The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20040622093010/http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net:80/index.php?m=200401

titusonenine

1/31/2004

Notable and Quotable

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:06 pm

“When a theologian is asked to yield and make concessions in order that peace may at last be established in the Church, but refuses to do so even in a single point of doctrine, such an action looks to human reason like intolerable stubbornness, yea, like downright malice. That is the reason why such theologians are loved and praised by few men during their lifetime. Most men rather revile them as disturbers of the peace, yea, as destroyers of the kingdom of God. They are regarded as men of contempt. But in the end it becomes manifest that this very determined, inexorable tenacity in clinging to the pure teaching of the divine Word by no means tears down the Church; on the contrary, it is just this which, in the midst of greatest dissention, builds up the Church and ultimately brings about genuine peace. Therefore, woe to the Church which has no men of stripe, men who stand as watchmen on the walls of Zion, sound the alarm whenever a foe threatens to rush the walls, and rally to the banner of Jesus Christ for a holy war!

Try to picture to yourselves what would happen if Athanasius had made a slight concession in the doctrine of the deity of Christ. He could have made a compromise with the Arians and put his conscience at ease; for the Arians declared that they, too, believed Christ to God, only not from eternity. They said, “[T]here was a time when he did not exist,” meaning He had become God. But they added, “Nevertheless He is to be worshiped, for He is God.” Even at the remote time, had Athanasious yielded, the Church would have been hurled from the one Rock on which it is founded, which is none other than Jesus Christ.

Again, imagine what would have happened if Augustine had made a slight concession in the doctrine of man’s free will, or rather of the utter incapacity of man for matter spiritual. He, too, could have made a compromise with the Pelagians and put his conscience at ease because the Pelagians declared, “Yes, indeed; without the aid of God’s grace no man can be saved.” But by the grace of God they meant the divine gift is imparted in every man. Even at the time, had Augustine yielded, the Church would have lost the core of the Gospel. There would have been nothing left but the empty, hollow shell. Aye, the Church would have retained nothing but the name of the Gospel. For the doctrine of the Gospel that man is made righteous in the sight of God and saved by nothing but the pure grace of God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, is, as everybody knows, the most important doctrine, the marrow and substance of Christian teaching. Wherever this doctrine is not proclaimed, there is no Christ, no Gospel, no salvation; there men perish, and for such people it has been in vain that the Son of God, has come into the world….

Let us, therefore, bless all the faithful champions who have fought for every point of Christian doctrine, unconcerned about the favor of men and disregarding their threatenings. Their ignominy, though it often was great, has not been born in vain. Men cursed them, but they continued bearing their testimony until death, and now they wear the crown of glory and enjoy the blissful communion of Christ and all the angles of the elect. Their labor and their fierce battling has not been in vain; for even now, after 1500 years, or, in the latter case, after several centuries, the Church is reaping what they sowed.

Let us then, my friends, likewise hold fast the treasure of the pure doctrine. Do not consider it strange if on that account you must bear reproach the same as they did. Consider the word of Sirach 4:33, “Even unto death fight for justice, and God will overthrow thy enemies for thee,” will come true in our case too. Let this be your slogan: Fight to the death in behalf of the truth, and the Lord will fight for you!"”

–Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther (1811-1887) , The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (from his Fourth Evening Lecture), pp.28-30.

Chris Findley: A Most Dangerous Myth, The place of the Bible in the Anglican/Episcopal Church

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:36 pm

The Myth

When the General Convention of the Episcopal Church chose to affirm the election of V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, it sent shock waves around the world. As many people sought to explain their disagreement about this action, they appealed to the Bible - its historical interpretation, and its correct place in the life of the church. At the open meetings of the General Convention deputation of the Diocese of Tennessee, Scripture was at the heart of the questions asked by the laity of the diocese. This is as it should be. At its heart, the controversy in the Episcopal Church is really a controversy about Scripture and its authority in the life of the Christian community.

We have heard statements like “The Bible isn’t authoritative for us” or “I believe that each generation has the right to re-interpret it for its own time” or “The Anglican/Episcopal Church has never read the Bible as authoritative.” We have even heard bishops, such as Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania say, “The Church wrote the Bible and we can re-write it.”

The Anglican Church, from which the Episcopal Church was formed, most definitely has at its core the Holy Bible. It has historically seen itself under the guide and authority of the Scriptures. No generation has dared to make the claims that are now being made about the Bible, and I fear no generation will be more harshly judged (rightfully so) for its arrogance and wanton disobedience. The myth that the Bible is not really our guide or our rule is a dangerous one. This myth says that we can make up our own standards as we see fit despite the teaching of the Bible and the Church. It is dangerous because it is essentially casting aside the Word of God. It is calling sin “righteousness” and righteousness “sin.” This myth is tearing at the Church from its foundations. My hope is to help dispel this and encourage a return to the core of Anglicanism, which is indeed biblical and orthodox.

How did Jesus apply the Bible?

If Jesus is our model then it bears asking, “How did he use the Bible?” If our Lord did not see the Hebrew Bible as authoritative for his life, then certainly we don’t have to see it or the New Testament as authoritative for ours.

One prominent example comes in the opening chapters of Matthew’s gospel as Jesus is led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. It is interesting that Satan tempts Jesus by misquoting Scripture to Him. That should be very instructive for us today. Obviously texts can be taken out of context and misapplied. But that doesn’t negate their power or their use. In fact, it is Scripture that Jesus himself uses to refute the devil’s temptation. Being the Son of God, Jesus could have easily dismissed the tempter on his own authority. Instead, Jesus models for us the need to know Scripture in our hours of temptation and demonstrates Scripture’s power and authority.

J.I. Packer, professor of theology at Regent College in Vancouver, brilliantly traces how our Lord’s own ministry was lived under the authority of the Scriptures:

From Scripture he [Jesus] resolved questions of doctrine (the centrality of the resurrection, Mark 12:2-8; the intended permanence of marriage, Matthew 19:5-6; ethics (the rightness of letting need override Sabbath restrictions), Matthew 12:2-8; the wrongness of legalism as a cop-out from the obligations of the fifth commandment, Mark 8:10-13). By Scripture he justified the acts of his ministry (cleansing the temple, Mark 11:15-17). By it he discerned his personal calling to be the Servant-Messiah who must enter upon his reign by the path of death and resurrection. (Packer, Truth & Power, IVP, Downers Grove, page 29)
In the Gospels, Jesus constantly shows his authority not by overriding and casting aside the sacred writings, but by his obedience and conformity to them. In fact, it is one of the most telling proofs of our Lord’s authority and authenticity that he was solely committed not to abolishing the Law but to fulfilling it (see Matthew 5:17). Clearly, Jesus saw the Scriptures (which at this point in history was the Hebrew Bible or our Old Testament) as authoritative.

What about the Early Church?

The next question to ask is, “What was the early Church’s view on the matter?” How did Jesus’ disciples and the Church Fathers view the Bible?

We can begin by looking at Acts, the book in the Bible that records the activity of the early Church in the years just after Jesus ascended. The most striking feature here is the absolute regularity with which the Apostles quote and use the Hebrew Bible for the proof of their message. In the very first sermon preached by the Church, Peter preaches from the prophet Joel and the Psalms of David when he wants to speak of Christ (Acts 2:14-41). If the Scriptures were not needed or had been superceded by Jesus, Peter could simply have told the story of Jesus. But in fact, the Gospel message made no sense if it was divorced from the words of the Old Testament.

In the early days of the Church, as the New Testament was being written, it was clear that the Scriptural record was seen as having an inherent authority. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries heresies abounded. These controversies threatened the very heart of the Christian faith. One of the most famous, Arianism, threatened to tear the Church apart by denying the true divinity of Jesus. How were these resolved? Well, the early Church did not farm it out into committees for dialogue and they didn’t put it up for a vote. Instead, the vigorous defender of the faith, Athanasius, used Scripture itself to defeat the Arians. Christopher Hall, professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Eastern College writes, “Their [Athanasius’ and Gregory of Nazianzus’] use of Scripture in resolving a tangled theological question demonstrates well their interpretive technique and the fruit it yields.” (Hall, Reading the Scriptures with the Church Fathers, Intervarsity Press, 1999, page 56)

Both in theological disputes and moral guidance, the early Church saw the Bible as authoritative. The New Testament canon was recognized by the Church as early as the 3rd century, and certainly from that point forward we can see that it was their rule and guide. Again, Packer is helpful: “The Bible is and always has been the book of the church, the source of its faith, thought, teaching, order, worship, praise, prayer and song.” (Packer, page 47)

What about the Anglican/Episcopal Church?

“Ah!” you say. “But what about our church? Surely we developed along more sophisticated, less literal lines.” Well, let’s see.

First, we need to remember that the Anglican Church (our direct parent) is a church of the English Reformation. While it chose to maintain its connection to the Church throughout the ages, it also set forth definite changes to its life and doctrine in light of the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. Nowhere can we see this better than in the 39 Articles of Religion.

The 39 Articles, which were written at the time of the separation of the Anglican Church from Rome, show clearly the primacy of the Bible. In particular, we should pay attention to Article VI which reads:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein or may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man. (BCP, page 868)
More applicable to the current crisis in the church is Article XX:

It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. (BCP, page 871)
These articles date from 1563 (prior versions date as early as 1536), so it is very hard to come to the conclusion that the Bible was somehow on the sidelines as the Anglican Church separated herself from Rome. It is the Bible that is seen in both of these articles as the guard and control of the Church’s faith and practice. The English reformers understood that the Church sits squarely under the Holy Scriptures and not over them.

This can be further illustrated by a letter written in 1548 by Thomas Cranmer, author of the first Book of Common Prayer:

We are desirous of setting forth in our churches the true doctrine of God, and have no wish to adapt it to all tastes and trifle with ambiguities, but, laying aside all carnal and prudential motives, to transmit to posterity a true and explicit form of doctrine agreeable to the rule of the sacred writings. (Thomas, Principles of Theology, liv, emphasis mine)
This will come as news to many in the Church who have been brought up with the notion that we live our faith using equal parts of Scripture, tradition and reason. This so-called ‘three-legged stool’ is attributed to the great Anglican mind of Richard Hooker. However, nowhere in Hooker’s writing does he give these three an equal share of authority. In none of his writing does the stool analogy appear. His most famous work Of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity clearly sets forth the primacy of Scripture. If our reason or tradition conflicts with Scripture, he is clear that Scripture is to be obeyed. He writes:

What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, Chapter 8, Section 2, emphasis mine)
Yes, it is true that we do not “check our brains at the door,” but neither do we leave the Bibles in the narthex! This is not a call to fundamentalism, which in every world religion is dangerous. However, it is a call to take the Bible seriously as our forbearers did and recover a doctrine of the Bible that is historically orthodox and reliable. It is a call to allow it to shape us instead of us shaping it.

When you consider the strength of the reformers like Cranmer and Ridley or Wilberforce or Wesley you cannot separate them from their attitude of submission to the Scriptures. Wesley once wrote, “Give me the book of God! Here is know-ledge enough for me. I read this book for this end: to find the way to heaven.” (from Sermons on Several Occasions)

Where do we go from here?

Tony Payne, an Australian Anglican, recently wrote, “If Scripture is no longer to be regarded as the sure and authoritative word of the Lord of heaven and earth, then Christian obedience is gutted of any reality.” (The Briefing, September 2003, #300, page 16)

He is absolutely right. To break from the authority of Scripture is to break our faith at the roots. The Christian life will have no purpose or goal. It is to arrogantly reject the example of Jesus, the Apostles, the Church Fathers and the Anglican reformers. These all reflect the attitude found in 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul instructs the young leader Timothy in the application of the Scriptures: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Without Scripture the Church is at the mercy of the culture and has nothing of value to say to it - for it is only a puppet bound to obey the latest cultural fad. New fads, new theology.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey wrote, “True Christian theology will always be anchored in the Bible, and will not depart from it. Valid Christian doctrine is never the result of intellectual speculation divorced from the Biblical roots of our faith.” (Carey, Canterbury Letters to the Future, Morehouse, 1998, page 22-23)

We must get back to the Bible. We must wrestle with it again, learn to love it and yearn for it again. We must re-learn the basics of the faith that are grounded in Biblical doctrine. I pray we will begin again to have a love affair with the Scriptures and hear the voice of God speaking through them - calling us beyond acceptance to transformation. I pray we will allow ourselves to be changed by what we read and have the confidence to boldly say, “The Word of the Lord . . . Thanks be to God.”

–The Rev. Chris Findley is vicar of Saint Francis, Goodlettsville, Tennessee

News From the Diocese of Florida

Filed under: — kendall @ 5:48 pm

“Episcopal unity in state is in danger” says the
Florida Times-Union, and one eyewitness gives her perspective.

Important note: [Bishop] Howard said Thursday he intended to explore membership [in the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes] irrespective of the vote.

Network Joining and the Diocese of Albany

Filed under: — kendall @ 3:38 pm

An article in the Albany Times-Union. An earlier letter in the same paper is also of interest:

In Dr. Lisa Thorn’s recent letter (Jan. 17th) regarding her displeasure with the Episcopal Diocese of Albany’s leadership, we take exception to the notion that schism has been encouraged by the actions of Bishop Daniel Herzog.
We submit that schism in the church is occurring because of the chosen direction of a heretical, and from all appearances, shepherdless national church. The majority of worldwide Anglican leaders have rightly called for repentance from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold.
Recognizing the dilemma of those remaining in the Episcopal Church who repudiate the actions of its leaders, these same leaders have sought to help us remain faithful to the call of preaching the kingdom of God and Jesus as Lord.
In her letter she makes frequent reference to “faith.” Dr. Thorn, what faith are you referring to? Faith in what? There is no such thing as “Episcopal faith” apart from the faith of our creed that unites us with all of Christendom. People of faith in Jesus Christ embrace the Scriptures with reverence as containing all things necessary for salvation, God’s holy and unchanging word. Homosexual people, as well as all people, are welcome to the church and none are excluded from Christian ministry. The condition we are all subject to is that we repent of our sins and with God’s help, intend to live a life worthy of the call.
In an attempt to discredit scriptural references to homosexuality, which never endorsed the behavior, several people have referred to passages of Scripture that supposedly support slavery. But in truth, slavery is not, and never was a part of God’s plan. Slavery is a result of man’s attempt to subvert God’s authority and exalt his own control over himself as well as others.
The scriptural references called into question regarding homosexual behavior are part of a number of passages that condemn incest and adultery as well. Is it the suggestion of these writers that these practices be promoted also?
It is never popular when confronting cultural and personal disobedience. All bishops of the church are called to defend and guard the Christian faith so that the church may continue to be witnesses along with the patriarchs, apostles and martyrs of our church to the power and authority of Jesus Christ.
THE REV. & MRS. N. BRADLEY JONES
Rexford

Wrestling in Wyoming

Filed under: — kendall @ 3:12 pm

Thoughts from Dan Clark.

Proposed Resolution for the diocese of East Carolina Convention

Filed under: — kendall @ 1:27 pm

RESOLUTION #1

RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE IN COMMUNION

RESOLVED, that this 121st Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina affirms the Preamble to the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States, which provides as follows”

“The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, otherwise know as Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in a Book of Common Prayer. This Constitution adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia in October, 1789, as amended in subsequent General Conventions, sets forth the basic Articles for the government of this Church, and of its overseas missionary jurisdictions.”

RESOLVED, that this 121st Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina affirms its desire to remain aligned with and a part of the Anglican Communion, a
Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury.
RESOLVED, that the actions of the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church is giving to the consent to the consecration of Canon V. Gene Robinson, a non-celibate homosexual, and approving CO51 (http://submitresolution.dfms.org), a resolution declaring that the blessing of same-sex unions is “in the bounds of our common life,” and in conflict with the above cited
Constitution and have jeopardized the historic relationship between the Episcopal Church and the
worldwide Anglican Communion and the See of Canterbury.

RESOLVED, that the Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina repudiates the aforementioned actions of the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church.

RESOLVED, that this 121st Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina directs the office of the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina to forward a
copy of the Resolution to every parish, mission and congregation within the Episcopal Church.

Respectfully Submitted,

The Rev. Rickie Steenstra, Christ Church, Elizabeth City
Kay Moncla, Delegate, Christ Church, Elizabeth City
Henry J. Steenstra, Delegate, Christ Church, Elizabeth City
P. Lindsay Stevenson, Delegate, Christ Church, Elizabeth City
The Rev. Deacon Fred Moncla, Christ Church, Elizabeth City
David B. Wright, Delegate, Christ Church, Elizabeth City
The Rev. Charles E. B. Gill, St. Andrew’s, Nags Head
Brenda M. Pitonyak, Delegate, St. Andrew’s, Nags Head
The Rev. William H. Brake, Jr., St. Andrew’s, Nags Head
John H. Woolard, Jr., St. Andrew’s, Nags Head
The Rev. Thomas M. Rickenbaker, St. Paul’s, Edenton
T. John F. Becker, Delegate, St. Paul’s, Edenton
M.H. Hood Ellis, Delegate, St. Paul’s, Edenton
W. A. Whichard,, Delegate, St. Paul’s, Edenton
Debra Boyle, Delegate, St. Paul’s, Edenton
Samuel B. Dixon, Delegate, St. Paul’s, Edenton
The Rev. William Bradbury, St. Peter’s, Washington
William P. Cheshire, Delegate, St. Peter’s, Washington
Virginia Goodwin, Delegate, St. Thomas, Oriental
William R. Sage, Delegate, St. Thomas, Oriental
The Rev. Jeremiah Day, St. Thomas, Oriental

–The East Carolina diocesan Convention meets February 5-7 at Saint Timothy’s, Greenville, N.C.

Plano Meeting Boosts Support for Alternative Episcopal Oversight

Filed under: — kendall @ 12:21 pm

The convocation of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Congregations was rescued from possible irrelevance at its founding convocation by a late night intervention from the Rev. Canon Michael Green, evangelism officer for former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey. Canon Green’s call for clear action united bickering representatives behind a charter supporting alternative episcopal oversight for those alienated by the actions of General Convention and a call for tolerance over differences on the ordination of women. The meeting was at Christ Church, Plano, Texas, Jan. 19-20.

