3. It has been the implicit understanding of this Diocese that the Bishop inherently has the authority to deal with such situations. The current practice of the Bishop to deal pastorally with parishes struggling with their relationship with the Diocese or Province must be given explicit canonical force. The discretion exercised by the bishop is the only way to successfully navigate the current challenges before us.

Resolution R-5 2010 Convention

Offered by: The Standing Committee
Subject: Removal of Canon XX Of Baskervill Ministries
Resolved, that Canon XX of the Diocese of South Carolina Canons be removed.

Explanation: With the consent of the Bishop, the original Baskervill Ministries and other attendant ministries were reorganized under the leadership and guidance of Holy Cross Faith Memorial parish. The Diocese is no longer responsible for the selection of board members.

Spirit of St. Paul Alive and Well in S. Carolina

From the Anglican Curmudgeon:

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010

The spirit of St. Paul is alive and well in South Carolina. The result shows up the hollowness and the thoroughly unbiblical character of ECUSA's "take no prisoners" litigation strategy, and raises the value of Mark Lawrence's stock higher than ever before.

StandFirm in Faith has published (with permission) an email from the rector of the Episcopal Church (USA)'s parish of All Saints Waccamaw in South Carolina. Some of its members had previously filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court, rendered last September, which held that the Dennis Canon was ineffective by itself to create any trust interest in Episcopal parish property in South Carolina, as I discussed in this earlier post.

The email discloses that the Episcopal parish of All Saints Waccamaw has reached an agreement with the AMiA parish of All Saints Waccamaw, which withdrew from ECUSA in 2003, and which had ultimately (in the South Carolina Supreme Court) prevailed in the lawsuit brought against it by the Episcopal parish, as well as in an earlier lawsuit brought against it by the Diocese of South Carolina and by ECUSA itself.

The significant news about this settlement is that there is no indication that ECUSA or 815 Second Avenue participated to the slightest degree in the resolution of the lawsuit. From my previous post about the appeal, recall that the posture of this case in the United States Supreme Court was as follows.

There had been two lawsuits before the South Carolina Supreme Court. The first, which began in 2000, was brought by All Saints Parish, Waccamaw against the Diocese and ECUSA to establish that it owned the title to its property notwithstanding (among other reasons) the Dennis Canon. A second suit was filed in 2005 by the vestry appointed by Bishop Salmon to replace the vestry of the parish that had voted to realign with the Anglican Mission in America, an affiliate of the Anglican Province of Rwanda. The two lawsuits were eventually consolidated for trial, and then ultimately for appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

As I explained, the petition for review filed by the ECUSA parish created some potential complexities for the relations between ECUSA and the Diocese of South Carolina, headed by Bishop Lawrence. The situation was further complicated by the fact that ECUSA itself chose not to file its own petition (or to ask for an extension, as did the parish) by the December 2009 deadline within which to ask the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

That failure left ECUSA only the option to file a separate brief in support of the petition for review (and not a petition in its own right), as I described in this earlier post. But a brief in support of somebody else's petition for review does not preserve the same rights as does a petition for review filed by a party to the judgment below. ECUSA's right to a review of the South Carolina decision, therefore, depended entirely on the merits of the petition filed by the parish.

Rule 12 (6) of the Supreme Court's Rules provides in part:
All parties other than the petitioner are considered respondents, but any respondent who supports the position of a petitioner shall meet the petitioner’s time schedule for filing docu ments, except that a response supporting the petition shall be filed within 20 days after the case is placed on the docket, and that time will not be extended.

Accordingly, because it did not file its own petition for review within the deadline, ECUSA was a "respondent" before the Supreme Court -- a "respondent in support of petitioner [All Saints parish]," to be exact. And now, because the petitioner All Saints (ECUSA) parish has agreed to settle with the respondent All Saints (AMiA) parish, that leaves ECUSA with no petition to support. Rule 46 (2) (a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides:

2. (a) A petitioner or appellant may file a motion to dis miss the case, with proof of service as required by Rule 29, tendering to the Clerk any fees due and costs payable. No more than 15 days after service thereof, an adverse party may file an objection, limited to the amount of damages and costs in this Court alleged to be payable or to showing that the moving party does not represent all petitioners or appellants. The Clerk will not file any objection not so limited.


By Rule 12 (6), ECUSA became a "respondent", and not a "petitioner" or "appellant". However, its position as a respondent was not adverse to the petitioner All Saints parish, within the meaning of Rule 46 (2) (a), because ECUSA filed its own brief in support of the petition filed by All Saints. From this it follows that the power to dismiss the petition for review belongs to All Saints (ECUSA) parish, and to that parish alone. It will be up to an "adverse party" to object to the motion to dismiss, and by the announced settlement, there will be no such objection filed.

Thus there will be no chance of the Supreme Court accepting review of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision (that chance was already minimal, anyway -- as ECUSA's own attorneys appeared to recognize). Upon the filing of the parish's motion pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Clerk will wait the required 15 days, and then will enter an order dismissing the case.

At that point, the decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court will become the the law in South Carolina: the Dennis Canon will be everywhere and forever ineffective, within the borders of that State, to create any kind of trust interest in any Episcopal parish in favor of either the Diocese of South Carolina -- or the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, for that matter. The Dennis Canon will, in short, be dead in South Carolina.

This fact of life will have several repercussions for the current witch hunt which the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA has been conducting against the Right Reverend Mark Lawrence and his Diocese. In the first place, it will completely remove, as the grounds for any charges of "abandonment of the communion of this Church", Bishop Lawrence's and his Diocese's failure to join in ECUSA's brief in support of the petitioning parish. For if ECUSA was unwilling to file its own petition within the prescribed time limits, so as to preserve its rights, then the Diocese can scarcely be faulted for failing to file a brief in support of the parish's petition by the required deadline -- since ECUSA's failure left the parish in complete control of the proceedings to seek review.

But the second and even more important repercussion will be that ECUSA's strategy of "take no prisoners" will have been rendered completely ineffective within the State of South Carolina (and its two Dioceses). Such a strategy depends entirely for its success upon the upholding of the Dennis Canon as having created a valid trust, and the South Carolina Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the Dennis Canon accomplishes no such purpose. From the date the petition for review is dismissed by the Supreme Court Clerk, ECUSA and its Presiding Bishop will be powerless to threaten parishes in the State with any sanctions for leaving, or realigning.

And finally, this end result will emasculate (in South Carolina, at least) ECUSA's outlandish claim to be a "second Church" in the State, separate and apart from the two Dioceses themselves. ECUSA and 815 will be unable thereafter to bring about a different result in any court in the State by citing the Dennis Canon. (Of course, as this commenter expresses, hope always springs eternal.)

And the converse of this observation will be a strengthening of the hand of Bishop Lawrence. For now we see, by the settlement as communicated, the wisdom of his announced policy of not trying to alienate any further the parishes which had already become alienated from ECUSA. I predict that the settlement in Waccamaw Neck, when its details become public, will bear out fully the wisdom of Bishop Lawrence's announced intention to lower the heat against realigning parishes, and those thinking about realignment -- and to deal with the problem as Christians, guided by the words of St. Paul. This development will, in its turn, further undercut 815's disastrous litigation strategy, and light the way to further and future settlements along the same lines, as I suggested some time ago might be possible in this post.

As an attorney, I am always happy when clients and their opponents agree to bury the hatchet. But as the Chancellor for an Episcopal Church, I am doubly happy when my fellow Christians see the wisdom in the words of St. Paul. And I am triply happy for all the good parishioners of the Diocese of South Carolina, who are most fortunate to have a godly bishop who is blazing the way for all other Episcopalians to follow -- and who (not deliberately, of course, but simply out of his sheer willingness to follow in the footsteps of St. Paul) is pointing up the un-Christianlike and scripturally invalid policies being followed by the Presiding Bishop.

Godspeed, Bishop Lawrence! Godspeed, the Diocese of South Carolina, and both of the parishes of All Saints Waccamaw! Blessings be upon you, now and unto all future generations, and may your light so shine before other Episcopalians that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father, which is in Heaven.

Posted by A. S. Haley at 5:37 PM

House of Bishops posts same-sex report(s)

from The Lead by John B. Chilton

Once again the Episcopal News Service is on top the story with a timely report:

The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops, concluding its six-day retreat meeting at Camp Allen in Navasota, Texas, has posted a draft of the long-awaited 95-page report titled "Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church" on the College of Bishops' website.

[Thanks, College, for giving Episcopal Cafe a prominent place on your links page.]
...
The House of Bishops had asked its theology committee in 2009 -- prior to the 76th meeting of General Convention -- to study the theology of same-gender relationships. In its report to the convention the committee said that the study would be "designed to reflect a full spectrum of views and to be a contribution to the listening process of the Anglican Communion, as well as to the discussion of this subject in our province." The committee said the study would be "a long-term, multi-step project that is designed to be completed in 2011."

Controversy developed in early June 2009 when Parsley initially declined to release the names of the theologians appointed by the committee to conduct the study. The names have since been released and the authors listed on the report....ENS notes that one blogging bishops pointed out that the HOB requested one study but got two papers with familiar opposing views. In the report these are given the labels, Liberal and Traditionalist.

From the preface of the report:

[A]fter much conversation, the eight theologians formed two affinity groups consisting of four theologians each and have prepared two main papers. One adheres to what it understands to be the church’s traditional ethical and sacramental teaching about marriage. The other revisits this teaching in order to call for the church’s recognition of faithful, monogamous same-gender relationships. Each affinity group has then prepared a formal response to the other’s work.

The Traditionalists:
John E. Goldingay, Fuller Theological Seminary
Grant R. LeMarquand, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
George R. Sumner, Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada
Daniel A. Westberg, Nashotah House

The Liberals:
Deirdre J. Good, General Theological Seminary
Cynthia B. Kittredge, Seminary of the Southwest
Eugene F. Rogers, University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Willis J. Jenkins, Yale Divinity School

The Editor:
Ellen Charry, Princeton Theological Seminary

Let the reading begin.

Archbishop Peter Akinola Completes Tenure

From CANA:

CANA Thanks Akinola for His 10 Years as the Primate of the Church of Nigeria

HERNDON, Va. (March 25, 2010) - The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) offered congratulations to the outgoing Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, on the completion of his ten-year term. During his tenure, the Church of Nigeria grew from 76 dioceses to 161, and doubled active membership from 10 million to 20 million — unprecedented growth for any province of the Anglican Communion. Archbishop Akinola founded CANA in 2005.

“Through courage and pastoral leadership, Archbishop Akinola has set a path forward for CANA and the worldwide Anglican Communion to stand firm in the good news of Jesus the Christ,” said CANA Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns.

“It has been my lot to serve this Church under God as Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate at the beginning and in the first decade of the twenty first century,” said Archbishop Akinola. “It has been a most challenging time for our faith. With general goodwill on the part of all our people and the loyal cooperation and active support of the Church’s leadership team, we have tried to reposition the church to be steadfast in facing and dealing with some of the challenges.”

“Locally and globally our church is able to champion the cause of orthodoxy, uphold and proclaim the unfettered gospel of salvation insisting uncompromisingly on the adequacy and supremacy of the word of God, written. We have contended for the faith. But I must admit that the battle is not over. Not yet.

“We thank God for the presentation of the Most Rev’d Nicholas Okoh as the new Primate of our Church. We believe God’s hand is upon him to shepherd us diligently to follow the Lord Jesus, the Christ who is the one true foundation of the Church, which He bought with His blood.”

A short video tribute for Akinola, entitled “Archbishop Peter Akinola: As For Me and My House” is available on YouTube at this URL: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O--OjdnfDZ8).

The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (http://www.CanaConvocation.org) is an association of orthodox Anglican congregations and clergy in North America that is a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, a community of 80 million people. CANA was originally established by the Church of Nigeria in 2005 to provide a means by which Anglicans living in the USA who were alienated by the actions and decisions of The Episcopal Church could continue to live out their faith without compromising their core convictions. CANA is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America, an Anglican province that includes about 800 congregations.