Bishops, clergy and lay representatives from 12 dioceses (Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Florida, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, Rio Grande, San Joaquin, South Carolina, Springfield, and Western Kansas), lay and clergy representatives from Forward in Faith and five regional convocations (the Mid-Atlantic, Mid-Continental, New England, Southeast, and West), unanimously endorsed a 10-point charter. The network “will operate within the constitution of the Episcopal Church and in full fellowship with the vast majority of the Anglican Communion” stated the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, who was elected to a three-year term as moderator of the group.

With the formation of the network, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, said, “there is now no reason for orthodox Episcopalians to leave Anglicanism.” Proponents said the network will provide a vehicle of support for Episcopalians in the United States opposed to the innovations of doctrine and discipline endorsed by the 74th General Convention in Minneapolis and will serve as their conduit to the wider Anglican Communion.

Though hailed as a triumph by its organizers, the convocation was nearly stillborn. “The most significant” aspect of the convocation, stated the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, a representative from South Carolina, “was that we passed [the charter] unanimously.”

The week before the meeting, two newspapers and a wire service in the U.S. and U.K. published excerpts of a confidential memorandum prepared by the Rev. Geoffrey Chapman of the AAC that some claimed outlined a secret conservative plot to destroy the Episcopal Church and supplant it with a cabal of “fundamentalists.”

The Chapman memo controversy aroused second thoughts about participation in the network for some. Central Florida’s deputation, for example, debated pulling out but voted to attend, believing that a withdrawal would send the wrong message to the diocese. “If we don’t go, we don’t get to make our points,” said Susan Shannon of Orlando.

The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield of San Joaquin cautioned those present to prepare for the worst. The network “will be attacked” for supporting “those who can no longer travel the road taken by the Episcopal Church,” he stated at the opening Eucharist. The proper response “to the assaults of our enemies,” however, was to abjure “underhandedness,” “sneakery” and “double-dealing.”

Simple Charter

Following the opening Eucharist, Bishop Duncan told the convocation in a closed-door meeting that the purpose of the gathering was to adopt “a simple charter” and a “structure appropriate to its early life,” elect officers, renew relations with the overseas Church, campaign for “the cause of adequate episcopal oversight” and “give hope to the orthodox of the Episcopal Church.”

The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon of South Carolina asked that the convocation forward a copy of the minutes to the Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev. Frank Griswold.

After a period of introductions and organization, the convocation began work on a charter outlining the principles and aims of the network and the meeting came close to foundering once again. Several bishops were unwilling to back calls for alternative episcopal oversight unless and until they had the full backing of their dioceses. Others raised concerns over the canonical implications of crossing diocesan boundaries to provide alternative episcopal oversight.

The convocation reached its nadir of canonical wrangling by the end of the first day. The tide turned, however, with a series of theological presentations led by the Very Rev. Robert Munday, dean of Nashotah House, the Rev. Philip Turner, retired Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, and Canon Harmon. Bishop Duncan then invited Canon Green — who was present as an unofficial observer for the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury — to address the convocation.

In what was later described by participants as an “electric” and “Churchillian” moment, Canon Green reminded the convocation why they were there and what they had been called to do. “It was as if a dam burst,” Canon Harmon later stated.

The eyes of the Anglican Communion were on the convocation, Canon Green said. He asked them if now was not the time to act, when would be, and if they were not the ones to act, who would be. As the network reconvened on the second day, Canon Green’s call for action brought the convocation together. Differences on alternative episcopal oversight and the ordination of women were overcome as the representatives prepared their charter.

–The Living Church

Bishop John Howe: Ten Reasons why the Network is not a Compromise

Filed under: — kendall @ 12:17 pm

1) Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini and Yong Ping Chung decided to proceed on their own in consecrating Chuck Murphy and John Rogers. There had been a very carefully orchestrated conversation for several years, with a large number of primates CONSIDERING the possibility of consecrating “missionary bishops.” But their timetable was quite different. Had Kolini and Yong Ping waited it is probable there would have been a much more significant number of supporters for creating an AMiA type of effort. One that might have been irresistible to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Instead, they acted on their own, and ended up isolating themselves from the rest of the primates, with an endeavor that is at BEST tangentially related to the Anglican Communion, and specifically NOT recognized by either the former or the present Archbishop of Canterbury.

2) In the sharpest contrast to that, the newly formed Network has already been recognized by a dozen primates as being in “full communion” with the rest of the Anglican Communion, and it has the explicit encouragement of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3) The Network is wholly committed to “upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as this Church has received them” (i.e., it is totally opposed to the innovations of the last six months regarding human sexuality), but unlike the AMiA, it is working within the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, and with the full backing of a numerical majority of the world’s Anglicans, and - we believe - shortly with a majority of the primates of the Anglican Communion.

4) Those who choose to leave the Diocese of Central Florida are leaving a bishop and a diocese that are as committed as they are to remaining orthodox. They are leaving not because of a quarrel with the bishop or the diocese, but because they cannot stand being part of a larger community (ECUSA) that accepts in some of its dioceses practices and teaching they find abhorrent. However, they say they want to remain Anglicans. To the extent they ARE Anglicans (which is open to question; see #1 above), they are still part of a larger community (the Anglican Communion) that accepts in some of its provinces practices and teaching they find abhorrent. A somewhat strange parallel, I think.

5) Ironically, the key, essential element in being Anglican is being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The AMiA is not in communion with the ABC, AND the present ABC personally favors the very things these folks find so objectionable (although, thankfully, he has pledged not to further that agenda).

6) So: in order to be “out from under” the compromise of ECUSA, those who would leave either a) abandon their property, leaving both themselves and the diocese greatly impoverished - themselves for having to start over with new facilities, and the diocese because it does not have the resources to maintain the properties once they leave, OR b) as we have seen in several places, they enter into a terrible lawsuit against brothers and sisters who believe the same things they believe - one that impoverishes everyone but the lawyers, and one that flies directly in the face of Biblical teaching, and makes the Church’s witness a laughingstock to the outside world.

7) This diocese has not only joined the Network, but it passed, by a super-majority, a Canonical change that makes same-sex blessings illegal. We are in a stronger position than we have ever been.

8) The Archbishop’s Commission has not even met for the first time yet, and Archbishop Drexel Gomez has indicated that he believes it will not be a paper tiger.

9) The Global South primates published a schedule for the Episcopal Church to mend its ways. Their key date was Easter. No one expects there to be any change in the posture of ECUSA by Easter, but wouldn’t it be prudent to see what the next steps are on the parts of the primates?

10) Every time an orthodox priest, deacon, family, vestry or congregation leaves an orthodox diocese, that diocese is greatly weakened, and the cause of the other side is strengthened.

–The Rt. Rev. John Howe is Bishop of Central Florida

Deep Budget Cuts in the diocese of Southwestern Virginia

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:41 am

An article by Cody Lowe includes the following:

Delegates to the diocese’s annual council, meeting at the Hotel Roanoke this weekend, were presented a budget almost 9 percent smaller than last year’s at their opening session Friday afternoon.

The $976,000 spending plan represents reductions or stagnation in all but three of the diocese’s 28 expense categories. “Deep cuts had to be made,” said finance committee chairman Bud Hooss.

Planned salary raises for diocesan staff were cut from 3 percent to 1.5 percent, and several programs were trimmed. For example, the number of issues of the diocesan newspaper to be published this year will be halved.

Rifts threaten unity of Episcopal church

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:37 am

More from the diocese of Central Florida.

Update: still more

1/30/2004

Mississippi Episcopal Gathering to Confront Conflict

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:46 pm

An article by Kat Bergeron.

I need to comment one one part of the article.

[The Rev. Bo Roberts of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Gulfport says] “The problem is, we have a lot of far-right and far-left opinions on gay unions. That middle way would contain the large majority in the past, but as time has gone on, the left and the right camps have grown and the moderate middle has become smaller. That’s when there can be a breach, when there isn’t that solidity factor in the middle.”

First of all, this is hopelessly inadequate in terms of a descriptions of the situation in which we find ourselves. There are of course different opinions but the significantly favored postion of our cultural elie was just officially adopted as official Episcopal Church policy. The middle has been nearly eviscerated. You can see this happening all over the country. The degree to which many people still remain in denial about this is simply astounding.

There is a bigger problem. The essence of Anglicanism is in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things, charity (Peter Meiderlin). Comments about conversation and tolerance are important as long as they have to do with non-essentials. But this is a matter of basic Christian ethics, of central Christian teaching about marriage, and about Christian anthropology, indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, about the nature of the gospel itself.

You can see the fallacy in the description given if you simply change the ethical referent. “The problem is, we have a lot of [people who are against stealing] and [people who favor stealing] on [the ethical issue of stealing]. That middle way would contain the large majority in the past, but as time has gone on, [those favoring stealing]and [those against stealing] have grown and [those who think sometimes it is all right to steal and sometimes it isn’t] has become smaller. That’s when there can be a breach, when there isn’t that solidity factor in the middle.” (You can make the analysis even more absurd by going down to the bedrock truth of Jesus is Lord: one side saying Jesus is Lord, the other Jesus isn’t Lord, and the Anglican via media Jesus is sometimes Lord. It just doesn’t work).

One final point: this analysis assumes there is something to talk about, that as long as the two sides can understand each other, community can be promoted. So for example it is like the issue of different worship styles.

But it isn’t like this. It isn’t a matter of understanding leading to some kind of middle way. There is no middle way between stealing and not stealing, between sex in marriage only and sex in marriage and in other non marital relationships in certain conditions also, between the church should bless non-celibate same gender committed relationships and the church knows such relationships by their very nature are againt God’s will because the revelation has clearly told us that.

Russell Levenson: Considerations in the midst of the Episcopal Church Crisis

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:36 pm

At my age, I do my best to avoid fast food when I can, but when traveling, it is pretty hard (and I’m not too big on “McSalads” –yuck!). During the holiday traveling, the Levenson five stopped at Burger King – usually I am a big fan. But evidently the “special order” did upset them and I had to wait — WAIT, nearly 20 minutes before the order was filled! Outrageous – “This is ‘fast food?!’”

Whenever I reflect such a personal response, I realize how “American” it is to want what I want – whether it is food (hot and now); internet service (fast and now); or solutions (quick and now!). In real life, much does not work that way. Such is the case, once again, with our Episcopal Church. I opened the paper today, and there it was, page 2A of the PNJ, “Episcopals prepare for ‘separation.’” (Footnote…bad grammar,
we are “Episcopalians” not “Episcopals.” Puuuleaase!)

And, of course, there were news reports on both CNN and FOX NEWS. The report was about a meeting of bishops, clergy and laypersons in Plano, Texas from 18-20 of January. This meeting, along with other news and what I can only describe as a constant barrage of articles
on the internet, has prompted many of you again to approach me with questions about “What is going on?”

Regardless on which side of the issues (if either side) you stand on the events of this past summer at General Convention that paved the way for Dioceses to offer a “local option” for same-sex unions; as well as the approval of V. Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of
New Hampshire; you cannot disagree that such actions have arguably been some of the most divisive in the Anglican Communion since the Reformation. Many of our ecumenical and interfaith dialogues have either been broken off or deeply hampered (the Muslim Tradition; the Roman and Orthodox faiths to name a few). Many
Anglican Archbishops, Provinces, and Dioceses have already broken fellowship with the ECUSA. Many Dioceses within the ECUSA have denounced the actions in various forms. Thus, I will agree with our Bishop who, in sum, has said that these decisions mark a break
from historic Christianity and nearly 2000 years of Church teaching. It is a break that I do not, and will not, support. The same is true of our Bishop, who has now said and written this numerous times. I have made that clear in a series of articles published last summer, which will be available to the parish in booklet form after our
Diocesan Convention in February.

Many would like to “ignore” the problems raised by the decisions of General Convention. Many have no problems with the decisions. Many are very upset by them. What I find common in all three of these groups is the hope that this will be resolved quickly and – to be frank – in a way that best aligns with the view of the particular group. In short – we want the solution – “hot and now.” In short, it simply is not going to happen that way.

This I DO know – that I do not know how this will ultimately play out. I appreciate our Bishop’s strong and public position. I appreciate the willingness of those on the extremes of these issues to continue to call Christ Church “family” without allowing these issues to drive us or divide us. I appreciate the support I have gained,
personally, as your rector, from those who disagree with me; and those who agree with me. As I shared in my sermon a few weeks ago, the last six months have been the most difficult in my ministry. The actions of General Convention have been a terrible distraction from my daily work and articles like the one in the PNJ only get it
all going again. So, I offer a few things for your consideration:

1. At this point, I have no plans to try and lead CCP out of the ECUSA; or to leave the ECUSA myself. That offered, we need to be prepared, that in the next year or so, the face of Anglicanism may change. If other ways of being part of the Anglican Communion sprang to life under the direction of the Archbishop, or our own Presiding Bishop, how we would respond would be something we
would do together as a parish family – not unilaterally.

2. I have not, nor will I seek ‘alternate oversight’ by another Bishop. Our Bishop, without my asking, offered alternate oversight to me if I were displeased with his leadership. I am not, and am, in fact, very appreciative of his public and private statements to me on these matters. He has a difficult position and needs our prayers and support.

3. When it is a matter of personal conscience, your vestry and I have allowed for restricted giving to the parish, the parish and Diocese or to allow unrestricted giving. The Diocese has also made provision for this in its budget. While by and large, I believe “restricted giving” opens a Pandora’s Box of what one will give to and not give to; I also believe giving should be an expression of one’s overall confidence in direction and vision. Given what I
believe to be the poor leadership of our Presiding Bishop, and the subsequent disregard of many of our national leaders of the greater Anglican Communion, I understand someone’s personal decision to make such restrictions. When requested, we have honored those
requests in making our annual pledge to the Diocese. Remember, however, that only about 2% of what you give would ends up going to ministries of the National Church (for instance $2 out of $100). After Convention makes its pledge to the National Church, that amount may even be less.

4. There are well-meaning and faithful Christians on both
sides of these issues – and many in the middle; there are subversive agenda and ego-driven individuals on both sides of these issues. That statement speaks for itself.

5. Your vestry and I are not “ignoring” the issues. We continue to stay informed through our reading and reflective conversation and no doubt much of this will come up at our General Convention. But in the meantime…

6. The work we are doing together at CCP is simply too
important to be daily(perhaps hourly) hampered by any effort to subvert our attention from the core of the Gospel – that of sharing the Good News of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Fear, worry, impatience, anxiety are not attributes of God or His Holy Spirit – when they
show up, you can bet there is something “rotten in Denmark.” Thus…

7. Commit yourselves to prayer, study and personal commitment to the Gospel. The answer will not be found from the outside in, but usually the inside out. I like the counsel John gives in I Jn. 5:1-4; “Everyone who believes that Jesus the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves His child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God; by loving God and
carrying out His commands. This is love for God: to obey His commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.”
Friends, I am deeply disheartened by the division I see in our national Church, but I am mightily encouraged that it has yet to infect CCP on any grand scale. With God’s help, let us keep it that way, please. Do not worry or fear, and avoid the temptation to want a pre-emptive strike. We are all working this out together. It is not going to come “hot and now,” regardless of how I would like it to
do just that. In the meantime…“This is how we know that we love the children of God; by loving God and carrying out His commands.”

I also like the way Admiral Bill Ramsey put it at our last vestry meeting, “If we want to send a message to the National Church, I think this is it – at Christ Church, we are thriving.” Well, thanks be to God – let us try and keep it that way.

–The Rev. Russell J. Levenson is rector, Christ Church, Pensacola, Florida

Congregations’ Split is like Painful Divorce

Filed under: — kendall @ 12:28 pm

Frank Langfitt writes about the painful situation at Saint John’s in Melbourne.

When Pat Vander Poest says goodbye to St. John’s Episcopal Church, the toughest part will be leaving her daughter, Julie, who died in a car crash two decades ago and whose ashes lie in the shade of a moss-draped oak in the parish’s memorial garden.

“I would prefer to stay,” said Vander Poest, 69, a retired junior high school teacher. “But it’s not about me, it’s about God.”

Two corrections: there were not “100 bishops” at the network organizational meeting in Plano, there were 12 dioceses and by my count 13 bishops (suffragans from South Carolina and Albany present, diocesan from Rio Grande not able to be present so he sent his Canon to stand in for him).

Also: there are not “several” archbishops overseeing the AMIA, there are at present two.

In the Middle of the Country, A Pastor Challenges his Flock

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:42 am

Refreshing article about Leroy Sullivan, pastor of Bread of Life Outreach Ministry in Kansas City, Kansas.

Unable to remain silent, he began preaching about the value of marriage. He also invited couples to attend classes that would prepare them for married life.

“I challenged them,” says Pastor Sullivan. “I told them to look at what’s best: Change your lifestyle for your children’s sake and also for the betterment of your own life.”

Today, five years later, the view from the pulpit in his largely black, working-class church includes the flash of wedding rings. Among Sullivan’s initial group of seven cohabiting couples, five have married.

John Burwell’s Sermon Preached at Peter Mitchell’s Installation as Rector of Holy Trinity, Charleston

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:11 am

Never Assume. Yep, that’s good advice, my friends. Never Assume. And yes, I do know the old adage, “never assume because of what the first three letter make out of the last three letters.” I’ve heard it before. After all, I used to be a real person before I was ordained!

You want to hear a “never assume?” I’ll give you a never assume! A man was at a party one evening, and let me tell you, he was he UNNN-comfortable! The man had false teeth, and they just didn’t fit like they should. He didn’t even want to talk, cause he was afraid his upper plate might fall out. One particular fellow at the party noticed this man’s plight, and came to his aid. The fellow pulled our loose-toothed guy aside, and he said, “I see you’re having problems with your dentures.” With that, he reached into his pocket, pulled out another set of teeth, and said “Here, try these.” Our friend was desperate, and so he did. Well, they weren’t quite right, so the fellow reached in his other pocket and came out with a second set to try. The man tried this set, and this time, the dentures were perfect. An exact fit!

So - our man with the new teeth smiles, shakes the fellows hand, and says, “Doctor, it’s amazing! Those dentures are exactly what I needed. In fact, I’ve never had a pair fit as good as these! I’m going to have to come to you for all my work from now own. Where is your office, doctor - I’ll make an appointment for this Monday!”

The man said, Oh, you’ve got it wrong - I’m not a doctor. My name’s Harry Jones. I work for the local funeral home!”
Never assume, my friends, Never assume!