Autonomy

This is the word that is used ad nauseum by pecusa, but is it a word that should ever describe the Body of Christ? No. We are bound to each other by more than bonds of affection; in the genuine Body of Christ we are bound together by God's Spirit. There is no possibility of autonomy in the Body of Christ. Autonomy is just another part of the false gospel that pecusa clings to and attempts to promote. Fortunately, many see through pecusa's thin veneer and more leave pecusa or die than join this nefarious organization.

Where do we go from here?

From the Fulcrum Leadership Team via TitusOneNine:

co-published with Church of England Newspaper (26 March 2010)

The bishops and Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church (USA) have consented to the election of Mary Glasspool as bishop suffragan in the diocese of Los Angeles. That consent sadly confirms that TEC is determined to ignore all the repeated appeals of the wider Communion and, in the closing words of The Windsor Report, ‘walk apart’.

Since that report in 2004, it has been clear that the moratorium on same-sex blessings was being ignored in a significant number of dioceses, despite assurances otherwise. It has, however, been possible to claim that TEC was strictly adhering to the Communion’s repeated requests for a moratorium on “the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges”. Such a claim is now impossible. We are now indisputably in a radically new situation. TEC as a body has determinedly, perhaps irrevocably, chosen autonomy over “communion with autonomy and accountability”.

It is important that this is not simply a matter of disagreement about biblical interpretation and sexual ethics although these are central and important. It is now very clearly also a fundamental matter of truth-telling and trust. In September 2007, at the Primates’ request and after meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, TEC bishops confirmed they would “exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion”. They made clear that “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons” were among such candidates.

When asked recently how they could therefore now proceed to confirm Mary Glasspool in the light of that assurance, one TEC bishop said this simply expressed where the bishops were in 2007 and they may be somewhere different now. At least where they are now is crystal clear. Both moratoria have been rejected. In addition, TEC is pursuing legal actions, with widespread concern its leadership intends aggressive action against the diocese of South Carolina which upholds the Communion’s teaching.

The key question is ‘what happens next?’. This week a Fulcrum statement declared, ‘Actions have consequences’. The first and most obvious consequence of this development is that TEC as a body has revealed it is incapable of signing the Anglican covenant. This is not simply because they have once again categorically rejected the pattern of life together that it articulates and the shared discernment it presupposes. The more serious and deep-rooted problem is TEC’s particular polity (which allows for confusion and assertion in the place of coherent policy and practice) and their understanding of how the Spirit leads them. These make TEC as a province incapable of making meaningful or credible commitments to the Communion about their future conduct. The only hope now is for TEC dioceses to reject TEC’s path by committing to the covenant and for such commitment to be recognised by the Communion.

But what about TEC and the current Communion? This emphatic further breaching of the bonds of affection shows that not only TEC’s promises about the future but its apologies and expressions of regret for the past are worthless. In particular, their 2006 regret relating to the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire - which the Primates accepted and which Windsor said “would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion” - is now shown to be either fraudulent or short-lived. If the Communion is committed to the Windsor and covenant vision of communion life and if the Communion is to keep wrestling with integrity in relation to its teaching and practice on sexuality then, despite the financial implications, it must now proceed in its common life without TEC.

The nature of the Communion’s structures at present is such that effecting this distancing will require clear and decisive action by the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the very least he needs to make clear that bishops participating in the May consecration in Los Angeles will thereby exclude themselves from being invited by him to participate in the Instruments or to represent the Communion in any form.

Unless he does this all that the Instruments have repeatedly said in relation to TEC’s conduct will be undermined. The sickness of TEC’s inability to say what it means and mean what it says to the rest of the Communion will then have infected the Instruments and will surely destroy the Communion. The fact the Presiding Bishop of TEC and Ian Douglas are on ‘The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ (which according to the proposed covenant will have a crucial role in monitoring the covenant’s functioning) only highlights the need for decisive action if the Communion and the covenant are to retain any credibility.

In fact, the situation is now such that it may be better for the Archbishop simply to state – as one of the Instruments and a focus and means of unity - that TEC as a body has rejected the Communion’s repeated appeals for restraint, made false promises, and confirmed its direction is away from Communion teaching and accountability. It has thereby rendered itself incapable of covenanting with other churches and made it unclear what it means when it claims to be in communion with the see of Canterbury and a constituent member of the Anglican Communion.

Although decisive action is necessary, Archbishop Rowan’s limited powers within the Communion and his laudable desire to keep on going the extra mile to enable dialogue mean many think it unlikely. Some long ago gave up on him. Many, however, both within the Church of England and the wider Communion (particularly in the Global South which meets next month) have been patient and sought to work with him by supporting the Windsor and covenant processes. They need now to make clear that unless he gives a clear lead then all that he and others have worked for since the Windsor Report and all that is promised by the covenant is at risk because of the new situation in which TEC has placed us.

Fulcrum Leadership Team

Letter to Nigerian Bishop-elect Nicholas Okoh

March 25th, 2010

To Archbishop Nicholas Okoh
Primate-elect of All Nigeria
Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)
Abuja
Nigeria

March 24 2010

Your grace.

Warm greetings in Christ from the United Kingdom.

On behalf of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (UK and Ireland) and
Anglican Mainstream we send you, both in writing and through our colleagues
Canon Dr Vinay Samuel and Canon Dr Chris Sugden, our warm greetings and
prayers as you are installed as Primate of all Nigeria on Thursday March
25th. We greatly appreciated your presence with us at the launch of FCA (UK
and Ireland), and have benefited from the work of the Theological Resource
Group of GAFCON which you chair.
We are very aware of the position to which God has called the Church of
Nigeria at this time, in Nigeria itself, in Africa and in the global
Anglican Communion. We rejoice in your continuing emphasis on mission and
evangelism. We are conscious also of the weight of expectations from your
Church and the global Communion on you personally as you lead this great
Church s you confront the challenges of HIV-Aids, economic and social
development and education in the midst of grievous persecution.

It might be asked: "Who is sufficient for these things? " We give thanks to
God that when he calls, he also equips, and promises His presence with us on
the journey. May the Lord go before you, your bishops, clergy and people as
a fire by night and a cloud by day.

We unite with brothers and sisters in Christ from all around the world in
praying for the Lord's anointing of you and his protection for you and your
family.