That is the message that I believe we find in our scripture passages chosen for this evening, and may I say to Peter Mitchell, and to my friends and family here at Holy Trinity Church, That is my message to you this evening – Never Assume!

Peter Mitchell chose the lessons this evening because today - January 18th - is the day that we Anglicans celebrate the confession of Peter’s namesake - Saint Peter. The Confession of St. Peter. As we just heard in the Gospel lesson, Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some assume that you are John the Baptist or Elijah, or Jeremiah.” But Peter said “Never Assume!” Well, he didn’t actually say “never assume,” but he did make the right answer – he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Never assume. That’s the message tonight, and I want to say it first to Peter Mitchell, then to Peter and the congregation of Holy Trinity, and then to the congregation alone. Never assume!

First of all a word to Peter. Pete - Never assume. Never Assume that you’re anything more than a servant. Tonight, we celebrate the official beginning of your ministry, and we’re doing it right – with glory, laud and honor. But in the years to come, I’m here to tell you, speaking from experience, that there will be many, many days that will not be glorious. Much of what you do here at Holy Trinity will remain thankless. You will counsel people who may not always appreciate what you have done. You will speak and be misunderstood. You’ll love and be rejected. You’ll save lives and be forgotten. You will keep confidences and be criticized for not telling all you know.

You will make mistakes that will be too long remembered, and you’ll achieve victories that are too quickly forgotten. You will be ignored at times for brilliant sermons but praised for sermons because they are shorter than usual. You will seldom see the results of your work. And as often as not, you will not know when your day’s work is done.

You will turn out lights, lock up buildings, move chairs and tables, carry out garbage – and maybe even clean commodes. “But wait a minute – I’m supposed to be the Rector here!” And yes, you will be! Just never assume that you’re anything more than a servant.

I’ve often wondered if this is why the Church, in her wisdom, ordains us as deacons – as servants – before she ordains us as presbyters – as priests. I think the Church is reminding us what St. Peter reminded his elders – his fellow priests in our second lesson this evening – St. Peter said do this ministry not because you must, but because you are willing. St. Peter said, don’t be greedy for money, and don’t minister just because you’re getting paid. Be eager to serve. Be an example to the flock.

I think that’s why we begin our ministry as servants. Because whatever else you become, that IS what you’ll always be. If you’re becoming a rector for any other purpose than to be a servant first, you’re in it for the wrong reason. We ordained folks are not called to glory and honor and power. We’re called to serve the One with all glory, honor and power. So never assume that you’re anything more than a servant. But my brother Peter, remember this as well - Never assume it’s doom and gloom! It never is, and it can’t be!

You are a servant with good news to proclaim! Good news. Far too often we forget this, and so we go around with faces of doom and gloom and woe is me! Don’t do it my brother! It is not as you have learned! Being rector is being a servant, but it is also a JOY!

Let your JOY show, my brother. Let it show in everything you do, in season and out. We have much to be optimistic about. We preach good news! The message of Christianity is that we are not condemned to live a defeated life. Jesus says, I came that they may have life - and have it how? ABUNDANTLY! You got it.

And to my friends here at Holy Trinity – I want you to know that there is reason for Joy! Our God reigns! To the dour and the despondent - to the downhearted and the dispirited - to the depressed and discouraged, I have but one reply: I’ve been reading the Bible! I’ve peeked at the last chapter to see how it ends - and you know something? Jesus wins! Good Friday was followed by EASTER!

Easter says to the world that God cannot be finally defeated. Easter says that NOTHING can finally stop God - not life, and not even death, because God is truly ALMIGHTY! His purposes will prevail, no matter what happens! We are not condemned to live a defeated life.

In the Gospel lesson Jesus says he will build a church that the very gates of Hades can’t overcome! Do you understand what this means – it means that you simply can not lose. It means that nothing – and I mean NOTHING is impossible. It means that God is going to miracles here that up to now people would assume were impossible. But never assume! Never, ever, ever assume it’s doom and gloom. It’s not and it can’t be.

Ok – Pete, never assume you’re anything but a servant. Peter and Holy Trinity, never assume it’s doom and gloom.

Now – a third Never Assume – for my brothers and sisters at the Church of the Holy Trinity, on Folly Road, near the shopping center, this third Never Assume is all for you: Never Assume you’ve already been where God is getting ready to take you.
Never Assume you’ve already been where God is getting ready to take you.

Someone once said the seven deadliest words in the Church are “We’ve never done it like that before.” I got seven more that are equally life-draining: “We’ve tried that, and it didn’t work.”

Holy Trinity has a long and wonderful history. But there have been occasional bumps in the road where people got their teeth fillings rattled. It’s a new day. You’ve got Peter Mitchell. Peter Mitchell is one of the finest priests in the diocese of South Carolina. (The only finer ones are on Sullivan’s Island.) I’m just kidding! But I’m not kidding about my point.

You have a man here as your Rector who dreams dreams and casts visions. He will no doubt lead you in amazing new directions and he will delight you with wonderful ideas. He’ll get those ideas from his knee time– that’s k-n-e-e time - Time spent with the Lord in prayer, fasting and Bible study. He’s that kind of guy.

I know the Lord, and I know Peter, and I know that it won’t be long before the Lord gives him a thought - a concept - an idea - that He - God - will want Holy Trinity to do for Him. And from personal experience, I know it won’t be long before Peter speaks for the Lord and asks you – The Church of the Holy Trinity - to step out in faith and take a risk that might look impossible.

Perhaps in the past you feel you’ve taken risks, only to have to drop back and punt. Please, folks - Never Assume you’ve already been where God is getting ready to take you. Speaking from experience here, When I got to Holy Cross, there were two phases that had been ingrained in the family’s brain over the years. (1) We can’t, as in “We can’t afford it, or “we can’t do it.” And (2) “We’re just a little church.” And #2 was usually followed by #1 – “We’re just a little church, so we can’t afford it, We’re just a little church, we could never do that kind of ministry.” Friends, my church family was assuming that they had already been where God was wanting them to go! And since it hadn’t worked for them in the past, why should we dare to think the future would be any different?

Never Assume you’ve already been where God is getting ready to take you!

In the first lesson from Acts chapter 4, St. Peter found himself hauled before the Ruling Counsel in Jerusalem after he miraculously healed a man who had been crippled from birth. Remember that Peter was a fisherman by trade. Never been to debating class. Never been to seminary. He was unschooled, and ordinary at best. The assumption would be that he would come off sounding stupid, right?

And yet Peter stands in front of what would be the equilivant of the State Legislature and he states the case with boldness and beauty. Never Assume! In verse 13 we see that the legislature was astonished. And I love it – I quote: “And they took note that these men had been with Jesus.” More accurately, Jesus had been with these men! Filling them with his Holy Spirit. Just as He does today, with all who put their trust in Him!

In the years to come, the Lord will have all manner of ministry for you to do. You’re going to be his beacon West of the Ashley! And Jesus will not send you out alone, or empty-handed. He gives to you the same power he gave to his original disciples and to the elders – the presbyters - who followed. He gives Power to love, power to forgive, power to heal, power to reconcile, power to take risks, power to dream dreams – Power for living!

So then, my friends - Never assume! No matter how things appear to be, we know how the story ends. God wins. When the Lord is in the picture, anything and everything is possible. Things don’t have to be the way they were. And they don’t even have to be the way they are! There IS hope for the world! Hope for the future!!

Peter, serve this people well. And never assume that you’re anything more than a servant.

Peter and Holy Trinity – The Lord delights in you and wants you to enjoy Him as you do His work West of the Ashley. Never assume it’s doom and gloom!

And Saints of God at the Church of the Holy Trinity - Never assume you’ve already been where God is getting ready to take you!

God bless you all! And may God give you the finest future that He can imagine!

For that kind of future, we can all say, Thanks be to God!

–The Rev. John Burwell is rector, Holy Cross, Sullivan’s Island, S.C.

Bishops Sauls Takes Extreme Action in Lexington, Kentucky

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:01 am

An already strained pastoral relationship between the Bishop of Lexington and the lay leadership at one of the diocese’s oldest parishes worsened in January to the point where the Rt. Rev. Stacy Sauls downgraded the parish to mission status and removed the lay leadership.

Bishop Sauls said he obtained permission from the executive council for what is considered one of the most severe canonical sanctions at his disposal because he feared the nine-member vestry was within days of a decision to withdraw from the Episcopal Church, taking along the property and cash investments worth $1.8 million.

The decision to dismiss the lay leadership followed a rector search process and call which did not follow diocesan policy and resulted in the choice of a man whose principles Bishop Sauls said make it “highly likely as it is regrettable to me that your principles, which I respect, will not allow you to stay in the Episcopal Church absent some extraordinary and unexpected event.”

Former St. John’s senior warden Tom Thornbury conceded that, after an earlier rector search process that followed diocesan policy failed to produce an acceptable candidate, the most recent rector call did not adhere to diocesan policy. But Mr. Thornbury denied that the lay leadership was plotting to remove property and other assets. As many as two-thirds of the congregation subsequently have left St. John’s to form St. Andrew’s Anglican Church. The new church has issued a call for the Rev. David Brannen, associate rector at St. Stephen’s in Sewickley, Pa., to be its first rector.

While saddened, Bishop Sauls said “we must be governed by the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church — especially in periods of uncertainty and strong disagreement.”

–The Living Church

Episcopalian vote in Tennessee Might Reshape Diocese

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:36 am

An article in the Tennesseean includes this section:

[The Rev. Patrick] Allen, as well as three delegates to the convention from his church, submitted what might be one of the convention’s most controversial resolutions. It would change the diocese’s constitution so that churches outside of the existing geographical boundaries could apply for membership.

Thus, a church outside the Diocese of Tennessee that disagreed with its bishop’s theology could apply to join, Allen said. The diocese covers generally Middle Tennessee.

‘’The primates (archbishops of the church) have given the Episcopal Church a mandate to provide for alternative Episcopal oversight,'’ he said. ‘’We weren’t trying to lob a bomb out there. We’re just trying to make the constitutional adjustments necessary to facilitate that alternative oversight. I don’t see why it should be terribly controversial.'’

Major issues to be Faced In Virginia

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:31 am

Articles from the Washington Post and the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

1/29/2004

Paul Zahl on Courage and Cowardice

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:37 pm

What causes cowardice in a person? The short answer is fear, fear of overwhelming danger and cost should you get out of line.

I have seen this recently in some of our more “orthodox” church leaders, who spoke movingly and boldly a few months ago but appear now to be backpedaling on what they said then. Another short answer, by the way, for what causes cowardice is, well, you know: lawyers.

It had seemed to many of us that Dr. Williams, the ABC, was going to back those who called for a second, “traditional” province for Episcopalians in this country. He was going to recognize us officially and convey his blessing.

Now, with church lawyers shuttling in and out of Lambeth, he seems to be worried that backing us would mean giving “our” lawyers some sort of permission or license to come against ECUSA in matters of property and finance. So the upshot is no backing, at least not now.

But hey, take a look at people you know, in personal terms. Someone promises you something and seems to mean it. Then suddenly, or “inexplicably”, the person reneges. She said she would return your call, or hire you, or take you up on your offer, or try to get you a job, but then you heard nothing! Was “the silence golden”? (Dean’s Contest) This kind of thing happens in business all the time. And in the garden club, et alia.

Why do people renege? Because someone got to them. That’s why. Someone threatened them, or explained to them what they would lose if they helped you. In our ECUSA case, the reason for backpedaling is usually at least this: Someone got to the person after he or she spoke too soon.

I am just stating a minor theme of church history from 2004 and putting it up on the screen, the screen of human self-interest and common practice.

Gosh, I hope we never lead the Advent that way.

–The Very Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl is Dean of Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama

A Review of Peter Berger’s “Questions of Faith”

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:25 pm

Questions of Faith: A Skeptical Affirmation of Christianity
by Peter Berger (Blackwell), Reviewed by Professor Paul Badham

THIS book wrestles with the Apostles’ Creed. Belief in God is discussed in a global context. Berger recognises that spiritual reality is present in many traditions, but affirms that knowledge of God as a person is vital. This is particularly revealed through the Hebrew Bible and the life of Christ.

Berger’s discussion of belief in Jesus responds to Bultmann’s “demythologising”. As a sociologist of religion, Berger says there is little evidence to support Bultmann’s claim that modern people cannot believe in the supernatural.

The evidence is all around us that they can, the rapidly growing Charismatic churches being most open to the miraculous. This does not mean that we should all go down that path: Berger himself is not a Charismatic. He is a sceptical Lutheran who worships in a middle-of-the-road Anglican church since, of the two Lutheran Churches available to him, one is fundamentalist and the other has substituted political correctness for Christian affirmation.

Berger sees kenosis as the key to the incarnation and the cross. Christ’s life and death shows God’s willingness to identify with the suffering of the world. A suffering God can enable us to come to terms with the mystery of evil, though suffering cannot be the last word. There must also be a real eschatological hope.

Berger believes that the likeliest historical reconstruction of Jesus is as an eschatological prophet. Jesus’s teaching as exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount is impractical; hence Jesus the teacher is largely irrelevant. What matters is Jesus as the resurrected one. Berger believes that the historical evidence for the Easter faith of the first disciples is overwhelming. It gave rise to Christianity, and requires that “something happened” of sufficient magnitude to bring this faith into being. Berger does not think that belief in the empty tomb is essential, but that we must affirm Christ’s victory over death.

This is crucial, both for our understanding of Jesus and for our future destiny. Berger has no interest in versions of Christianity that abandon the future hope. But the only version of this hope which Berger finds of interest is one which entails the transformation and redemption of the whole created order.

–Professor Badham, external examiner for my doctoral thesis, is Director of the Alister Hardy Religious Experience Research Centre in Lampeter, Wales. (From the Church Times, London).

More Discussion on Bishop Allison and Ephraim Radner

Filed under: — kendall @ 1:50 pm

Ephrain Radner responds to Bishop Allison’s response to him, and Todd Granger chimes in.

Marvin Ellison’s New Book

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:18 am

Marvin Ellison, the ethics professor at the United Church of Christ’s Bangor (Maine) Theological Seminary, has published a new book entitled “Same-Sex Marriage?: A Christian Ethical Analysis.”

He thinks “a lively debate is needed,” for instance, on whether marriage should now be redefined to recognize “polyamorous” people, those involved with “multiple partners.”

He wonders, “How exactly does the number of partners affect the moral quality of a relationship? … Could it be that limiting intimate partnerships to only two people at a time is no guarantee of avoiding exploitation?”

Besides pondering marriage for bisexuals, he protests that the narrowly “bipolar” definition of marriage excludes “intersexuality, transgenderism, transsexuality and other sexualities.”

Struggles in Montana

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:06 am

An article from the Helena Indepenent Record.

London Article on What happened in Plano

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:02 am

A dramatic, late-night intervention by Michael Green saved the proposed alliance of traditionalist Anglicans in America from collapse.

Canon Green, who was Archbishop George Carey’s Evangelism Advisor, rallied 14 bishops and over 100 lay and clerical delegates and observers behind a charter that will keep the group within Anglicanism.

The result meant the formal establishment of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDP) at its organising convocation in Texas on Jan 19-20.

The NACDP “will operate within the constitution of the Episcopal Church and in full fellowship with the vast majority of the Anglican Communion,” stated its Moderator, the Rt Rev Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh.

“There is now no reason for orthodox Episcopalians to leave Anglicanism,” he told the media at the close of the gathering held at Christ Church, Plano, Texas.

The NACDP is not “a church within a church” stated the Rt Rev Peter Beckwith of Springfield, and is “in, but not of” the Episcopal Church of the United States noted South Carolina delegate, the Rev Canon Kendall Harmon.

The 10-point charter adopted by the NACDP commits its members to the “propagation of the unchanging Gospel of Jesus Christ” and to the aid of traditionalists seeking alternate or “Adequate Episcopal Oversight” who are opposed to the innovations of doctrine and discipline represented by the consecration as Bishop of New Hampshire of a divorced man living in a homosexual relationship.

The convocation offered an olive branch to participants from Forward in Faith, adopting a statement of latitude on the question of the ordination of women that pledges to “honour the positions and practices on this issue of others in the Network.”

“The most significant” aspect, however, of the convocation noted Dr Harmon “was that we passed [the charter] unanimously.”

The genesis of the NACDP arose from a meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and four American bishops on Oct 17 at Lambeth Palace. The Rev Jonathan Jennings, Lambeth Palace Press Officer, told The Church of England Newspaper, “Dr Williams encouraged [the bishops] to pursue any questions of oversight firmly within the context of their relationship with ECUSA, along the lines envisaged by the Primates’ meeting.”

Thirteen American diocesan bishops responded to the Primates’ challenge and released a theological statement in December justifying their dissatisfaction with the course taken by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and the American General Convention. The convocation that followed, however, opened under a cloud of uncertainty and fear following a series of attacks that labeled the proposed Network “schismatic” and “fundamentalist”.

Though the public face of the meeting was polite and calm, disagreement arose over how and when to act. Several bishops were unwilling to back calls for alternative Episcopal oversight unless and until they had the full backing of their dioceses.

Others raised concerns over the canonical implications of crossing diocesan boundaries to provide alternative Episcopal oversight.

The convocation had reached its nadir over canonical wrangling when Bishop Duncan invited Canon Green to address the stalled gathering. Canon Green reminded the convocation why they were there and what they had been called to do. The eyes of the Anglican Communion were on the convocation, Canon Green said, pleading for “boldness” and “courage”, asking if now was not the time to act, when would it be, and if they were not the ones to act, who would be?

“You can talk until the cows come home, but there has got to be some action,” Canon Green told The Church of England Newspaper the next day.

“It was as if a dam burst,” Canon Harmon told us. Various participants later described Canon Green’s words as “electric”, “Churchillian”, and as an “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” upon the group.

Canon Green also urged the NACDP to put aside differences with the Anglican Mission in America making a “heartfelt plea for reconciliation,” one participant noted. The AMiA, Canon Green later told us, “is fully Anglican”.

As the Network reconvened on the second day, the delegates united behind Canon Green’s call for action confidently resolving differences over alternative Episcopal oversight and the ordination of women and unanimously endorsed the final document.

A copy of the charter and minutes from the meeting, a spokesman for the NACDP said, were being sent to Dr Williams and Bishop Griswold.

–The Church of England Newspaper

Two Archbishops Respond to Ephraim Radner; Ephraim Radner responds to Them

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:43 am

Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini and Yong Ping Chung respond to Ephraim Radner (please read and ponder first). Dr. Radner has in response sent this reply:

On Archbishops Kolini’s and Yong’s reply to E. Radner
A brief response by E. Radner

Archbishops Kolini of Rwanda and Yong of Southeast Asia have sent out a weighty rebuke for what I have written regarding the need for mutual accountability within the larger church as we seek to right the listing vessel of the Anglican Communion’s common teaching, and the Christian teaching and witness of ECUSA in particular. I accept the rebuke for what it is, coming from two respectable archbishops. I apologize for any misrepresentations of the AMiA I may have made in what I have written.

Archbishops Kolini and Yong are both people whom I greatly admire in their zeal for the Gospel and their evangelistic vision. I have shared communion with them in Our Lord’s Body and Blood; and have broken bread with them; indeed, I have shared my home with then Bishop Kolini and his wife. In what I have written I have deliberately avoided accusing individuals of wrongdoing, or of imputing evil motives to specific persons. This is, in large measure, because I have had deep respect for many of the persons involved in the AMiA. And I do not question the integrity of their faith. Rather, I share with them – as best I can – a passion for the truth of Christ Jesus as given in the Scriptures.

Without touching on details in dispute, I must nonetheless stand by my main argument regarding the dangers we are in through a failure to find a clear and mutually subjugating pathway for our decisions in defense of the Gospel of Jesus. I have responded to some of the questions raised regarding my views in a recent exchange with Bishop FitzSimons Allison, and I will not reiterate them here. Let me only point out that accountability for our common life in Christ is not exhausted, nor even greatly extended, if emanating only from within Rwanda, or from the part of the Archbishop of Southeast Asia acting personally, anymore than it is if it is pretended for the General Convention of the ECUSA acting within its limited and unilateral purview. If we do not strive for a greater and deeper and broader basis for our discernment, decision, and discipline – as broad as our Communion and broader still! – we risk disintegrating the bonds of our shared life even as we lose the means by which our faith is ordered towards the common good. The call to “conciliarity” – of taking counsel together and submitting ourselves to “what seems good to all of us” in the Spirit through the instruments of our common order – is not yet something that has been sufficiently followed in our midst. Surely all of us know we must do better.

With respect to details, it seems as if Archbishop Kolini is under the impression that I am ignorant of matters touching directly upon the life of the Christians whose ecclesial existences have been affected by the AMiA. I respectfully assure him that this is not the case. As a Regional Missioner in the Diocese of Colorado for several years, I have rather concrete knowledge about a range of relevant matters. At the time of the original AMiA splits among many of our congregations less than four years ago – I say this as more are occurring – I was directly engaged in assisting in working with many fractured and injured congregations (as I was in trying to protect the canonical status of clergy who were leaving for the AMiA). Indeed, I know a good many things that both prudence and charity demand I relate privately to him, as in fact I have already done on a number of occasions. If there is any confusion about the scope of this experience and the responsibility for oversight that was in fact offered it – by bishops of ECUSA or the AMiA or Rwanda or Southeast Asia – I suggest that Archbishop Kolini come to Colorado, where we may actually visit with those involved, and where others besides myself can offer their personal testimonies. Let this count as a formal invitation for such a visit, that will surely have as its fruit the furtherance of the reconciliation we all so desire in the Lord.

In the meantime, it is probably wiser if this “parish priest from Colorado” were simply ignored by Primates like Archbishops Kolini and Yong, rather than met so robustly. I am hardly worth your trouble, however wrongheaded I may be. I am deluged with enough local chastisement to satisfy even the more distant and exalted corners of the world.

Central Florida Parish May leave for AMIA

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:38 am

An article by Mark Pinsky. (David Steinmetz has an opinion piece on the general struggle in the Episcopal Church in the same paper).

Bishops Howe’s email to the diocese about it last night was as follows:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Many of you are aware that the clergy, vestry and people of St. John’s,
Melbourne have been reexamining their relationship to the Episcopal Church, and
considering the possibility of severing their ties with it, and with the Diocese
of Central Florida, since (at least) the General Convention of 2000.

Last week the Rector, Fr. John Miller, informed me that all but one of the
clergy, and all but one of the vestry, have decided to join the Anglican Mission
in America. They informed the congregation of this decision at the Annual
Meeting, which began last Sunday afternoon. The Meeting began between the
services on Sunday morning, and then it was recessed - to be reconvened on this
Saturday afternoon, January 31, at 1 PM.

I will be meeting with them at that time, accompanied by Fr. Dabney Smith,
representing the Standing Committee. In a letter I asked Fr. Miller to read to
the congregation last Sunday, I said that I do not want to argue with anyone
who wishes to leave, but I want to present the position of the Diocese of
Central Florida, and my own commitment to those who decide to stay, and I want to
examine with them some of the options available to them.

I was not planning to announce anything until after that meeting has taken
place, but it appears the secular press has gotten at least some parts of the
story, so I am writing to bring all of you up to date. And to ask your prayers
for all parties concerned.

Warmly in our Lord,

+John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

1/28/2004

Notable and Quotable

Filed under: — kendall @ 11:09 pm

“The closer a position gets to being a core value in Scripture the greater the burden of proof becomes for those who seek to modify it substantially or overturn it. The evidence adduced must be so strong and unambiguous that it makes the strong and unambiguous witness of Scripture pale by comparison. Otherwise Scripture ceases to have any meaningful authority in the life of the church. How does one determine proximity to a core value? Four related elements stand out.

(1) The more pervasively and consistently a particular position is upheld across the landscape of the canon—at least implicitly and especially across the two Testaments—the greater the claim is to being a core value and the higher the burden of proof becomes.
(2) The more strongly biblical authors hold to a particular position—that is, the more serious a moral issue it was to them, as measured by the intensity of the language employed to describe violators and the stakes or penalties assigned—the greater the claim is to being a core value and the higher the burden of proof becomes.
(3) The more absolutely biblical authors maintained a particular view—that is, the more unlikely it was that they would have permitted any exceptions—the greater the claim is to being a core value and the higher the burden of proof becomes.
(4) The more the authors of Scripture maintain a position in opposition to broader cultural trends—and thus the greater likelihood that they were not uncritically imbibing from the conventional cultural well—the greater the claim is to being a core value and the higher the burden of proof becomes.

When these four elements all exist for a given position, the bar for deviating from this position in contemporary practice has to be set extraordinarily high. As it happens, all four elements are in place for the biblical proscription of homosexual practice. This constellation justifies the application of the label core value or foundational value, certainly within the sphere of sexual ethics, to the principle that complementary sexual others, male and female, are an essential prerequisite for legitimate sexual relationships.”

–Dr Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, from “Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse As Intrinsically Sinful? An Evaluation of Mark Powell’s Essay in Faithful Conversation

Peter Moore: The Pain Inflicted by ECUSA on Evangelicals

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:16 pm

How does this struggle express itself? There has not been physical persecution – yet. But there have been threats When the celebrated American poet Carl Sandberg was asked “What is the ugliest word in the English language?” he thought for a moment and then said: “The ugliest word in the English language is – exclusive.” I would say that that is the primary way our struggle is expressed – the sense of exclusion.

I see it through the eyes of seminarians to come to us after battles with diocesan bishops and Commissions on Ministry. Many have been told that they are too biblical for the Episcopal Church and should look elsewhere, although they would fit perfectly with any of your evangelical theological colleges and be totally at home here at this Congress. Large numbers have been forbidden to come to Trinity. “Over my dead body” said one bishop! Roughly 2/3 of our students, then, come without episcopal support – and must find a bishop along the way. Nevertheless they come, risking financial loss, debt, and living with the uncertainty of whether they will be ordained at the end. Of course, many bishops will not ordain our graduates, nor let them serve in their dioceses.

Evangelicals who attend the other seminaries are often treated to a barrage of stereotyping– evangelicals like to clap and sing “Blessed Assurance” they are told! They lack scholarship, and so on. One transferred to us after having been hit on by a gay faculty member at a sister seminary. There was, of course, no reprimand of that faculty member. That seminary lost a good student, and we gained one. Another student transferred to us after being told that no evangelical Episcopal scholar would ever be allowed to speak at the Episcopal seminary he was attending. Evangelical students are nearly always marginalized and occasionally ridiculed at our sister seminaries.

Then, once getting through this gauntlet, and finally ordained and out in parishes the marginalization continues – and in some ways gets worse. Preferment is frequently denied to evangelical clergy – although many come in under the radar, and end up in large and significant parishes. After all, in a Church that has lost a million members, someone with vitality and conviction is a hot commodity.

But, as rectors of parishes, once signs of life appear, and parish leadership begins to shift to those with solid faith and a desire to grow and reach out, conflicts emerge. Since so few Episcopalians have even a modicum of knowledge of the Bible, the Gospel that Evangelical rectors preach sounds “Baptist” to untutored ears. Soon they are caught in a tug-of-war between renewed believers and old guard traditionalists. If the bishop is brought in, he or she may not understand the issues, and may side with those who seem most likely to “keep the institution going.” In some cases liberal bishops get downright nasty. The opposition to orthodox and biblical rectors can have the appearance of an inquisition, and the level of animosity towards orthodox faith and preaching would astonish you. Maintenance wins out over mission, and a good evangelical rector loses his or her cure, and leaves with a great amount of pain. [I am not implying that orthodox rectors always act with perfect wisdom or balance.]

There is, of course, no parity of appointments to diocesan and national committees. So
evangelicals are regularly underrepresented. Evangelicals are misrepresented – and occasionally libeled – in the Church press. It would seem that the graders of the General Ordination Exams are biased in a liberal direction in the way they grade tests. There is limited access to mainline Episcopal publishing houses. I went into the bookstore at the Episcopal Church Center in New York City and scanned the shelves of books on sexuality. I noticed that there was not o ne book defending the orthodox, biblical view of sexuality. (I am told that has since been rectified!)

Need I go on? There are slights, rebuffs, subtle rejections, misunderstandings, exclusions, caricatures – and when evangelicals succeed, when their chur ches grow and flourish, they are overlooked. But I suspect that many of you know this from your own experience, though by sheer force of numbers, and because of strong leadership and uninterrupted continuity, your British and our American scenes are vastly different. In North America, the liberal element is in total control of the church’s inner working, and evangelicals exist at their mercy.

But you know for me the biggest pain comes not from being excluded, but when I am included. It’s when I have to listen to impossible pap from supposed religious authorities in the name of the Gospel that has transformed our lives and which I know to be the greatest News the world has ever heard, that my heart sinks. It is the pervasive nominalism, the anti- intellectual mysticism, the arrogant elitism, the lifeless formalism, the post-Modern relativism, all coupled with – yes, I am ashamed to say it, that American sense of superiority that we and we alone are the true Anglicans, that the rest of the Communion can stew in its own juice – that is the greatest pain we bear.

–The Rev. Dr. Peter Moore is Dean, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry; this is an excerpt that he gave from a talk at NEAC4.

Michael Russell alleges “Crimes Against the Gospel”

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:21 pm

[One of the many interesting facets of this whole situation in the unfolding crisis in the Episcopal Church is the way in which reappraisers cannot let go of their combativeness and the need to define themselves as overagainst reasserters. In a number of instances this has involved me personally. (For a recent example, check this out.) One of the more interesting examples appears below, in which I am accused, among other things, of doing “violence” to Scripture.]

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel! (Matthew 23:23-24)
This was a portion of the Gospel at this morning’s (August 26) Eucharist, and it was the very piece of scripture I had been planning to use for this article. It captures exactly my own assessment of those who have been bludgeoning our church and General Convention with scripture. As we have discovered, there is a cohort of people within the life of the Church who believe that they possess the truth because they claim they have scripture as their foundation. I would suggest that they have utilized scripture to tithe mint and cumin while neglecting weightier matters.
When Kendall Harmon, representing the AAC several times on television, called the vote “the big red line” on the highway, referring to its significance in terms of scriptural import, he was, in my opinion doing violence to scripture and misusing it irresponsibly. Homosexuality, in scripture, is hardly significant at all in comparison to other issues that scripture regularly raises. And the violence that is done to scripture is to pull out these passages as major definers of who we are and what we should be about while ignoring others of far greater significance. A few examples:
1) Jesus himself, who calls remarriage after divorce adultery, explicitly forbids divorce and remarriage in scripture. Yet I do not remember anyone threatening schism when, more than 30 years ago, we allowed both divorce and remarriage. Only with great straining can someone accept the authority of the church to overturn words from Jesus’ mouth and then deny it the capacity to interpret around homosexuality.
2) Fornication is mentioned way more frequently than homosexuality, but I see no movement to refrain from presiding at marriages of couples that are already sexually intimate.
3) While Leviticus calls for the death of men who lie with men as women, the Pentateuch also calls for death for people who work on the Sabbath (4th Commandment); disrespect their parents (5th Commandment); blaspheme the name of the Lord (3rd Commandment); whose animal kills a person; any person who murders someone (6th Commandment); worshipping other Gods, or inducing others to worship other gods (1st commandment); for mediums and wizards; adultery (7th Commandment); and even rape. In the oft-misused first chapter of Romans where Paul describes male homosexual acts as a consequence of Idolatry he goes on to discuss other consequences; “They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die–yet they not only do them but also even applaud others who practice them. Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” Note the parallels between what Paul says deserve death and the partial list from the Pentateuch. It does violence to scripture to pull out the one that we don’t like – homosexuality – and give a pass to the rest of the list. And speaking as harshly as he is, Paul ends by warning us not to judge others!
4) In Luke 20, Jesus says, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.” In First Corinthians 7 Paul writes: “ Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none…. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.” So for both Jesus and Paul marriage is not forbidden and not a sin, but neither is it the optimal thing for people who are Christians to do! Those who argue that marriage is the restoration of the Edenic state of humanity are making that up from whole cloth. With Jesus and Paul there is only concern for the in-breaking kingdom of God and our need to be devoted to it, with marriage as a merciful compromise to keep us from sinning, but one fraught with distresses.
When people, however well-intentioned, take some pieces of Scripture and hold them up as authoritative (the big red line on the highway) but show little concern for all the rest of these lists they truly strain at the gnat and swallow the camel. It is an incredible piece of legerdemain to make homosexuality a bigger issue than any of the others listed in the passages above. And as you can see from just the few passages above, a lot of the rest of us are in major hot water!
You see, the danger in embracing the Bible in a literal way is this: You cannot embrace just the parts you like and excuse the ones you don’t. Anyone who does needs to listen to the woes preached by Jesus. There are three choices in treating Scripture, it seems to me:
1) You take it all, the whole cloth, and enforce it all. The Puritans claimed to do that, though Richard Hooker chided them for being foolish to think they were actually true to what they were claiming. Folks like Jerry Falwell would tell you that they do, but I suspect they too do some picking and choosing. The Amish have probably been the most effective in living that way.
2) You take none of it as authoritative. Not even the liberals in the church who will make a metaphor of everything want this option.
3) You study and interpret scripture, with some reasonable and well-described methodology. In this choice, I would submit that because we are all interpreters, we have to accept that reasonable people can disagree as we faithfully attempt to receive scripture and tradition and transmit it.
I would submit that since almost no one would argue to enforce all the of the death penalty scriptural mandates and that almost no one would embrace the view of marriage, divorce, and remarriage after divorce elucidated in scripture, that almost everyone will have to admit to being an interpreter of scripture. Once they do that, then we can argue methodology for interpretation, and the pastoral methodology that the Episcopal Church in particular has used to adapt and transform scriptural mandates into present contexts.
Sadly though, I know that there are those who will simply hold on to their literalism and avoid and deny being honest about their failure to embrace the whole cloth of the scriptures, preferring only to gore other people’s oxen. We can observe with mercy as they bluster while swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat, but we do not have to yield the field of orthodoxy or tradition to them at all. And when we are all ready we can get busy, as Jesus suggests, with the weightier matters of the law: justice, faith and mercy.

The Rev. Michael Russell is rector of All Souls, San Diego

Ephraim Radner and Bishop Allison

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:58 pm

Ephraim Radner’s lecture from Charleston and Bishop Allison’s response.

David Bena: Are We an Inclusive Church?

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:01 pm

Last week, as I was checking in at an airport, the airline staff person
asked if I happened to be a Catholic or an Episcopal priest. When I said I
was an Episcopalian, she responded, “Well, are you an inclusive
Episcopalian or an exclusive Episcopalian?”

Sensing that I was being baited, I replied, “What does the word ‘inclusive’
mean to you?” She hesitated, and then said, “Oh, I don’t know…a place
here everybody can go and feel welcome.”

“Good answer,” I quickly shot back, “Then I am a part of the inclusive
church…But tell me, when you say a place where everybody can go and feel
welcome, do you mean that there should be no rules regarding ethical
behavior for the members of the church? Is it OK for someone to come every
week and steal a purse on the way out? Do we need to teach him some ethics
about stealing being wrong, even though some would say that kleptomaniacs
don’t choose that lifestyle - it just seems to be with them from birth?”

“Well, of course we have to have rules. I don’t want someone stealing my
purse. What I’m talking about is an inclusive church that welcomes everyone
in spite of their sexual proclivities.”

“Oh,” I responded slowly, “so actually, when you say inclusive church,
you’re really confining it to a SEXUALLY inclusive church?” “Right!” she
said gleefully, seeing that she had made contact!

“OK, now let’s look at that. Do you mean there should be no rules regarding
sexual behavior? Is it OK for another woman in the pew to hit on your
husband? I’ve been told that some people find it impossible to sustain a
life-long relationship with another person, and that they have within them
an uncontrollable need to have multiple sexual relationships. If we find
folks like that, should we say it is OK for them to commit adultery or go
through a number of marriages and to feel really good about themselves in
spite of that problem?”

“You are being difficult!” she responded impatiently. “Of course it would
be wrong for someone to think that they can have my husband sexually. You
know what I’m talking about - same sex!”

“So,” I stated tentatively, “in your estimation, an inclusive church is
simply a church where people can practice sex with people of the same
gender and be told that it’s perfectly normal.”

“Well, not exactly. Only as long as they’re wired that way, and then it
would be OK.”