With our very warm greetings in Christ

Bishop Wallace Benn
Dr Philip Giddings
Rev Paul Perkin
Rev David Banting
Canon Dr Chris Sugden

H/t: Fr. Dick Kim

Bishops' theology committee publishes draft report on same-gender relationships

My understanding is that the bishop looked at a two page executive summary at their HOB meeting. ed.


Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church

from Thinking Anglicans by Peter Owen

The US Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has published a draft of the 95-page report titled “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church”. This is really two reports, one from the “Traditionalists” and one from the “Liberals”. Episcopal Life..


Via VirtueOnline:

CAMP ALLEN, TX: Bishops' theology committee publishes draft report on same-gender relationships

By Mary Frances Schjonberg,
March 24, 2010
Episcopal News Service

The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops, concluding its six-day retreat meeting at Camp Allen in Navasota, Texas, has posted a draft of the long-awaited 95-page report titled "Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church" on the College of Bishops.

"For a generation and more the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion have been engaged in a challenging conversation about sexual ethics, especially regarding same-sex relationships in the life of the church," Theology Committee Chair and Alabama Bishop Henry Parsley wrote in the report's preface. "The hope of this work is that serious engagement in theological reflection across differences will build new bridges of understanding."

The dark side of the DCNY

I was going through some papers yesterday and found a letter from Skip Adams dated September 6, 2007. In that letter Adams says:

"It is our intent to continue to support an Episcopal congregation in Vestal, housed in the the current St. Andrew's facility. To move forward with this ministry, you are required to vacate the three properties of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church by Sunday, October 15, 2007."

Do you see the timetable? We receive a letter from the bishop in the second week of September and he requires us to leave our church buildings including the rectory in four weeks time. Now, how does one find a house and close in thirty days? Is that reasonable? But that is what the bishop "required."

Below is a blog posting about Church of the Good Shepherd ("Dark Forces..."). In that posting that follows on postings from Fr. Matt Kennedy, his family was given a similar unreasonable time frame to depart the buildings of the Church of the Good Shepherd. This is the same church that the diocese recently sold to a Muslim group. The buildings of St. Andrew's were never used for another Episcopal congregation as the bishop says was the intent of the DCNY. They were sold to another church group.

Given Adams' mishandling of these two situations, the Fr. Bollinger and Ralph Johnson affair, the Thornfield closing, the sale of Church of the Good Shepherd to Muslims, the revolving door Canon to the Ordinary position (btw, in case you don't know, Karen Lewis is no longer the CatO of the DCNY), how is it that anyone has confidence in the leadership of this bishop?

A procedural error?

I've been told that the bishop of CNY sent a letter to the clergy about the deposed and arrested Ralph Johnson and couldn't help adding a few items about Fr. David Bollinger. In the letter Adams made a point about Fr. Bollinger not being exonerated by the ecclesiastical court of the diocese. Adams states that the case was dismissed because of a "procedural error." Let's examine this procedural error.

The so-called procedural error was the unwillingness of the bishop and his counsel to release to Fr. Bollinger the Shafer Report as instructed to do so by the ecclesiastical court. So, withholding evidence is a procedural error? I'm not a lawyer, but I'd think a better description might be an attempted obstruction of justice by the bishop and his lawyer. The court rightly ruled against the bishop because the bishop wasn't willing to abide by the court's ruling. Procedural error? More like a deliberate refusal to give due process to Fr. David Bollinger. The bishop compounds this lack of justice for Fr. Bollinger by continuing to pretend that he was doing the right thing in all this. Let's be clear - Skip isn't even on the right planet when it comes to doing the right thing in any of this with Fr. Bollinger or Ralph Johnson.

DCNY: Dark forces are at work

From the St. Barnabus Blog of Fr. Edward Tomlinson:


The ongoing saga of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, New York has much to tell us about the spiritual health of the Anglican church in North America. The saga began several years ago when the thriving congregation at the Good Shepherd decided to withdraw from the Episcopal Church because they could no longer stomach the liberal and non biblical direction which the national church was heading in.

There then began a bitter legal wrangle concering the ownership of the Church building. The Episcopal Church pumped a fortune into legal fees in order to claim that those wanting to depart were abandoning the faith of the church founders. They won the court case and were able to claim the property, funds and fabric of the church. What was deeply unpalatable at this stage was the manner in which the Diocese served very short notice on the priest, a family man with four children, to vacate the vicarage. Why was this so cruel? Because they had no need for the property prefering to leave it padlocked and empty than support a Christian family in crisis. For details of that sorry episode you can click here.

Rather wonderfully the Catholic church came to the rescue offering the abandoned congregation a place in which to worship. That congregation has since doubled, a clear sign of God’s blessing, wheras the church that remained has dwindled and died. Now for the really revealing part of this very shoddy episode….

…having claimed that those leaving were not able to uphold the desires of the church founders the Diocese of New York has spitefully sold the building, at a third of the cost the congregation were offering, to the Muslims! How truly shameful that the Episcopal authorities were so full of hatred and malice that they could stoop to such depths. This is undoubtedly the first ever instance of a major Christian body throwing a thriving congregation from their church building only to sell it to a non Christian organisation. Am I alone in thinking that those involved are exposed as being very little people, easily threatened and lacking in grace and charity? Why could they not allow the people to remain in the building they had maintained and cared for? Why did they refuse to even sell the building too them instead adding a legal caveat on the sale of the property barring the new owners from doing business with the original congregation? After all they did not need the building and could have supported a Christian presence for the community.

Thank goodness I have much, much more confidence in my own Diocese to behave much more honourably should such a situation ever arise. But let every reader ponder what this story teaches us. Those who powerfully roll out a feminist and pro-homosexual agenda in the Anglican church would prefer that Muslims occupy a house of prayer than orthodox Christians. That is what we are increasingly up against within the Anglican church and it is the reason I would echo +John Broadhurst’s claim that the devil is in residence amongst the Anglican authorities. But remember that this is ultimately a happy story for, despite every effort of the New York Diocese, the church of the Good Shepherd is growing and thriving. God provided when it was needed and the Gospel continues to be preached.