“Three problems here,” I said, as gently as I could. “One - there is no
scientific evidence whatsoever that anyone is ‘wired’ that way. There is
opinion, but no scientific evidence. While we do know about chromosomes and
gender determination, we do NOT know about a gay gene - after extensive
searching, no gay gene has been found. We really don’t know why some people
prefer same-sex relationships. It’s possible that some were taught that way
as children, that some were curious and got into the life style; that some
craved a lost relationship with a parent; and that some do not remember a
time when they were not drawn to same-sex relationships. That’s the first
problem - we don’t know what causes it. The second problem is that, even if
some may be ‘wired’ that way, that does not mean therefore that homosexual
activity is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It looks like some people
are ‘wired’ to be lifelong pedophiles; some are ‘wired’ to have many sexual
relationships at the same time; some are ‘wired’ to have an ongoing sexual
relationship with both genders at the same time. Does being inclusive mean
that there are no sexual standards beyond how one is ‘wired?’

The Church has always tried to be compassionate and inclusive. But it does
have a teaching responsibility. It has to hold up standards in a
compassionate way…or there will be no standards at all. And the third
major problem is that our Scriptures and Tradition hold up only
heterosexual relationships as honorable. The whole theme of the bible (not
just a few proof texts) about sexual activity is that it a gift of God to
be shared between a man and a woman in a covenanted relationship.

What I’m saying is that we are inclusive, in that all are welcome to come
worship, accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and be a part of the
family. But just as a nuclear family has a teaching responsible, so does
the Church. We need to, in a loving but firm way, teach the ethics and
morals of the Historic Church, and raise up leaders who will model that
behavior. To use a trite phrase: we need to love and welcome the seeker
after truth, but not honor lifestyles that do not honor Christ. If we
REALLY love seekers as Jesus loves them, we need to be teaching them and
assisting them to break free from lifestyles that enslave them. And
teachings from the scriptures are really the authoritative way we can do
that. THAT is what really makes us an inclusive, loving Church.”

“Thank you,” she said, as she continued her work, pondering these things in
her heart.

–The Rt. Rev. David Bena is Suffragan Bishop in Albany

Andrew Adam: Tone Down the Rhetoric

Filed under: — kendall @ 5:53 pm

Interesting thoughts here.

Albert Mohler on Cultural Destruction and the Call of the Church

Filed under: — kendall @ 12:27 pm

Albert Mohler with a helpful focus for the church:

The mission of the Church in the midst of this cultural crisis is to proclaim the truth and reach out to the casualties. In the face of rampant relativisms, the believing Church must proclaim the truth of God’s Word, the permanence of His commands, and the reality of His judgment. Given the cultural context, this task is one of the most important tests of Christian faithfulness. To proclaim biblical truth to this culture is to risk social isolation, outright rejection, and, in some cases, potent attacks.

Chris Seitz: Deep Concern About the AMIA

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:03 am

A very important piece.

A Perspective on What Happened in the Diocese of New Hampshire

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:48 am

Dear Followers of Christ,

I am a parishioner at St. Paul’s Church in Concord, New Hampshire. I have been there since the 1980s, and have served on the Vestry in the past. My belief is in Jesus Christ, as the Savior and Lord of my life, and I consider the mission of the Church to be what we state as the Great Commission. The purpose of the Church is to preach the gospel and to heal. We all should pray to love God with all our hearts, souls, minds and strength and to love others as God has loved us.

I was devastated and shocked by the election, then confirmation, then consecration of Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire. I attended the alternative service. I also continue to attend St. Paul’s, although I have looked for another parish or another church. At this point God has not led me to leave. I feel that at the moment I have been called to monitor what is going on and what is being taught, and I have committed to continuing to work with the Alpha Program, which is Biblically based and sound, and in teaching some in depth Bible studies. I have withheld the majority of my pledge since the election, and given to the programs that I support (as I was advised that I could not designated the money not go to the Diocese).

As Gene Robinson sometimes attended my parish in the past and sometimes preached, I have a sense of him for some time that has not necessarily been obvious to everyone. I also have heard the preaching, teaching and talking of Canon Marthe Dyner, recently sent by Bishop Theuner in to “control” what is going on at Redeemer in Rochester. While Bishop Theuner has mostly been at our parish on Christmas Day service and once a year, I was not particularly aware of his beliefs. I do, however, see a commonality in what Marthe Dyner has said and what Gene Robinson has said, preached or alluded to.

I never in a million years thought Gene Robinson would have been elected. At the insistence of some (my priest David Jones included), the video used to explain the diocese was expanded over the words of those who wanted a Bishop to be a “world figure” and spokesperson on social issues, to include what appeared to be an emphasis on Christian witness and spiritual development, at least making it look more of that type of search. There were some excellent candidates brought in. I thought Gene was just the local who was being spared the ignominy of being ousted before the final vote. How wrong I was, and in shock, I have been really intensively praying and reading my Bible and listening to God with regard to these events since the election here in June.

The election of Gene Robinson was not open and fair. The Holy Spirit did not produce his election, despite what has been said by some. I know of people who were delegates, who prayed and considered everything, and prayed intently, yet the Holy Spirit led them to vote for others-even when there was a move to try to make it more “unanimous”. The clergy that could be gotten in line before the election were ready to vote for Gene Robinson for some time. There was a lot of lobbying by Theuner. I have considered (as I am a lawyer) whether a suit against the Diocese for wasting nearly $180,000 on the sham of bringing these others in, when it was set up for Gene Robinson to be chosen, should be brought to bring this out. From those in the know, including some retired clergy, I believe that the set up was made at least a year in advance, with steady work on those clergy who were not in favor of this, and then with some special handpicking where possible of parishioners as delegates. The sham of the open and spirit centered election was important, however, for it was used in the news to tout what a great candidate Gene was, so openly and lovingly chosen overwhelmingly by the New Hampshire Church. Not so, but it certainly was made to look so.

I have prayed daily for the Spirit of wisdom and revelation (Ephesians 1: 17) and for the gift of discernment that I might have knowledge of God’s truth. God showed me within a few days after the election, and also within a few days of the confirmation (when I was starting to question whether I really heard God correctly), the same scripture about the lying spirit sent by God to fool King Ahab (I Kings 22, 2 Chronicles 18, daily readings for those days in the One Year Bible) that the spirit that caused this election was a lying spirit. In those weeks God also showed me many of the prophecies about the end times and the rise of the Anti Christ and the False Prophet. I have always wondered how it was that Church and believers might be fooled into worshiping the false leader and how that leader would ever rise to world popularity and status. God told me it will be like this was done, the rise of Gene Robinson, on the supposed wings of this cause of homosexuality “acceptance”, to world news. (If you missed it, the papers did pick up on some of the “worship” aspect of how people were dealing with Gene Robinson and how he viewed himself as “changing the gospels” for modern times.)

For any of us who have trusted completely in God and Jesus Christ, through the periods of silence and hardship, we have come to the knowledge that God is not just occasionally involved in our lives, He is intimately involved in the details of our lives, on a daily basis. Nothing is coincidental. I have come to look at my days and the people I meet in my law profession and my consulting as appointments God has made for me. For those of you reading this who do not know Oswald Chambers and “My Utmost for His Highest”, I strongly recommend the daily readings and wonderful insight from God that this man had in his lifetime. I cannot tell you how many days the readings from the lexionary, the One year Bible, and that book were right on target, not only with what was happening here, but what was wrong with what was happening. There were other things brought to me to, including one day an article on a website that explained all the talk of “inclusion” and the importance of that to this election.

To not make this any longer for now, I am going to capsulate what has become apparent to me from all these sources, including sermons and talking of Gene Robinson and also the other Canon, Marthe Dyner:

1. Homosexuality is only the surface issue here. Nevertheless, look how this election has spawned an extraordinary amount of acceptance of this lifestyle as normal, with TV, government, etc. all developing the worldview that this is normal and great. (Biblical truth and biological evidence are totally against this as normal, but the latter is subject for a later writing).
2. In trying to overcome the strict prohibition against homosexuality as a sin, however, the proponents:
a. Compared it to the ordination of women (particularly in saying that the Bible opposition to this was considered out of touch with modern times).
b. said that what is explicitly described, a man lying with a man as a man lies with a woman, is “not what they do” (statement from Marthe Dyner).
c. Said that this applies to the Old Testament only, which was written by a bunch of old men who did not really understand any of this (what happened to all Scripture is God-breathed?)
d. The references are only to temple idolatry, or promiscuous sex, not to long term committed partners (who did not exist then, they say?)
e. Jesus never said anything about it
f. Paul railed against it, but perhaps because that was his “thorn in the flesh”
3. It was not until after the objection was raised (that if God wanted to do a new thing here, which He certainly could do, announcing it at something new), and considering nearly two thousand years in which this was clearly prohibited and accepted by Churches as being sin, that some started acting as if God had now announced He really has done this as a new thing (acting through the Holy Spirit to vote Gene in). Yet, if this is the new thing God is doing in His Church, why don’t the rest of us seem to get it? Why haven’t many around the world had this revealed to them?
4. The “gospel of inclusion” is what underlies this, and it is a heresy. This belief says: God loves everyone (correct), God sent Jesus to die for everyone’s sins (also correct), God is not willing that anyone should perish (also correct as it is stated in the Bible), THEREFORE, Everyone is “saved” (HERESY). Marthe Dyner believes this, I believe Gene Robinson believes this and it has been reported to me that this is being taught in a number of Episcopal Divinity Schools. There are lots of people in my Church who now believe this. As a result, if everyone is “saved”, we make fun of those “evangelicals” who make a big deal about salvation, being saved, being “born again”. As a result, it really doesn’t matter what you do, sin or not, because in the end everyone is going to heaven! (???) What about all the other Scripture about that, including the many who call Jesus Lord, but are told to depart from Him at the Judgment. THINK ABOUT THIS. THIS IS A BIG THING. If the belief is spread, then when will people be asked (other than in the “rhetoric” of the baptismal covenant, which will obviously have to be changed at some point) to repent from their sins, to turn to God and ask forgiveness and then to have a “new life” in Jesus Christ. Isn’t that the true gospel message???????!!!!!!
5. Along with this “inclusion thing”, billed as inclusion of homosexuals (by including a Bishop, so that they will feel welcome in the Church-where all of us are sinners and all are already welcome), they believe there is NO EVIL, NO SATAN. This has been taught by Marthe Dyner, and is just what Satan would like us to believe, particularly in the Church.
6. If we don’t need salvation by Jesus’ death on the Cross-and our decision to accept this and follow Jesus, then we won’t need to turn our lives and will over to Jesus Christ to be our Lord. This raises the question of why be in the Church at all? What has been done here is to replace Christianity with what I call “Theistic Humanism”, a “belief” that talks about God, does not know Him as a personal entity, and merely tries to invoke His name for the masses who believe there is a God, even if impersonal, etc. Actually, think about it, how many did Satan hook by atheism, or by humanism itself (we are all gods?)? Not many takers. But by talking about God, and then going about doing public projects deemed by the world to be good, such as AIDS awareness, school funding equality, helping the poor get medical coverage (and whatever else Gene Robinson is announcing from the pulpit), has some appeal. If the churches (as mine did this Sunday) talk about being inside the Church as the way you get to be children of God, but no “salvation” is ever mentioned, it does not require people to change their lives, see sin as opposed to God. We want their money only (which by the way, IS causing some problems, as it is not coming in as needed by the Church), and have them be happy about God, without having to make a sincere commitment of our lives. This “theistic humanism” is a belief which has form, but is without content and without the power of the Holy Spirit.
7. The Holy Spirit is not in this. There is a spirit all right, but it is one meant to destroy the Church from within. Yet God has promised that the true believers will know and will see this, while those who are not really believers (but may be members of the church) will not.
8. We should be concerned about the LOST here. There are plenty of them attending the Episcopal Church. We should be concerned (and I believe we in AACNE) about the preaching of the Good News, the real truth that Jesus Christ came to reveal, protecting the Bible as all Scripture that is God-breathed and routing out these heresies (or at least being aware of them and pointing them out) to those in the Church who can be reached.
Gene Robinson preached a sermon about Abraham taking Isaac up to sacrifice him. Gene Robinson said he could not understand why Abraham would do that, perhaps because the pagan religions of the day were sacrificing their children. He showed absolutely no understanding that God had told Abraham to do that, that Abraham who was without children for so long might actually and possibly make his son, the son of the Promise, into an idol.

He did not understand that it was a test of faith in God, which Abraham passed. None of that understanding was there. The sermon was disturbing to me, for I came away thinking, this man does not know that God talks to people-and this has apparently not happened to him.

He also preached a sermon another time about the “weeds and the wheat” and said that he was weeds, and probably wheat also, but nothing was going to happen until the end of the age about that. He concluded that he would continue to be weeds and wheat all his life. Jesus himself explained that the weeds in His parable were the children of the evil one. Is this a clue? Has anyone ever asked Gene Robinson clearly what he believes about Jesus Christ, about salvation, about evil, Satan, sin, etc.? I think you might be surprised.

And he has been groomed (and given a job) for the last 16 years by Bishop Theuner. He has used his time to change the ideas of legislature and church about what constitutes the family and to work on AIDS and make a name in these fields. While “equal rights” and “discrimination” might be words for the world that give some pause before objecting to Gene Robinson, we are not to be of this world. What the world does about these things is not of great concern. I am concerned that the Church gets sucked into having to follow what the world does. Jesus loves everyone, but the Bible (and Jesus specifically) states that not everyone will be saved. It takes a decision and we are to follow him, denying ourselves and taking up the cross that is there for each one of us to bear. I am assured that under this regime no one is going to be asked in this Episcopal Church to make a serious decision to walk away from sin in his or her lives, to accept this gift of salvation and to be a new person in Christ. Believing and being okay is just going to be assumed as a “fait accompli” (the everyone is saved thing).

Marthe Dyner has been sent out to control the opposition. Bishop Theuner is the opposition also. They want complete agreement and compliance with acceptance of Gene Robinson. They also don’t want people thinking about these underlying issues.

In all of my recent Bible study I have come to be convicted of more of my own sins, some of which the Church told me were not sins, such as abortion. I am a sinner, as are we all, but Jesus washed me totally clean and He remembers my sins no more. I try to keep a very short account of sins, seeking forgiveness immediately for my wrong thinking and acting and speaking, and by changing my life with the help of the Holy Spirit. I see most of the deeper changes in my life having really come to fruition after I was finally baptized in the Holy Spirit a couple of years ago. I became a Christian at 13. For those who know what I am talking about, this goes without saying, but for those who don’t: It is possible to be a Christian, to have given your life to Jesus Christ, to have the Holy Spirit living in you in some corner (until you let Jesus be Lord), but to not have had the baptism of the Spirit. Some priests, bishops and ministers have worked for 15, 20, 25 years in their ministries before becoming baptized in the Spirit. It makes a huge difference! You can pray for this!

This is long. I hope you are able to read all of this. There are a number of problems in the Episcopal Church that have developed over the years, imperceptibly, slowly, taking away ground. I am ashamed to think that the Episcopal Church was uniquely ripe for becoming the home for this cunning work of Satan. That is what I see it as. We need to see the Truth of God and go into battle armed with the Truth.

God bless and keep you all. Your sister in Christ,

JoAnn Samson

Workshop at the Cathedral in Houston

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:41 am

She Who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World

Dr. Carol Christ will help us re-imagine our universe as deeply sacred and interconnected, and endowed with change, creativity, freedom, and compassion while drawing upon the insights of twentieth-century process philosophers of science and religion, particularly those of Charles Hartshorne. Dr. Christ will reflect upon ways we may co-create with Goddess/God a more life-affirming, just, and joyful future.

More on the ALL Saints/Diocese of S.C. Saga

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:32 am

The headeline given is Bishop calms loyal churchgoers.

1/27/2004

Jonathan Sorum: Why We Can’t Talk

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:13 pm

Please take the time to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest this thoughtful Lutheran piece (requires Acrobat Reader).

Excerpts:

The homosexual rights movement, however, insists that the
discovery of a “homosexual orientation” in and of itself demands a revision of the
Church’s moral teaching. Some people, they say, experience sexual desire for persons of the same sex as “natural” and its expression in actions is therefore in principle good. But here the moral judgment is made before ever consulting the Scriptures or the Church’s teaching of the Scriptures. The desire is declared good ahead of time and whatever the Scriptures say will have to agree with this judgment or else be rejected. Advocates of homosexual rights in the Church may believe they want to change only one plank in the Church’s moral position. But in reality they reject the authority of the Scriptures and the Church’s teaching altogether….

In short, we need to become theologians again. We need to seek again the standpoint in Christ from which we can regain sight of God’s good purposes in this creation and what the shape of our lives ought to be in order to in accord with those purposes. If we reject this false religion and begin to find our true identity in Christ, then—and only then—can we begin to face the issue of homosexuality as a moral question. With our identity given in Christ, we can inquire about how we ought to behave. That is the task of Christian ethics.

–Jonathan Sorum is Docent in Systematic Theology at the Evangelical Theological
Faculty of Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia. He received his doctorate from Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Nashville Church Sign Defaced

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:15 pm

News Channel 5 reports:

“It’s vandalism and an attack at St. Andrews,” [The Reverend James] Guill said. “You feel violated.”

The Ethicist without Ethics

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:38 am

Here is the first dilemma from this week’s The Ethicist, featured weekly in the New York Times Magazine:

I am a single bisexual woman who works for a university with excellent spousal benefits. My gay male roommate has no health insurance. We have discussed getting married so he can receive benefits through me. I like the idea of subverting marriage, an institution that generally won’t sanction the same-sex relationships my roommate and I have had. But is this tantamount to stealing from my employer? Is it ethical to marry for strictly economic reasons? L.S., Queens

Herewith part of the answer:

We live in a country where more than 40 million people lack health insurance and thus reliable access to medical care. The solution to this problem is political reform, and so I hope you are working for that (if only by supporting candidates for public office who are). However, while awaiting utopia, your roommate might want to do something about that hacking cough (or whatever). If marriage is his best means to decent medical care, I see no ethical objections to you two kids’ tying the knot. Nor would you be deceiving the university if you did.

This says VOLUMES about where the elite in our culture live and move and have their being.

Four Diocese of Texas Resolutions

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:52 am

–These four resolutions are mentioned in the address excerpt from Bishop Wimberly below–KSH.

RESOLUTION #1

Sexual Intimacy Resolution

Be it resolved, that this 155th Diocesan Council affirms that sexual
intimacy is to be expressed and enjoyed only between a man and woman having
committed themselves to each other in marriage.

Explanation: The recent decisions of the 74th General Convention to give
consent to a non-celibate homosexual person to become the Bishop of the
Diocese of New Hampshire and to recognize same sex blessings in dioceses
that permit it is to contradict the teachings of God regarding the
appropriate manner of sexual expression between God’s people as found
in Holy Scripture.

Because it is becoming increasingly popular in our culture for men and
women to become sexually intimate with each other before marriage, and it
is also becoming increasingly popular in our culture for people of the same
gender to become sexually intimate with each other, and It is also
prevalent in our culture for men and women to become sexually intimate with
someone other than their spouse, many of us are concerned that the
children, youth, and adults of our diocese could be misguided by these
decisions of General Convention and the irreligious values of our culture.

We believe that neither individual Christians, nor ministers of the Word of
God, nor congregations, nor Councils of the Diocese of Texas, nor General
Conventions may take away from or lessen God’s prohibitions of and warnings
against the practice of sexual intimacy being expressed in any relationship
other than between a man and a woman who are married to each other.

We also believe that individual Christians, ministers, congregations,
dioceses, and national assemblies should compassionately proclaim the Good
News of forgiveness and the admonition to sin no more to those involved in
premarital, homosexual, or extramarital sexual Intimacy and receive them
into the fellowship of Christ’s Body - the Church.

Submitted by: The Rev. Mike Baker, Holy Cross, Sugar Land.
Endorsed by: The Revs. J. Michael Wheeler, Dale Chrisman, Susan Bear,
Wayland Coe, Trey Garland, William (Billy) Disch, J. Alien Green, David W.
Price, Stephen K. Ferguson. Walter L. Ellis. W. Scott Blick, LannyGeib,
Gary D. Hill, Albert Lawrence, jr., Stephen Whaley, James Nelson, John N.
Himes, R. William Dickson. Bill Laucher, William L. Russell, Mitchell
Keppler, Reagan W. Cocke, Bob Wismer, John R. Bentley. Jr., James Hamilton,
Jeffrey Black, Paul D. Felton, David Alwine, and Larry Gipson; and Lay
Vicar, David Kirkaldy.

(The Resolutions Committee remains neutral and will introduce the
resolution without calling for its adoption)

RESOLUTION #2

Repudiating the Action of the 74th General Convention

Be it resolved, that we, the Diocese of Texas meeting in our 155th Diocesan
Council re-affirm the Biblical standards of celibacy and of sexual intimacy
only within marriage as is clearly stated in the Moral Discipline Canon 43
of the diocesan canons, and therefore we repudiate the 74th General
Convention’s confirmation of a non-celibate homosexual person to be a
bishop of the Church, and its acceptance of the blessing of same-sex
relationships as part of our common life.

Explanation: These actions have broken fellowship with the larger Body of
Christ in the Anglican Communion by specifically violating the spirit of
resolutions of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, of the Primates meeting in
Brazil (May 2003), of the Anglican Consultative Council, of the Primates
meeting in London (October 2003), and the clear mandate of the
past seven General Conventions, and consequently have created a pastoral
emergency and threatened the unity of the Anglican Communion.

Submitted by: The Rev. John R. Bentley, Jr., St. Dunstan’s, Houston.

Endorsed by: The Revs. J. Michael Wheeler, Dale Chrisman, Susan Bear,
Wayland Coe. Trey Garland, William (Billy) Disch, j. Alien Green, David W.
Price. Stephen K. Ferguson, Walter L. Ellis, W. Scott Blick, Lanny Geib,
Gary D. Hill, Albert Lawrence, Jr., Stephen Whaley, James Nelson, John N.
Himes, R. William Dickson, Bill Laucher, William L. Russell. Mitchell
Keppler, Reagan W. Cocke, Bob Wismer, Mike Baker, James Hamilton. Jeffrey
Black, Paul D. Felton, David Alwine, Larry Gipson, and Mark Crawford; and
Lay Vicar, David Kirkaldy.

(The Resolutions Committee remains neutral and will introduce the
resolution without calling for its adoption)

RESOLUTION #3

Commending the Bishops, Deputies, and Alternates to the 74th General
Convention

Resolved, that in thanksgiving for their unanimous stand in support of the
historic faith of the Episcopal Church at the 74th General Convention, this
155th Council of the Diocese of Texas does hereby commend our bishops: the
Rt Rev. Don A. Wimberly and the Rt. Rev. Ted Daniels; and our Clergy
Deputies: the Rev. Canon Dena A. Harrison. the Rev. Canon Rayford B. High,
the Rev. Kenneth W. Kesselus, the Rev. Uriel Osnaya-Jimenez; and our Clergy
Alternates: the Rev. James W. Nutter, the Rev. John K. Graham and the Very
Rev. Joe D. Reynolds: and our Lay Deputies: Ronald D. Null, Mary M.
MacGregor, William Gammon ffl. John Bennet Waters, Sr., and our Lay
Alternates: Woody Mann, Jr., Thomas C. Fitzhugh III, David Grizzle, and
James E. Cunningham.

Submitted by: The Rev. John R. Bentley. Jr., St. Dunstan’s, Houston.

Endorsed by: The Revs. J. Michael Wheeler, Dale Chrisman, Susan Bear,
Wayland Coe, Trey Garland, William (Billy) Disch, J. Alien Green, David W.
Price, Stephen K. Ferguson, Walter L. Ellis, W. Scott BUck, LannyGeib, Gary
D. Hill, Albert Lawrence, Jr., Stephen
Whaley, James Nelson. John N. Himes, R. William Dickson, Bill Laucher,
William L. Russell, Mitchell Keppler, Reagan W. Cocke, Bob Wismer, Mike
Baker, James Hamilton. Jeffrey Black, Paul D. Felton, David Alwine, and
Larry Gipson; and Lay Vicar, David Kirkaldy.

(The Resolutions Committee remains neutral and will introduce the
resolution without calling for its adoption.)

RESOLUTION #4

Endorsement of Certain Historic Anglican Doctrines and Policies

Resolved, that the Diocese of Texas affirms that “Holy Scripture containeth
all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein,
nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should
be believed as an article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation,” as set forth in Article VI of
the Articles of Religion established by the General Convention on September
12, 1801; and be it further

Resolved, that the Diocese of Texas re-affirms that “it is not lawful for
the Church to ordain [that is, establish or enact) any thing that is
contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of
Scripture, that it be repugnant to another,” as set forth in Article XX of
the Articles of Religion established by the General Convention on September
12,1801; and be it further

Resolved, that the Diocese of Texas affirms that every member of this
Church is conscience-bound first of all to obey the teaching and direction
of Our Lord Jesus Christ as set forth In Holy Scripture in any matter where
a decision or action of this Church, or this General Convention, may depart
from that teaching; and be it further

Resolved, that the Diocese of Texas re-affirms that the statements known as
the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886,1888, as set forth in “The Book
of Common Prayer, 1979″ continue to be true and accurate statements of the
faith and policy of this Church, and the Anglican Communion; and be it
further

Resolved, that the Diocese of Texas affirms that councils of the Church
have. and sometimes will, err but that Our Lord Jesus Christ, present
through the person of the Holy Spirit, can and will correct such

Explanation: Recent actions by the 74th General Convention and statements
by leaders of the Episcopal Church have clouded the minds of some of our
brothers and sisters in Christ on the nature of Holy Scripture and its
relevance in the life of the Church. This resolution is to declare that
this diocese accedes to Article VI of the Articles of Religion.

The action of the 74th General Convention has placed in jeopardy our
relationship with our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world. This
resolution would indicate to our
sisters and brothers in Christ our desire to stand with them in the face of
the discrimination that they face in the context of a variety of cultures
in which Anglican Christians do not have the same religious freedoms
enjoyed in this country and the actions of the Episcopal Church in the
United States has placed them in harms way.

Throughout the history of the Church, the secular ideas of’humanity have
found their way into teaching of the Church to the detriment of souls.
Sadly, such actions have also become canonical and resulted in the
persecutions of faithful women and men in the Church. This resolution holds
to the supremacy of Scripture over the actions of a fallible human council.

The resolution affirms that the Diocese of Texas holds to the traditional
position of the Church on the nature of developing ecumenical relations and
the nature of unity within the Church.

This resolution reflects that Christ and only Christ is head of the Church
and that those in positions of leadership in the church when in err in
guiding the Body of Christ will seek to repent of their sin and seek the
will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture for healing and restoration of
the Body of Christ.

Submitted by. The Rev. John M. Himes, OSF. Church of the Ascension, Houston.

Endorsed by: The Rev J. Michael Wheeler. Dale Chrisman, Susan Bear, Wayland
Coe, Trey Garland, William (Billy) Disch, J. Allen Green, John R. Bentley,
Jr., Davld W. Price, Stephen K. Ferguson, Walter L. Ellis, W. Scott Blick.
Lanny Geib. Gary D. Hill. Albert Lawrence, Jr, Stephen Whaley, James
Nelson, John N. Himes, R William Dickson, Bill Laucher, William L. Russell,
Mitchell Keppler, Reagan W. Cocke, Bob Wismer, Mike Baker, James Hamilton,
Jeffrey Black, Paul D. Felton, David Alwine, and Larry Gipson; and Lay
Vicar, David Kirkaldy.

(The Resolutions Committee remains neutral and will introduce the resolution
without calling for its adoption.)

Francis Zanger Chimes In

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:42 am

In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

I went to a funeral yesterday. In one of my other lives, I work for Heartland Hospice, working primarily with bereaved families after their loss, and I frequently first meet the family members at either the viewing or the funeral—there’s kind of a handoff, from the chaplain and social worker who work with the patients and families before the deaths, to me, and I come in afterwards, and am there to provide support to the family for the thirteen months following the patient’s death. And so yesterday, I went to a funeral.

Now, we’ve all been to funerals. Here at Holy Communion, funerals (like most of what we do) are beautiful, formal, moving… they acknowledge the grief, yet evoke the mystery of death and resurrection in Christ Jesus. The opening words of the Requiem Mass, so beautiful in their solemnity,: “I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord; he that believeth in me shall never die,” and “Blessed are the dead who die to the Lord; even so saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labors.”

Yes, I went to a funeral yesterday. It was nothing like that at all.

No, the funeral I attended was at the Greater New Bethlehem African Methodist Episcopal Church in Parkers Ferry, and it ran two and a half hours. The deceased was an African American Baptist preacher; the sermon ran for some fifty minutes; there were two soloists and a trio, plus the choir, singing to keyboards and drums; and despite being a visitor I was expected to sit up on the rostrum with all the other clergy. I was even, without notice, called upon to offer “remarks”. Much of the music, in addition to being loud, was very upbeat—more than I’d expect at a funeral. But then, the congregation took the idea of “home-going” seriously, and were truly happy that the deceased was safe in the arms of Jesus. And so they sang loudly, and stood, and swayed, and danced—danced, there in church, in their joy and through their sorrow.

No, the service was nothing, nothing like Holy Communion. And yet, when I had time to get my pulse slowed back down and my blood pressure back to normal, when I had time to really reflect on my experience, I realized that the serious differences, while real, had little to do with the kind of music or the length of preaching. Rather, they had to do with what it means for us to be Christian.

I was baptized into Christianity and the Episcopal Church in 1980, after a two or three year-long period spent wrestling with it. When I finally gave in, it took—here I am today. I was baptized at Emanuel Episcopal Church in Geneva, Switzerland. I have been a member of Anglican or Episcopal parishes in four countries, and visited them in ten other nations—the Navy is great for that. What it’s meant for me, though, is that I’ve come to understand that who we are as a Church is by no means limited to who we are as a Church here in Charleston, or here in the United States.

One of the most wonderful things about being an Anglican—one of the things that it would truly grieve me to think we might lose—is the knowledge that I, as an Episcopalian, can walk into a church in Bahrain or Hong Kong and be welcomed as a member of the family. As a visiting Episcopal priest and chaplain, when the USS Cowpens pulled into an exotic port and I went looking for the local church, I have been invited to preach for Ash Wednesday in Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf, and be the deacon of the Mass in Perth, Australia. My sailors who were Episcopalian (okay, so there were just three of them) were welcomed as long-lost kin when they went to an Anglican church is some foreign city.

So why am I telling you all this? Because it all came back to me when I started to prepare to preach this week, and looked at the Epistle. “Just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.” And, “If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing?”

And so, during these troubled times, I am going to speak about the Anglican Communion—about what it means to be an Episcopalian, and an Anglican. I do so reminding you first that I am speaking as myself—Fr. Dow is away with the vestry, and I must be clear that I’m not speaking for him or “for the church”. Also, I am not speaking about all aspects of the current debacle—I’m not going to talk about what is actually most important—the Authority of Scripture and the Authority of Tradition. No, I’m only going to talk about the part that today’s Epistle relates to—a part which is very important to me personally. I am simply sharing some of my own feelings, some of my own pain at all that has been happening.

The Episcopal Church is certainly the wealthiest “body part” of the Anglican Communion. We have been blessed with great wealth, compared to most other parts of the Church. And we have been generous with it, sending and supporting missioners, providing financial support to dioceses around the globe. We have followed the model given us by the Church of England, when we were still a collection of colonies—both directly and through organizations such as the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which planted and funded Anglican priests for the colonists. And we have followed their model– this parish’s work in the Dominican Republic is but one small example; the work funded, the work done by the American Episcopal Church has been truly remarkable—we have worked hard to carry out the Great Commission, to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

But sometimes there’s a problem with being generous.. sometimes, it can lead to our seeing ourselves a certain way, and seeing the recipients of our generosity another way—as, well, less somehow. It’s too easy for the generous one to overvalue himself, to think of the other, the recipient, as having nothing to offer us.

Add to that our own American pride, because we are not just Episcopalians but Americans, with all that that means. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet. We believe ourselves to be the most advanced, in terms of science, of medicine, of technology, of culture. Other countries benefit from us—from our technology, from the jobs we export overseas, from the security provided by our troops, even from the American movies that are the most popular in the world and the Golden Arches that dot the entire planet. So yes, we Americans think that the world really needs us. And, in many ways, it’s true.

So here we are, Americans and Episcopalians. Proud, of our great abilities, and generous, ready to share of our great wealth. And that, by itself, isn’t wrong. Our problem, though, is that we tend to think that because we’re wealthy we must be wise, and because we’re generous people have to follow our lead, out of gratitude if nothing else.

But St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem weaker are indispensable.”

And thus my problem with what happened at General Convention. The Episcopal Church of the United States of America is part of a body—a body called the Anglican Communion. Not all the various parts of the body are equal—some are small, but very rich, and live in wealthy, technologically-advanced countries. Some are very large—hundreds of times larger than those first ones, but are also poor, and live in less advanced nations. And, as is too typically true, the small, rich parts tend to be white, and the large, poor parts tend to be black or brown.

At Episcopal Church’s General Convention this past year, the gathered delegates heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury asked them to vote ‘no’. The Primates—the heads of all the national churches from throughout the Anglican Communion, asked them to vote ‘no’. The Anglican Consultative Council asked them to vote ‘no’. And the last Lambeth Conference—the gathering in council of all the Anglican diocesan bishops in the world—voted to ask them to vote ‘no’. A number of archbishops and bishops from around the world, from Africa and Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, sent them messages or even came themselves, and asked them to vote ‘no’.

And the gathered Episcopalian delegates said to all the other parts of the body, We have no need of you.”

But they were wrong. We Americans, we Episcopalians, do have need of them—dire need. We are part of the Body of Christ, fed by His Spirit! We cannot cut ourselves off from the rest of that Body and expect to survive!

[I mean, look at me. I’ve had a lot of surgery over the years, but my left arm has never had a problem—it’s strong, healthy, in good shape. What if it were to say that the rest of my body was, well, pretty decrepit, aging, and not all that attractive, and have the rest of me cut off from it? Hmm. I don’t think it’d do real well on its own. The rest of my body wouldn’t do quite as well as before either—I really benefit from its strength, but the rest of me’d still do a lot better than that arm.]

We here in the Episcopal Church need the Church of Africa and of Southeast Asia as much and maybe more than they need us. Here in this country, and in places like us—Canada and England, Australia and New Zealand, places where the church is generally white and relatively rich—have seen our numbers shrink, year after year, for at least the past half-century. At the same time, the churches in Africa and Asia are growing at an amazing rate. People there aren’t just becoming Anglican Christians, they’re risking, even losing their lives to become Anglican Christians. The Anglican Communion—and the Roman Catholic communion, for that matter, are no longer mostly white—we’re mostly brown and black now. Look at a picture of the Lambeth Conference, or of a Roman Consistory of Cardinals!

But not only are we” looking different”, we’re also “worshipping different”. The African churches tend to be far, far more evangelical than I am comfortable with—their Mass looks and feels a lot more like the greater New Bethlehem AME service than it does like Holy Communion’s… with one important exception. The Mass is celebrated, Christ’s Body and Blood are there present on the altar, and the men and women receiving it are receiving it with us, as our brothers and sisters in Christ.

They, our brothers and sisters in Africa and the Caribbean, in Southeast Asia and Latin America, are our hope in the face of the temptations of our nation’s secular culture. We, with our technology and resources and wealth, are their hope in the face of poverty and the threat of violence. We together, Black and White and Brown, devout Anglo-Catholics and fervent evangelicals from throughout the Anglican Communion, from throughout the world… we together are whole; we together are the Body of Christ.

“Now you are the body of Christ, and individually members of it.” Thanks be to God!

In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

–The Rev’d Canon Francis C. Zanger is Priest Associate, Church of the Holy Communion, Charleston, S.C.