Hat tip: Fr. Dick Kim

Discipline TEC

From Anglican Down Under via TitusOneNine:

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010

One running theme in recent comments here, but also for a long time now on many blogs, is the plea to see some real discipline of TEC. Something which did not occur with any substance after 2003 (the closest was the suspension of TEC for one ACC meeting at which its suspended members were observers), and something which should now happen with the Glasspool confirmation. So the argument goes, and it is an argument with merit because the Glasspool confirmation has a deeper significance than being the confirmation of a partnered lesbian person to be a bishop. That deeper significance is this: following Gene Robinson's consecration a series of restrained decisions on the part of TEC's GC meant that there was plausible argument in response to calls to discipline TEC that TEC might not actually be walking apart from the Communion, the Robinson consecration being a temporary diversion from the one path of Anglican polity; now however TEC has effectively announced that no temporary diversion has taken place, it is walking apart from the Communion.

Actually I want to suggest it is walking apart from the Communion in two ways. The first is walking apart from the common direction in the Communion, that Anglican bishops who are neither single nor married are living contradictory to Scripture and tradition. The second is walking apart from an emerging direction that the Anglican Communion cannot remain as it is, essentially a meeting point of Anglicans, but must move forward to becoming a worldwide church. To me it is inescapable that a consequence of the Glasspool confirmation is confirmation that TEC under no circumstances will be beholden to any authority larger than itself and thus is deeply opposed to any movement of the Communion towards becoming a worldwide church.

While I do not see any time soon that the majority of Anglican churches will signal that they are walking with TEC re homosexuality, it is possible that TEC's actions will be acknowledged as highlighting the question of whether the Communion should become a church or not. At which point TEC could be joined by a number of other Anglican churches who for various reasons would prefer to assert autonomy over accountability.

Back to the possibility of discipline. Please challenge me if I have this wrong, but I see no meaningful way in which the Communion - not being at this time a worldwide church - can discipline TEC in a manner likely to yield a change in direction. Sure, some invites to meetings could be withdrawn, but I do not see that as effective discipline.

Besides which, I am not convinced that this is a situation where TEC should be disciplined. What they are doing is responsible, considered, adult decision making. It would be wise to allow TEC to follow their path and see whether it is fruitful or not in respect of the well-being of their future life. In short, they do not believe they are rebelling against God's Word, rather they are obeying it. If that is so they will be blessed; if not so they will be judged. But if the latter it does not require humans to enforce the judgement. As with many situations, judgement will work itself out as life unfolds. A possible clue as to how it is working out lies in this report. Of course TEC's defenders will vigorously challenge that take ... on all sides, however, some more time is required as to how this might pan out.

Meantime, in respect of the emerging direction that the Communion might become a worldwide church, we now have a paper by Michael Poon to consider. I shall try to find time to read it and reflect on it soon.

PS To head off one possible critique of my supporting this emerging direction, there is no necessity for a worldwide Anglican church to be more or less Roman in structure. We could, for example, be conciliar rather than papal. In fact it would be fairly simple for us to become a worldwide church: approve the Covenant, restructure the shambles of councils we do have into one world council!

POSTED BY PETER CARRELL AT 6:30 AM

TEO 3000

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Episcopal Organization? Meet your future:

"After making it through the harsh winter, people in Western North Carolina are looking forward to the warm sun of spring. Some are preparing to celebrate the season’s change with an ecumenical ritual."

You mean some kind of joint Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox thing? Nope.

"Members of Mother Grove Goddess Temple will celebrate at 7 p.m. Saturday with A Breath of Appalachian Spring: A Ritual in Celebration of the Spring Equinox, in the parish hall of the Episcopal Cathedral of All Souls in Biltmore Village."

And nothing says “Welcome, spring!” quite like a fake religion performing its strange ceremonies inside the cathedral of another fake religion.

"Saturday’s event is open to all faith traditions, said Byron Ballard, wiccan priestess and a member of the temple. Mother Grove “isn’t a wiccan group, though some of us are wiccans,” she said."

Noted.

“Mother Grove is an outgrowth of the work of several people in the goddess/earth religions community,” Ballard said. “Its goal is to create a permanent sanctuary, where people of all faith traditions may openly and safely celebrate the divine feminine, the goddess.”

This is badly needed what with all the witches the Christian right burns in the United States all the time. What are you looking at me like that for? You know it’s true.

Anyway, exactly how are they going to celebrate Katharine Jefferts Schori the divine feminine, the goddess? With “ancient” rituals like these.

"The celebration will consist of raising a circle, singing, “whistling up the wind” and flying prayers written on paper airplanes. Ballard will lead the ritual, explaining that it is a joyful expression of the beginning of spring and coming together as a community."

If I’m not mistaken, the pagan Celts used paper airplanes to pray to their gods. But why do all this in the first place?

"Jill Boyer is a co-founder and priestess with Mother Grove. She says she looks forward to celebrating “with my celebrants and community, having time to celebrate something that is very important to me and the ritual aspects themselves.”

B"oyer believes people have an ancient and human need for ritual and celebration in groups, and to acknowledge the changing of the seasons."

Inventing gods. Performing weird rituals devoid of meaningful content for no particular reason other than emotion. I’d say TEO’s just about there.

pecusa bishop's theological acumen: two pages on human sexuality

From the Bishop of Wyoming via TitusOneNine:

March 21, 2010

A Report from the House of Bishops, March 22, 2010

Dear Ones,

Greetings from Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas where we are now into our third full day of the House of Bishops meeting, a day of Sabbath on this Sunday. We have done quite a bit already and I wanted to update you on it. I arrived late Thursday evening. We officially began Friday at 3:00 p.m.. I had several meetings scheduled before the actual start. We began with the walkabouts with the 8 candidates for Suffragan Bishop for Federal Ministries. You may remember I have served on the Special Committee appointed by the Presiding Bishop for this election. It is good to see it get to this point. There were 6 candidates which the committee put forward, and two petition candidates. All were excellent. I was grateful for the walkabout as I learned a lot from it, and one candidate did, in fact, emerge for me. We have the election this week on Wednesday.

Saturday, we had the presentation by the Theology Committee and their report "Same Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church." I was a bit disappointed with the report itself, which was really simply two papers, one from the conservative viewpoint, and one from the progressive viewpoint. While they were good papers, the House of Bishops had asked for the committee to prepare "a" paper, not two. I am quite sure this will be published soon, if it is not available already out there somewhere. Still, it did provoke very good discussion, as did the report of the "Around One Table" results. This was a church wide study on the identity of the Episcopal Church. Saturday night were class dinners, and then our Sabbath began.

Sunday was mostly free, with Holy Eucharist at 10 a.m.. You may remember I sing in the choir, and so that was part of the day as well, under the able direction of Dent Davidson, who now lives in Chicago but we will always claim him, and he us. Bishop Rivera sends you all her love! It was great to see her and hug her neck!

Sunday night after dinner we had a fireside chat with the Presiding Bishop. Many topics were covered, and much shared but perhaps the most moving was the talk by Bishop of Haiti, Zache' Duracin, who I am blessed to say is at my table for this triennium. (We are at tables for our meeting, usually made up of five bishops, for the three years between each convention. My table has Bishop Larry Benfield of Arkansas, Bishop-Elect Andrew Waldo of Upper South Carolina, Bishop-Elect Ian Douglas of Connecticut, and Bishop Duracin.

Bishop Duracin shared with our group the day of the earthquake. It was so moving to hear his story. He had just left his car and was in his front yard, when the earthquake struck. He watched his house crumble before his eyes, with his wife and two girls still inside it. The girls came crawling out of the rubble just minutes after, basically unharmed, but his wife, although alive was trapped. Her leg was, and is, severely damaged. She is now under care in Tampa, Florida. He reported that his car, the one he had just left before the earthquake, was only unearthed this past Friday. He is a very grateful man, to be here, but also for all you have done, and many across this church. He is currently planning the reconstruction plans, and I have assured him we want to be part of that. Here is a picture, not the greatest but the best I could do, of him addressing the House during the fireside chat along with his interpreter.



Tomorrow we begin our two days discussing and learning about the Emerging Church. Karen Ward from our diocese arrived tonight with two musicians from COTA in Fremont. Also Stephanie Spellers from The Crossing in Boston, Tom Brackett from the Church Center Staff, and the two keynoters, Phyllis Tickle and Diana Butler-Bass. I will be introducing them all to the House tomorrow.

We also issued a statement regarding the assassination attempt of Bishop Barahona of El Salvador. That is just below.

I will report again at the end our time here.

Blessings to all of you,

+Greg

STANDING EIGHT COUNT

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Although I disagree with his decision to remain a part of the Episcopal Organization, I have to give Central Florida Bishop John Howe this much. My man is definitely not somebody you ever want to provoke. TEO Executive Council member Bruce Garner recently did just that and is spitting out teeth as I type this. Garner to Howe:

"Let’s be honest: Bishop Robinson did not drive anyone out of the church. Bishop-elect Glasspool will not drive anyone out of the church. In truth, neither will Kendall (Harmon) or the ABC (Rowan Williams). People will leave, just as they have always left, for whatever excuse suits them. I wish them well. I will keep a seat for them if they wish to return. But they have made decisions to leave of their own volition. Their exclusion is of their own doing."

Howe to Garner. Son? Is it okay if I fill you in on a few things? The fact is that we took a major hit because of Robbie and we took it pretty much immediately.

"That’s an interesting paragraph, Bruce. I concede the point: people make, and are responsible for their own decisions. But most of the people I know who have left TEC have believed they had no alternative for conscience sake.

"I was one of ten bishops invited to a two-day meeting with Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold in September 2003 following the election of the present bishop of New Hampshire (who I consider a friend). We learned that by that time - let alone what has happened since - there was massive fallout in the wake of the General Convention (which had confirmed Bishop Robinson’s election the previous month):

* In the Southeast alone: In one diocese seven congregations said they were leaving The Episcopal Church.

* In another, a five million dollar bequest that was to go to TEC was directed elsewhere.

* In still another, a 16 million dollar pledge over the next four years for the acquisition of new property was canceled.

* Capital Campaigns were put “on hold” or canceled.

* In one diocese, the Welcome Wagon stopped including brochures regarding The Episcopal Church because of popular protest.

* One bishop said he lost at least one family in every congregation and eighteen families in one of them.

* In many congregations across the country, wardens, members of vestries, and at least one rector resigned.

* At least one candidate for the priesthood told his bishop he could not go forward with his ordination.

* In one diocese 95% of one of the congregations quit TEC before General Convention even ended. That was all within the first month. Two-thirds of the 38 Provinces of the Communion now say they are in “impaired” or “broken” communion with TEC.

"We are now down to less than 700,000 ASA. We have spent - how much is it? $5M, $10M, some estimate $20M in litigation. We are now forcing out congregations who simply believe the Christian Faith as it has always been taught and cannot abide being part of what they believe is now an apostate Church…and selling their buildings to Muslims. I’m glad you will be keeping a seat for those who wish to return. I suspect it will not be many."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what they call a beatdown.

Episcopalians Are Becoming Indistinguishable from the Culture

from Anglican Curmudgeon by A. S. Haley

Over at the wonderful statistical blog Floating Sheep, they have been conducting some very interesting analysis using the relative frequency of certain terms used on Google search engines around the world. For example, they took the four terms "Jesus", "Allah", "Buddha" and "Hindu", and plotted the relative frequency with which those four terms showed up in searches from any one particular location. Where one term was more prominent than the other three, they placed a colored dot for that term at that point on a world map. (You can read more about their analysis technique here and here.) The result was a map that looked like this (click to enlarge):

[Go to Anglican Curmudgeon to view the maps.]

Note that the paucity of circles in Africa reflects only the lack of Internet presence there, and not a lack of religion as such. In contrast, however, note the dominance of Hinduism reflected in the dots of technologically advanced India -- here is a close-up map of the data for just Asia (again, click to enlarge):


The bloggers at Floating Sheep make these comments with regard to what can be seen on the above map:

The United Arab Emirates is a particularly interesting example. While officially a Muslim country, Indians make up the largest demographic presence and the dominance of references to Hindu (rather than Allah) is likely a reflection of this fact. Likewise the Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian archipelago (particularly the island of Java) illustrate the complexity of religious practice in this region. References to Buddha, Allah and Hindu are all in evidence on Java. Other examples include the predominately Buddhist nation of Sri Lanka with some Hindu areas to the North and the difference between Pakistan (more Allah) and India (more Hindu).