1/26/2004

New Proposed Resolution for Virginia

Filed under: — kendall @ 11:20 pm

R-18 Invitation to Perform Episcopal Acts

Whereas, many parishes and individual Episcopalians feel aggrieved
and abandoned by some of the actions of the 2003 General Convention
of the Episcopal Church in the United Sates of America (ECUSA), and

Whereas, it is our desire to retain unity within the body of Christ
and to promote healing of differences, and

Whereas, an Organizing Convocation for the Network of Anglican
Communion Dioceses and Parishes was held at Christ Church, Plano,
Texas on January 19-20, 2004, and

Whereas, the formation of the Network was originally suggested by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Rev. Rowan Williams, and the
Network was initially established at a gathering of mainstream
Anglican leaders in London on November 20, 2003, and

Whereas, many Anglican Primates have already expressed overwhelming
support for the emerging network, and

Whereas, the American Anglican Council (AAC) is but one of a number
of mainstream Anglican groups working collaboratively within the
Episcopal Church to advance the Anglican realignment in the United
States that has resulted in the formation of the Network of Anglican
Communion Dioceses and Parishes, be it hereby

Resolved, that being mindful that it is the Bishop’s prerogative, the
209th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia urges the Bishop to
issue a standing invitation to the bishops associated with the
Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes to enter the
Diocese of Virginia to perform episcopal acts as requested by
individual churches and parishes that are under the Ecclesiastical
Authority of the Bishop of Virginia; and be it further

Resolved, that notice be provided to the office of the Bishop of
Virginia at least two months prior to any visit by bishops associated
with the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes of the
intention to perform episcopal acts within the Diocese of Virginia.
Such notice could be provided, for example, as a consolidated
quarterly schedule of all upcoming visits; and be it further

Resolved, that such notice shall be considered sufficient response to
this standing invitation to satisfy the requirements set forth in the
National Church Constitution, Article II, Section 3.

Submitted by
Ted McMichael, Delegate, and Vestry of Episcopal Church of the Word,
Gainesville

Background
National Church Constitution, Article II, Section 3

“A Bishop shall confine the exercise of such office to the Diocese in
which elected, unless requested to perform episcopal acts in another
Diocese by the Ecclesiastical authority thereof, or unless authorized
by the House of Bishops or by the Presiding Bishop by its direction,
to act temporarily in case of need within any territory not yet
organized into Dioceses of this Church.”

Bishop Wimberly of Texas Offers Some Reflections

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:28 pm

An Excerpt follows from his Address to the Upcoming Diocesan Council:

Continued Focus on Mission

We are called to be focused on our mission and vision and not to be
sidetracked by the winds of doctrine. We are called beyond our humanness
and sinfulness to build up the house that God has built, not tear it down.
We are called to breathe life into our Anglican heritage in this country and
in this diocese, not to dismantle it. We are called to stand on the
salvation of Jesus Christ.

When we are distracted, we are complacent in the work God has put at hand.
This loosens the bonds with which Christ has bound us together as a
community of faith and allows us to fight with one another. Some have set
our Godly vision aside in favor of schism and have replaced God’s holy work
with conversations focused on the institutional politics of the day. We
must continue to celebrate the mighty work God is undertaking in our midst.
We must not allow obstacles to become stumbling blocks for God’s work.

Leadership
In the midst of these diversions, many of you have asked for my leadership,
but have been unwilling to listen, because my Godly counsel was not what you
wanted to hear.

I have been clear about my opinions regarding Gene Robinson’s election and
consecration and General Convention’s stand on blessing of same sex unions.
I am disturbed by the manner in which both the confirmation and response to
his confirmation has disrupted the Church’s mission.

I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the group he has formed will
help clarify the situation. I am confident in the process he has set forth.
I believe only God knows what the future hold, but I cannot imagine leaving
the Episcopal Church.

In the meantime our vision and mission have not changed in the Diocese of
Texas. We will continue to transform lives for Jesus Christ.

I didn’t believe there was a political solution to the situation at General
Convention last summer, and I am also convinced that to take any action at
this 155th Diocesan Council regarding these issues will further divert us
from Christ’s call to serve.

Conversation at Council
Therefore, I am calling for this Council to enter into conversation about
the actions of General Convention by adopting a Special Order of Business
during which voices may be heard, debate offered and opinions shared. I
have asked Dispatch of Business to provide time for this conversation within
the order of business to be adopted at this Council, but there will be no
votes taken as a result of our conversation.

As your bishop, I have been dismayed at the tone and behavior of people on
both sides of these issues. Christ calls us into relationship with one
another and holds us to a high standard of respect for others. We cannot
continue to treat our brothers and sisters in Christ in an abusive manner
regardless of our personally held positions. We must engage one another in
a loving, respectful and honest manner.

Constitution and Canons
There is a proposed Constitutional amendment that was submitted for
Council’s consideration. After consultation with our chancellor and our
Constitution and Canons Committee, I am ruling the proposed amendment “out
of order” as it is contrary to the ECUSA Constitution and Canons to which we
are subject.

Resolutions
Additionally, I am calling for you not to bring Resolutions #1, 2, 3 and 4
to the floor of this Council. If we learned anything at General Convention,
it is that voting against one another will only divide this house further
instead of allowing us to name our concern, fears and opinions in a healthy
forum.

These are substantial matters more weighty than voting on a resolution will
resolve. Bringing them to the floor of Council will mire us in
parliamentary maneuvering rather than addressing the state and welfare of
the Church as a whole. Therefore, my Godly counsel to you is not to bring
these resolutions to the floor of Council.”

More on Henry Orombi

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:49 pm

An article by Joseph Olanyo.

More on the ALL Saints/Diocese of S.C. Mess

Filed under: — kendall @ 1:27 pm

An article by Dave Munday. The Georgetown Times has a piece also.

Sam Pascoe Offers Some Thoughts

Filed under: — kendall @ 12:28 pm

St. Antony’s Day

1648 years ago today the man who would later become known as Antony of Egypt died at the monastery he
founded. He had lived a long, faithful, and fruitful life.
He was born into a wealthy family and, upon his parent’s death, had became a wealthy man. Yet, after his
conversion in his early 20’s, he gave away all his earth possessions and the power and prestige the afforded. He
retreated to the desert and spent the next 15 to 20 years in solitude, wrestling with the implications of this one verse:
“Go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” Matthew 19:21 He
embraced a life of solitary devotion to His Lord. Among the many things we can learn from St. Antony, two stand
out today.
(a) The Christian life offers neither quick answers nor easy believism, and
(b) There is no limit to what we can accomplish if we, like Antony, can grow to be “immune to
applause”–free from slavery to popularity and acclaim, seeking only approval from God.
The IWS and My Son
I offer two tales about two encounters in the last two weeks. The first involved a group of scholars and
doctoral students. The second involved my 17 year-old son. First, the scholars. . . .
Twice a year, our parish hosts the Institute for Worship Studies. Each semester, close to 80 men and
women from around the world gather with about 20 faculty to study worship and liturgy. Over the last four years,
close to 200 students have attended this doctoral level program. They represent over 45 denominations, 40 states,
and 8 foreign countries including Canada, France, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Our faculty is drawn from a wide
variety of denominational backgrounds from Free Church Methodist to Reformed. The faculty is drawn from such
diverse institutions as Calvin College, Notre Dame, Wheaton, Northen Baptist, Reformed Theological Seminary,
and Gordon Conwell.
During their January session last week, the faculty and students called a special meeting. They invited me
to speak about the situation in the Episcopal Church. I assumed they wanted to hear an historical and theological
analysis of the issues facing our communion. I prepared a talk full of dates and resolutions and a recitation of the
various actions of various conventions, etc.
They listened politely as I whizzed through our communion’s recent history. When I finished, I asked if
there were any questions. After a second or two, a woman stood up and said, “While we appreciate what you have
told us, that isn’t what we wanted to hear or why we called this special meeting. We just wanted to tell you that we
love you. And we want to know how to pray for you and serve you in the midst of this struggle.”
They did not need me to explain our situation. They understand our situation, perhaps, better than we do
because they see can see the forest for the trees. They are worried about us and grieve over our failing witness to
Jesus. They simply wanted to love us in the midst of it and through it as brothers and sisters in Christ.
They called themselves to prayer and had me and our music minister kneel in their midst. They laid their
hands on us and prayed for us. In front of me was a Baptist theologian and New Testament scholar, to my right, a
Presbyterian minister and professor of Biblical Studies, to my left, a self-described “old-Methodist preacher,”etc.
I felt myself surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, all of whom love us and are praying for us. I was
deeply moved by their love and commitment. I was more than a little embarrassed by this outpouring of concern
and affection. And, if I am honest, I was a little ashamed that our dirty laundry was so public. I also was ashamed
that it was not dirty as the result of an honest and courageous fight for the Truth of the Gospel. Sadly, it felt to me
as though we had soiled ourselves after a self-indulgent, drunken orgy.
The other experience came when my 17 year-old son asked me some honest questions.
“Dad, you’ve always told me to believe the Bible and to do what it says.”
“Yes.”
“The Bible teaches that homosexual sex is wrong.”
“Yes.”
“Then why are we in a church that says it’s okay?”
Why indeed? My son is not interested in the nuances of Anglican polity. He is a thoughtful adolescent
trying to figure out who and what to believe. Like most adolescents, his nose is quick to pick of the scent of
hypocrisy.
“Why are we sending money to those guys, dad?”
Why indeed?
I tried to put a good face on it. I talked about thoughtful disagreements and hermeneutical conundrums. . .
but the bottom line was he had me. “Out of the mouths of babes… and adolescents . . .”
I am grateful to Bp. Howard for reminding us of the important message St. James brings to us and urgency
of attending to it. Toward the end of his letter, St. James says this: “Above all, my brothers, do not swear__not by
heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your ‘Yes’ be yes, and your ‘No,’ no, or you will be condemned.”
James 5:12
Note two things about this passage: (1) James says ‘above all.’ In other words, if you hear nothing else,
hear this. When our Lord’s brother says ‘Listen to this,’ we need to listen. Note also (2) that James actually softens
somewhat what his brother, our Lord, Himself said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:37) in which He implies
that going beyond a simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ comes from the powers of darkness and involves us in evil.
The time has come for us to heed this admonition. We need to stop equivocating and parsing and trying to
have it both ways. We need to speak clearly.
As Bp. Howard reminds us, St. James also warns against “doubt.” (James 1:6). The curious spelling of our
English word ‘doubt,’ points to its meaning . . . to ‘doubt’ is to have a ‘double’ mind–to want it both ways, to be
undecided. Again, we need to take St. James’ admonitions seriously as we live through this current situation.
My encounters with those wonderful men and women from IWS and with my 17 year old son force me to
once again ask the question which we must ever ask ourselves: “Do our structures and allegiances enhance and
energize our mission or do they restrict and frustrate it?”
Presbyterians & Methodists
As some of you may know, Grace Church, Orange Park, is literally sandwiched between a growing
Presbyterian Church and the largest Methodist Church in their district. Our properties not only touch but our three
churches form a giant jigsaw puzzle of interlocking plots. In an uneasy ecumenical turf tussle, we park on each
others’ lawns, broadcast into each others’ churches when our wireless microphone frequencies cross, and
inadvertently take hostages of each others wandering members. Just last week, a new member’s son asked
directions to the senior high school class and ended up sitting through the class at the next-door Methodist Church.
He took it well and made some new friends.
Our semi-connected, semi-disconnected status is a symbol of the failure of our tradition to embrace the
conscience of Puritans and the energy and vision of Methodism. The very fact that are Methodist and Presbyterian
churches to wander into is at least partly, if not largely, a result of a short-sighted and sub-Christian attitude among
Anglicans which marginalized and drove out men and women of zeal, piety, and genuine faith under the guise of
ecclesiastical correctness.
Sadly, that intolerance for puritan piety and Wesleyan enthusiasm is as much a part of our tradition as are
vestments, prayer book worship, and diocese-centered administration. After all, one of the great figures of Church
history and one of the greatest evangelists of all time, George Whitfield, was tried and convicted of ‘enthusiasm’ at
one of our most historic and picturesque Anglican churches. St. Phillip’s Church in Charleston, S.C.
The AAC Name
Along with several other people in the room today (Bp. Hathaway among them), I attended a conference in
Chicago about seven years ago informally called ‘Briarwood II.’ It may interest you to know that these same fat
little fingers which now wiggle before you are the same ones which typed the original draft of the “Place to Stand,
All Call to Mission.” I also helped write it. And, since I was the only one with a lap-top handy, I also typed it. That
was in Chicago several years ago. At that same meeting we also voted to give this movement a name: The
American Anglican Council. I want to tell you why we picked that name.
American: Quite simply, America is the mission field to which God has called us. We
bloom where we were planted, as the poster says.
• Anglican: We want to embrace and affirm the genius of a church that is liturgical and biblical,
catholic and reformed, protestant and traditional, ancient and modern, structured and
adaptable.
• Council: We wanted to identify with great councils of Christian history. Of course, we were
presuming to imply an equivalence between our effort and the great councils such as
Nicea, Chalcedon, etc. But we were trying to communicate the gravity of situation and
our desire to reach out to the entire world. We were not trying to do a new thing, we
were trying to honor, embrace, and live into an “old” thing.
Quote
I don’t normally quote Henry Kissinger in my sermons, but I want you to hear and ponder this:
“The reason university politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.”
An experienced statesman knows that the greater the stakes the less room there is for hyperbolic rhetoric,
snide and mean-spirited accusations, and thoughtless impugning of motives.
The stark reality is that we have a ton at stake, the very souls of the people within our care and cure. We
are dealing with eternal truths, eternal values, and eternal destinies. We need to be crystal clear about what is and is
not important.
Not too long ago, Bp. John Ruchyana of Rwanda was asked if intervention by the Anglican Primates would
enable Episcopalians to keep their property. He sighed in sad disgust and thought for a moment. He replied, “We
Africans are acting to save your souls. It is as if we have saved you from a burning house only to have you ask us to
run back in and save your furniture. Are you ready to follow Jesus or not?”
Antony gave up a lot for his Lord and his soul. His life was a witness to the basic, spiritual principle that
you cannot serve two masters, God calls us to die to this world–its allures and its allegiances–in order to live unto
Him. God may be calling us all to follow his example.
Antony
As we were reminded at the beginning, this is St. Antony’s feast. Here how his disciple, friend, and
biographer, Athanasius, described him: “He [Antony] was like a physician given by God to Egypt. For who met
him grieving an did not go away rejoicing? Who came full of anger and was not turned to kindness? . . . . What
monk who had grown slack was not strengthened by coming to him? Who came troubled by doubts and failed to
gain peace of mind?” Athanasius on Antony
I close with this thought. The angels proclaimed “Peace on earth among men of good will.” I believe I am
a man of good will. I believe the men and women in the AMiA are people of good will. I believe the people in this
diocese with whom I disagree are people of good will. I want their to be peace between us in Jesus. I think that is
possible.
What may not be possible is to be partners because there does come a time when the Truth is more
important than friendship, when two cannot walk together for they are not agreed on the goal of their journey, when
new wine threatens to destroy old wineskins, and when God calls us to leave the comforts of kith and kin and follow
the Comforter who promises to lead us into all truth for His Word is Truth.
God has brought us to a goodly and Godly place. The diocese of Florida is such a place. Bps. Jecko and
Howard are goodly and Godly men. But God has also brought us to another goodly and Godly place–the place of
decision. The seminal truth which undergirds our baptismal covenant is that life is based on choices. The choice
before us today has been brewing and festering for decades. Neil and I and some other men and women in this room
have been working at this for 20 years or more.
This next little bit is going to sound defensive, egotistical, and self-righteous. . . I just want you to know
that I know it before I say it. Maybe there is a simple answer to this whole thing that we have missed. Maybe there is a button somewhere we have overlooked or a lever that is staring us in the face that we have missed. I don’t think
so.
I have a friend who owned a car for several years. He loved the car but the position of the steering wheel
made him think he was driving a bus. He lived with it for years. When he sold the car, the new owner took the
keys, hopped it, pulled the little lever on the steering column that released the tilt feature, and pulled the steering
wheel to a more vertical position. My friend was dumb-founded and more than a little frustrated that he had missed
so obvious a solution to his dilemma.
Maybe there is such a simple solution to our dilemma. I know there are people here today who think we
haven’t thought hard enough, or well enough, or long enough–or that we haven’t loved rightly or seen the situation
clearly. Maybe that is so. I doubt it.
I have been to dozens if not hundreds of meetings about this. I have spent hundreds of hours and many
thousands of dollars working this problem.
The time has come to act.
The AAC has a plan. Because it was conceived by humans, flawed though faithful, it is an imperfect plan…
no plan is perfect. But it is a good plan and it needs to be endorsed and implemented.
I close with this prayer for Antony from the book of Lesser Feasts and Fasts.
O God, by your Holy Spirit you enabled your servant Antony to withstand the temptations of the
world, the flesh, and the devil: Give us grace, with pure hearts and minds, to follow you, the only
God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you an the Holy Spirit, one God,
for ever and ever. Amen.

–The Rev. Sam Pascoe is rector of Grace Church, Orange Park, Florida; this talk was given at a recent AAC Florida gathering

Notable and Quotable

Filed under: — kendall @ 11:38 am

Central among the traits that define a creative person are two somewhat opposed tendencies: a great deal of curiosity and openness on one hand and an almost obsessive perseverance on the other. Openness, curiosity, and perseverance have to be present for a person to have fresh ideas and then to make them prevail…. Perseverance seems to develop as a response to a precarious emotional environment, like a dysfunctional family or isolation or a feeling of rejection or marginality.

–Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention

Central Florida Resolutions of Interest

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:35 am

A CANONICAL CHANGE (C-1) AND RESOLUTION (R-10) THAT OCCUPIED THE MOST DEBATE AND TIME AT THE MOST RECENT DIOCESAN CONVENTION

R-10

Whereas immediately following the meeting of the Primates, on October 17, 2003 the Archbishop of Canterbury gathered with our Bishop and other Bishops of the American Anglican Council, and endorsed the formation of a Network of Confessing Dioceses, now called the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, and

Whereas our Bishop, as well as two priests and two lay people selected by the Standing Committee have signed the Network Charter;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that this 35th Annual Convention of the Diocese of Central Florida hereby affiliates the Diocese of Central Florida with the Network of the Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes

C-1

Canon XVI

Section 10

Add new paragraph to XVI.10:

“All members of the clergy of this Diocese may allow to take place in their cures, officiate at, bless or participate in, only those unions prescribed by Holy Scripture: the wedding of one woman and one man. Said clergy are forbidden to allow to take place in their cures, officiate at, bless or participate in any other unions, as proscribed by Holy Scripture.”