And here is a similar magnification of the map just for Europe, with the bloggers' comments below:


Looking at the [above] map of user-created religious references in Europe, it can been seen [that there] are a significant number of places (e.g. parts of Switzerland, Germany, the UK) in which there are more references to Buddha than any other religious terms. Likewise there are parts of Belgium and France with a dominant number of references to Allah, and parts of the UK with a dominant number of references to Hindu. (The cluster of Hindu references on the Estonian islands of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa is tied to a village named Hindu rather than religious practice). Also of note is the transition of religion as one moves eastward and southward with references to Allah becoming more prevalent in Muslim North Africa and Turkey. However, one can also see how this is far from monolithic with references to Jesus also sprinkled throughout this region as well as strong clusters in Israel/Palestine as well as within Armenia.

Having surveyed four world religions, the statisticians then began a closer examination of just Christianity itself. This time, the (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) search terms they used for the analysis were "Catholic," "Protestant," "Orthodox" and "Pentecostal." The resulting world map looks like this (click to enlarge):


One sees in this map how Catholics dominate the global scene of Christianity, including most of the United States, with Protestants predominating mainly in just the traditional areas that went with the Reformation. The anomaly of mostly-Catholic Brazil showing a significant number of Pentecostals and little Catholics is probably best explained by the fact that only English-language terms in Google searches were analyzed. ("Catholic" is spelled differently in English than it is in Portuguese and Spanish, while "Pentecostal" is not.)

The same analysis was broken out for a closer look at the branches of Christianity in Europe:


Here again, the arbitrary choice of search terms most likely skewed the visual presentation of data. Protestants in England refer to themselves as "Anglican", not as "Protestants", and so the map gives Catholics in England far more apparent prominence than they actually have.

Realizing that the same four search terms alone would not produce a satisfactory analysis of the data just from America, the researchers decided to broaden their categories significantly. They analyzed the American data from Google by using the following search terms: "Catholic", "Baptist", "Lutheran", "Methodist", "Orthodox", "Presbyterian", "Latter Day Saints", "Adventist", and then, just to test the validity of their technique, they added the two terms "Amish" and "Anglican" as well. (Why not "Unitarian", "United Church of Christ", or "Episcopal"? you ask. Well, wait and see.)

Here is the resulting map, which in many ways I find even more fascinating than the others:


Notice that the colors now are different: green no longer identifies Catholics, red is no longer the Orthodox, and blue is no longer Protestants (per se). Instead, on the above map, the Catholics are the light-blue circles, the Methodists are the red circles, and the Lutherans are the deeper-blue circles. It is the Baptists who are represented by the green circles -- and they show up mostly where one would expect, as do the Lutherans (deep blue) and the Mormons (bright lavender). Comparing this map to the one of America shown in the global map of Christianity above, where the use of just four categories gave an overwhelming visual advantage to the Catholics, shows the wisdom of the decision to break America down into many more sub-categories of Protestantism.

For example, look at how the Methodists (red) appear as a sort of buffer between the Baptists (green) to the south and the Lutherans and Catholics (deep and light blue, respectively) to the north. And under this technique, even the (light orange) Amish show up (they have computers?? -- apparently so, or else their computer-owning neighbors are just curious about them), in small pockets of Pennsylvania, Indiana and Iowa. Finally, look at what are shown to be the most religiously diverse States of all, with all kinds of colors: Washington, Oregon, California, and Colorado (the latter even having some Amish, as well).

And the Unitarians? The United Church of Christ? Well, let me quote the response of one of the researchers to that same question:

". . . we did do searches on Unitarian and UCC but did not include them in the final map as they had a lower number of hits overall in the U.S. and we were stretching the color palette with ten denominations. Apologies. When included you do see a cluster in New England."

But where are the Episcopalians? No longer is there any category of "Protestants" as such; instead there is this category called "Anglican" (shown in pale lavender). Would that pick up "Episcopalians"? Perish the thought -- "Anglican" is the term used by those groups who are breaking off from the Episcopal Church (USA) -- or who are realigning with the true Anglicans, depending on your point of view. (The term also would appear, of course, throughout Canada, in references to the Anglican Church of Canada -- and the map reflects this fact, showing pale lavender dots stretching all the way from Labrador to British Columbia.)

Notwithstanding this qualification, it is very interesting to discover the States of the United States where dots representing "Anglican" appear. By zooming in on the image, I find them (from East to West) associated with Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, (western) Massachusetts -- and then, significantly: nothing, from the Hudson River all the way to the Pacific Coast.

But then I started thinking: if the search terms had included "Episcopal", what difference would that have made to the results as shown? (I even posed a question to that effect on the Floating Sheep blog, but they have not had time to answer yet.) And then I realized: I already know the answer to that question. For after religion became truly free in America -- that is, after the Revolutionary War -- Episcopalians have always been a minority sect, wherever they situate themselves, and in recent years, they have found a way to decline even more. Given that the criteria for a colored dot is that there be more references to a given term at that spot than to any of the others, it became evident that for the word "Episcopal" to predominate over words such as "Catholic" or "Baptist" or "Presbyterian", one would have to be examining just a few blocks within Washington, D.C. -- and perhaps even then, the dominance might not hold. At any rate, the scale of the map does not go down to the level, anywhere in America, at which the registration of the term "Episcopal" could be significant.

So I came away from this particular experience of the Internet a bit humbled, and a bit wiser for having thought my way though it. We Episcopalians, for all of our seemingly monumental strifes and controversies, supposedly requiring the expenditure of millions and millions of dollars on attorneys' fees, are really rather insignificant on the scale of global -- or even national -- religious experience. We are barely a blip on the religious radar screen, so to speak. And yet we are expending millions and millions of dollars as though it would make some difference in who we are ("fiduciary duty", and all those other magic buzzwords).

Look again at the reality of America as currently expressed on the Internet, and as seen through the above maps. Even had they been measured by their own descriptive term, Episcopalians would be completely insignificant in mapping the religious life of America. All the more so, then, do their various internal strifes and bickering pale into insignificance beside the reality of what religious people are actually professing (and confessing) in America.

And if what has been shown and said above does not yet convince you of the fact, let me try again, with one more of the maps available from Floating Sheep. For in this map, and using the same analytic techniques applied to data derived from Google searches, the researchers compared their search terms for the world's four greatest religions ("Jesus", "Buddha", "Hindu", and "Allah") with one additional search term. That additional term is identified this time by the purple dots (see the legend below), and notice particularly, please, the proportion of purple dots to blue dots (now representing, as in the first maps above, references to "Jesus") in the regions of America and Europe, compared to the rest of the world.


In short, if one wanted a graphic picture of how the current culture stacks up against traditional religions, one has only to look at this map. One should focus in particular on where the map shows the current culture as exercising the strongest sway: in America and Europe (as opposed to Asia, Africa and South America). Compared to the purple areas covered in both of those regions, the remaining blue areas are completely insignificant -- and look particularly at the areas of the East Coast and the West Coast of America. Now imagine how well the purple dots as shown in the United States above would coincide with any representation that could be gleaned of the churches in those areas whose agenda coincides with that of the culture shown at that point (as represented by the one factor shown by the purple dots), i.e., such as the Episcopal Church (USA).

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that the above map, considered with the factors as stated, and as we ourselves know them to be, is an accurate depiction of the degree to which the Episcopal Church (USA) has managed to make itself indistinguishable from the prevalent culture (as identified with the Google search term "sex") in modern America. The above map, in other words, shows far more than its creators intended it to represent. The purple dots represent that current culture, to be sure; but buried within them, and completely submerged by that culture, are all the dots that could ever represent the Episcopal Church (USA) on the same map.

Nothing more need be said. In the words of our Lord (Luke 22:38), "It is enough." When a church vanishes into the culture, it ceases to be a church.

DOG BITES MAN

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor


In today’s episode of “Adventures in the Blindingly Obvious,” the Communion Partners weigh in on the lesbian:

"It is with profound sorrow that we, the Communion Partner Bishops and Rectors, express our deepest regret to our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion for the action of the majority of the diocesan bishops and standing committees of the dioceses of The Episcopal Church in voting to consent to the consecration as a bishop of a woman living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage. Unfortunately, where restraint was respectfully requested by the leadership of the Communion, it has been ignored. Where the General Convention has counseled study of the Anglican Covenant, this action has rendered that counsel moot.

"Therefore, we disassociate ourselves from this action and grieve the state of separation that exists in The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. This separation is a witness to the need for the Anglican Covenant as the means through which dioceses and congregations in The Episcopal Church can affirm their commitment to the Anglican Communion."

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Wrong. “The state of separation that exists in The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion,” Gracie?

What “state of separation” might that be? There is no “state of separation” between TEO and the Communion. Dr. Williams saw to that in 2008 when he invited the Episcopalians to the Lambeth Conference whilst also seeing to it that the current controversy would never be seriously and honestly addressed.

If the Episcopalians spend the next six years thinking over the Covenant, they will, at worst, be only second-division Anglicans during that time. And everyone knows that TEO could approve the Covenant tomorrow and consecrate five or six more homosexual bishops the day after that, secure in the knowledge that the Covenant is meaningless and that nothing whatsoever will happen to their “official” Anglican status.

For the love of God, wake the hell up.

Reflecting of the recent turn of events in Los Angeles

From Not Worthy of the Name, the blog of Fr. John Newton, via TitusOneNine:

Friday March 19, 2010

Dear fellow parishioners at Messiah:

My main purpose in writing this week is to reflect on the news that a majority of the bishops and standing committees of the Episcopal Church have given their consent to move ahead with the ordination of a partnered lesbian as a bishop in the diocese of Los Angeles.

Mary Glasspool was elected to that position at a convention of the Episcopal diocese of LA on December 5 of last year. The canon law of the Episcopal Church requires that the ordination cannot proceed until a majority of the Bishops and standing committees of all the dioceses in the Episcopal Church (56/110) give their consent in writing. This happened on March 16, and the ordination is set to take place on May 15.

There has been immediate reaction, both negative and positive, both within the United States and around the world. Here is the official statement from the office Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury:

It is regrettable that the appeals from Anglican Communion bodies for continuing gracious restraint have not been heeded. Following the Los Angeles election in December the archbishop made clear that the outcome of the consent process would have important implications for the communion. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion reiterated these concerns in its December resolution which called for the existing moratoria to be upheld. Further consultation will now take place about the implications and consequences of this decision.

My own position on the matter is the same as that of Dr Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and blogster extraordinaire . He writes:

"I am saddened but not surprised by today’s news. This decision represents not simply a change in doctrine, nor a single change in practice, but an established pattern of common life. It is contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the mind of the church catholic."

This was an accident waiting to happen. In a way it is almost surprising that it took seven years from the ordination of Gene Robinson, a partnered gay man, as bishop of New Hampshire, for a second such incident to occur. That event has been seen as tearing the fabric of the Anglican Communion, which has been held together in little more than name ever since. Is this the final nail in the coffin? Will the Anglican Communion be torn apart by intractable divisions?

The fourth Anglican Global South to South Encounter is set to take place in Singapore, April 19-23. The current situation in the Episcopal Church is not their principal focus. Yet they represent the large and growing majority of Anglicans in the world, and the primates (archbishops) and others who will be present are unequivocally committed to Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth conference of bishops, which remains the official position of the Anglican Communion and which states:

• in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
• recognizes that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
• while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex; [and]
• cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions…

Many of the provinces (national church bodies) represented at this Global South encounter are already out of communion with the Episcopal Church or in "impaired communion". Please pray for these godly brothers and sisters as they prepare for this important gathering.

Pray also for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also for the godly bishops who still remain in the Episcopal Church, such as our own Visitor Bishop, Russell Jacobus of the Diocese of Fond du Lac. And let us believe that the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead is more than able to bring light into this dark turn of events, to bring good out of evil, and breathe life into a culture of death.