Hat tip: Rick Lobs.

Lord Carey of Clifton: How to respond to Concern about Sliding Business Ethics

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:12 am

From the BBC (requires Realplayer).

1/25/2004

Richard Mouw offers Food for Thought

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:21 pm

From the President of Fuller Theological Seminary, these vital words:

I take my common history and shared commitments with such folks very seriously. And it is precisely because of this that I want so much to stay together in our denomination. A friend of mine, also a Presbyterian evangelical with a history similar to my own, put it well to me recently. “It hurts like heck to be labeled a homophobe by the folks we are presently arguing with,” he said. “When it was the issues of race and militarism and gender, we were all in it together, and folks like us were out of step with much of the rest of evangelicalism. The homosexuality questions, though, are different ones for us. Here we feel we have no other choice but to draw the line and stay with what we take to be the clear teachings of the Bible. We simply have to live with the accusations of being the mean-spirited ones. I do wish, though, they would give us a little bit of credit for having some integrity on this matter! I would like to get beyond the name-calling and really wrestle together with the underlying theological issues.”

I have spoken often to evangelical audiences about sexuality issues. And I have always made it very clear to them that my views on same-sex relations are very traditional. I am convinced that genital intimacy between persons of the same gender is not compatible with God’s creating or redeeming purposes. But that kind of clarification of my understanding of biblical teaching for evangelical groups has usually been a preface to a plea for sexual humility. I have often told the story of hearing a conservative spokesman express his views in this way: “We normal people should tell these homosexuals that what they are doing is simply an abomination in the eyes of God.” When I heard that, I tell my audiences, I wanted to get up and cry out, “Normal? You are normal? Let’s all applaud for the one sexually normal person in the room!”

The fact is that none of us—or at least very few of us—can honestly claim to be normal sexual beings in the eyes of God. The truth of the matter is that the labels we typically use in describing sexual orientation are blatant examples of false advertising. My homosexual friends are not very “gay.” They have experienced much pain and loss in their lives. And the rest of us are not very “straight.” We are crooked people, often bruised and confused in our sexuality.

See also Barbara Wheeler’s thoughts.

Peter Moore: Good Grief

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:40 pm

At the close of the American Anglican Council’s remarkable conference in Dallas on October 9, as 2,700 Episcopalians prepared to return to their churches and dioceses, I went back to my room and wept. I was not unhappy with the conference. It was an astounding show of support for a biblically orthodox witness within our Church.

Coming when it did - shortly before the crucial meeting of Anglican Primates at Lambeth and the subsequent consecration of V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire - it sent a message. Eight hundred clergy and more than twice that number of laity were prepared to stand firm and joyfully witness to our historic faith and values. So in some ways I was elated. But along with the elation there was something else.

I struggled with the undeniable sense that, while we are strong and vital, we had lost. We lost a thirty-year struggle to prevent the Episcopal Church from going over the cliff.

Now the deed is done. Same-sex blessings will become commonplace throughout the Church, supported by majority vote of General Convention. And a divorced man living in a homosexual relationship is now a consecrated bishop in the Church - by majority vote.

No one can open a newspaper or turn on the TV without being confronted with the stark reality that a major Protestant denomination has done the unthinkable. Will other denominations, with our encouragement, follow?

And so I wept, alone in my room, on my knees, with my bags packed. I am not given to outward displays of emotion, but in the privacy of my room, I realized that something precious had been lost and would never be regained.

I have since discovered that I am not alone. A general grief has come over the Church. Even those who supported the election of V. Gene Robinson as bishop coadjutor in New Hampshire now realize that they have opened a Pandora’s Box of problems.

The script of our “play” follows the stages of grief outlined by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in On Death and Dying (Macmillan, 1969). Kubler-Ross found that she could roughly group the responses of people presented with catastrophic news. First there is the “No, not me” stage (denial). Then there is the “Why me?” stage (anger). The third stage is “If you do this, I’ll do that” (bargaining). This is followed by a fourth stage: “It’s really happened” (depression). Finally, there is the “Okay, this is what has happened” stage (acceptance).

Perhaps the stages do not always follow the order that Kubler-Ross outlined, but most health care professionals agree that these are the components of grief at the prospect of dying. More broadly, the stages of grief describe the experience of people who receive catastrophic news of any kind.

General Convention 2003 was catastrophic news to many Episcopalians. “Their Church” had decided against everything they knew to be true about human sexuality. Moreover, it had gone against everything the Church itself had said - and has kept saying - about sexuality ever since the subject became contentious.

And if that weren’t enough, it went against everything the bishops of the entire Anglican Communion had said at Canterbury in 1998, when, by a vote of 526 to 70, the Church made a landmark statement that “homo-sexuality was incompatible with Scripture.” In agreement with that statement were the Pope, the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and the vast majority of Protestants worldwide, including the burgeoning churches of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The stunning decision to defy world Christian opinion by a tiny body of American Episcopalians at GC 2003 sent shock waves around the globe.

So how do we relate this to the categories of grief?

Denial
“No, not us.” We were used to hearing terrible news about a small minority of Roman Catholic priests who were abusing children and youth while the Roman hierarchy looked the other way. But suddenly, we were in the midst of our own sexual scandal. Why were we surprised? For years Episcopalians have been pressured by a small but favored lobby to change the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. At one point, I visited the Episcopal Church Center’s bookstore at 815 Second Avenue, New York. Of several shelves of books on sexuality, not one supported the historic, biblical view!

As a communion, we were in denial. Many churches merely ignored the continued mandates to “study and dialogue” on this issue. Priests refused to talk about it from the pulpit, fearing that it might divide congregations. Adult education classes skirted around the issue. The pro-gay lobby Integrity had spent upwards of $300,000 to push for the affirmation of Robinson and to pass legislation supporting the blessing of non-marital unions, so there had been plenty of advance warning. But most of us chose not to see the obvious. No wonder people were surprised after General Convention.

Anger
“Why us?” There is anger throughout the Church. Priests are being accosted at airports by people who are stupefied at the Episcopal decision. All but 10 parishioners walked out of a New Hampshire church at Bishop Robinson’s first confirmation. One bishop, who voted for Robinson, has reportedly received 1000 letters from laity who opposed his decision. Conversely, bishops who voted against Robinson are besieged at open meetings. Dioceses, parishes and individuals are withholding funds from the National Church at an unprecedented rate. One church treasurer laid the key to his church on his Rector’s desk and walked out, never to return. Some priests were told by their bishops that if they went to the AAC conference, they should start looking for new jobs. One bishop disinvited the Presiding Bishop to the consecration of his successor. Another bishop resigned from every committee he was on and called for the resignation of the Presiding Bishop. Building campaigns have been put on hold. Clergy groups on both sides of the issue are gathering to strategize. Some clergy have gone so far as to remove the word “Episcopal” from their church’s notice board.

The stories could be multiplied. My own phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from distraught friends. Seminarians are wondering how they can pledge to obey the “doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church” when they are ordained. The catastrophe we dimly feared, and denied for a long time, is upon us; and we cannot ignore it any longer. And so we blame others. We blame them for poor theological training, poor preaching and teaching and poor leadership. We rant about the “cultural captivity of the Church.”

We fail to see that we all have a share in this problem. Perhaps it was our own inactivity, our own failure to read up on the subject of human sexuality, to be active in the political life of our Church or congregation and our own lack of courage to speak up. We suppose that, as long as things don’t change too much over at St. Swithin’s, we’ll be okay. What happens way up there in New Hampshire needn’t bother us all that much, as long as our children and grandchildren are still taught the Bible. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, and we will all eventually be affected.

A few years ago, when Canon Gene Robinson was right-hand man to the bishop of New Hampshire, he spoke to 500 co-ed teenagers at St. Paul’s School in Concord. In his talk, he spoke about how sex is a gift of God, and that God wants us to use this gift whether with friends of the same sex or friends of the opposite sex, as long as we do it safely. He closed his address with the words: “Share your love with your friends. Use a condom.” Was one of your children or grandchildren among those 500 impressionable teenagers?

One church leader published a manual for “churches in conflict.” It recognized the problem that congregations are divided on many issues, especially sexuality. Its solution is a series of parish discussion groups, carefully choreographed, whose basic premise is the assumption that the only thing we must all agree NOT to be is “right.” Being right, says the manual, is the beginning of all our problems. Well, that’s one way to ensure the outcome - and a highly manipulative one at that.

Bargaining
“If we do this, you’ll do that.” Perhaps if we withhold monies from the National Church, you’ll provide “alternative Episcopal oversight” to our parish. Perhaps if we get the Archbishop of Canterbury on our side, you’ll let us leave with our church property. Perhaps, if we have a series of open meetings, and hear all sides of the issue, we can just “agree to disagree agreeably” and life will go on as usual. This bargaining stage doesn’t last. Things move inexorably to the next stage.

Depression
“Okay, this is what has happened.” Eventually, people become depressed over the state of things and sink into a quiet, sullen or unhappy mood. Depression may lead to exploring other churches, regretting a donation to the most recent building fund, avoiding the subject or even serious doubt. One clergyman recently wrote me that he had abandoned “anachronistic Theism” and thought that anybody who believed the Bible to be the Word of God was worse than crazy. He said that if he still thought that theism and believing in the Bible as the Word of God were essential, he’d declare himself a non-Christian immediately.

“The Church is under judgment” is a phrase I am hearing from an increasing number of thoughtful folk. Such a thought (whether right or wrong) emerges quite naturally when one is depressed. Grief can also include an inability to make decisions, listlessness and tiredness and a sense of ennui. The idea that what happened cannot be changed leads to a time of quiet withdrawal, and sadness.

Acceptance
“This has really happened.” The blinders are off, reality has set in, things won’t change. One might as well cut one’s losses and move on. The liberal end of the Church is counting on this stage leading to a resumption of business as usual. Conservatives are less sanguine. With many looking for exit strategies, and many already gone, the prospects for the great surge in membership that Bishop Robinson’s supporters guaranteed us would happen with his consecration seem dim. People will still go to church, no doubt, and still put their money in the plate. But deep down there will be a sense that something wonderful, something precious, something life-giving has been lost. We will have to move on.

Here’s an acronym I’ve seen for the work of grieving: TEAR

T = To accept the reality of loss
E = Experience the pain of loss
A = Adjust to the new environment without the lost object
R = Reinvest in the new reality
Perhaps, as we comfort one another, we can help one another get through this difficult period. Change and hope are part of our faith. Resurrection follows death. We must remember that around the world the Church is growing as it has never grown before. Believers are faithful under persecution. As one young priest wrote me: “My faith is still intact.”

Grief can be good, if it forces us to reevaluate where we have come, and where we are going. I, for one, am grateful for the tears I shed in Dallas. I have a smile on my face today.

–The Rev. Dr. Peter Moore is Dean, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry

Struggles in Attracting Clergy

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:54 pm

Kristin E. Holmes writes:

Four mainline Protestant denominations have joined in a $3 million effort to inject youthful vigor into an aging profession.

The Episcopal Church USA, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, and United Church of Christ are in search of more young people for the ministry, hoping to reverse several troubling trends….

The Episcopal Church got involved to address its void in young leadership that has grown over decades, Gortner said. About 300 people under 35 were ordained as Episcopal priests in 1970, compared with 50 in 2000, [the Rev. David] Gortner said.

Network Reaction in Northwest Texas

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:50 pm

An article by Brandi Dean.

Network Reaction in Albany

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:42 pm

A Times-Union piece on different responses in Dan Herzog’s diocese.

Henry Orombi is Enthroned

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:32 pm

A new Archbishop for Uganda.

J. Budziszewski on Finding the Will of God

Filed under: — kendall @ 4:51 pm

Who’s Calling?

John Burwell’s Plano Pictures

Filed under: — kendall @ 3:47 pm

Take a look, the second one down on the left is a nice one of the S.C. group, minus Bishop Salmon who had to go home Monday.

Vaughan Roberts: Homosexual Practice and the Bible

Filed under: — kendall @ 2:43 pm

Our subject this morning is one of the hottest topics of our day. It’s hard to believe that it was only in 1967 that homosexual acts between consenting adult males, at that stage over the age of 21, were decriminalised. Homosexual acts between women were never criminalised supposedly (I’m not sure if this is true but so the story goes) because Queen Victoria couldn’t imagine the possibility of lesbianism. And so she crossed out the reference to women of the parliamentary bill when it came before her. Until the 1960’s the consensus had been that homosexual acts were immoral and should be punished by the law. Well, I need hardly tell you there’s been a whirlwind of social change since then. It’s now widely accepted that homosexual practice is not immoral or deviant; it’s natural for some, they were simply born that way. So to have a different age of consent for homosexual acts, to deny homosexual partners the right to adopt, to give heterosexual marriage a distinct status in the eyes of the law which is not afforded to committed homosexual partnerships is seen by many as a breach of human rights equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race or gender, religion or disability.
Now you’ll be aware that there’s been intense political debate on these subjects in recent years. This is a big issue for society. But more than that, of course, it’s a big issue for the Church. The Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in 1998 reaffirmed traditional Christian teaching, that in God’s design the only right context for sex is heterosexual marriage and that outside of that relationship we’re called to be celibate. In other words those who are not married should not have sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual sex, and those who are married should only have sex with their spouses. Well some bishops dissented and have openly disagreed with the Lambeth position on homosexuality. In June of last year the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster in Canada, with the encouragement of their bishop, authorised the production of a liturgical form for blessing same sex unions. As a result a number of clergy, including Jim Packer who’s a friend to a number of us, declared themselves out of communion with the synod and the bishop. In ECUSA, which is the Episcopal Church in the States, about 60 bishops allow or at least don’t seek to prevent the blessing of homosexual partnerships and the General Convention of that Church is expected to approve such blessings this year. And here in England of course you’ll be aware that much of the controversy surrounding Rowan Williams as the new Archbishop of Canterbury concerned his admission that he’d knowingly ordained a practising homosexual and his belief that homosexual acts may sometimes be morally acceptable.
And of course the issue is much broader than simply homosexuality. It was interesting to hear Rowan Williams on ‘Desert Island Disks’ just before Christmas. He said this: “It comes to be an issue about the significance of the Bible and the authority of the Bible and it’s not for many people primarily about sex. It’s about what you think of the authority of the Bible”. And he’s absolutely right. If the Bible states that homosexual sex is wrong but we still feel free to ignore it, what’s to stop us doing the same on any and every issue? And once we cut ourselves loose from the anchor of Scripture in that way we’re out of control and who knows where we might end up? Very likely with a religion that’s very different from the orthodox Christian faith that is expounded in Scripture. So homosexuality is an issue of huge importance for the Church. How we deal with it has a significance way beyond the subject of homosexuality alone.
But of course homosexuality is not just an issue for society and for the Church, it’s a deeply personal issue for many individuals. And as I’ve prepared this talk I’ve been conscious in my mind of friends of mine, some non-Christians, others Christians including members of our church family, some of you who’ve shared with me their struggles in this area. Of course there’ll be others here today or listening to the tape who I’m not aware of but for whom this is a very personal issue, either because of issues in your own sexuality or issues of loved ones, maybe a husband or a wife, a family member or a friend. Many people at some stage are attracted to others of the same sex. Often it’s a phase that passes. Sometimes the attraction stays. Someone who’s been involved in a ministry supporting Christians with homosexual desires for a long time has said that his experience suggests that in a congregation of 200 or so there are probably 5 or as many as 10 men who are struggling with the issue, and up to another 10 who have some personal experience of homosexuality. He suggests the numbers are less for women. Whatever the statistics, clearly this is a huge issue of massive significance, personal significance for many including a significant number at St Ebbe’s. It is so important when we discuss this issue in whatever context, whether publicly or privately, that we remember it is not simply a debating point. It’s a matter that deeply affects individuals.
Well that’s enough by way of introduction. Our question today is, ‘What does the Bible say on this subject?’ Inevitably we’re going to cover quite a lot of ground, you’ll see a number of verses jotted down on these sheets. I will have to deal with them fairly quickly. I won’t be able to say everything that perhaps should be said and certainly could be said. If you’ve got questions or if you find you disagree with me, please come and talk to me afterwards.
1. What does the Bible say?
Well let’s begin where the Bible begins, with the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. They are foundational for so much of the Bible’s teaching in lots of areas and certainly foundational for the Bible’s teaching about sex and sexuality.
(a) Creation
Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in His own image. In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them”. God created our sexuality, male and female. God created our sexuality and more than that, Genesis 2:24, God instituted marriage. Genesis 2, you heard the reading, God made woman for man. No other helper was suitable so God created woman. The two genders were designed to be different that we might complement one another. And the writer tells us, v24, it is “For this reason (that) a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh.” And that is, if you like, the Bible’s definition of marriage. It’s quoted by the Lord Jesus in the Gospels and by the apostle Paul in epistles. Men and women are complementary in our sexuality in God’s creation design and the context for the physical expression of that sexuality is life-long marriage between a man and a woman. And all the negatives in the Bible flow from those positives. The Bible is very positive about sexuality and about marriage and it’s because of those great positives that the negatives come. And it’s worth saying right at the beginning, they are not just negatives concerning homosexuality. God is saying that the right place for sex is within marriage. And that implies negatives for all of us. Sex outside that context is wrong.
(b) The Fall
Well, the next chapter of the Bible, Genesis 3, describes the Fall, as human beings turn away from God and sin entered the world. And that sin has corrupted every aspect of our personalities and our lives and that includes our sexuality. We are all, without exception, perverted sexually. We are all, without exception, perverted sexually. We all have a desire for sex outside of its God-ordained context. And God says to all of us in the Bible that we are to resist those desires, whether homosexual or heterosexual, outside of marriage. Well, what does the Bible say more specifically about homosexuality? How does it work out those foundational principles, which really I would have loved to have given more time to? They are so important.
Turn on to Genesis 19. It’s the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Two angels visited Lot at Sodom. And the men of Sodom surrounded the place where they were staying. And those men, v5, called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” The traditional interpretation is that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and it’s because of that sin that God destroyed the city. And of course we get our word sodomy from the town of Sodom. But I want to suggest to you that we’d be very unwise to base a blanket condemnation of homosexual practice on this passage or the very similar one in Judges 19. The sin this rabble threatens is gang rape, which is obviously unacceptable whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual. But we can’t argue from this passage alone that God disapproves of all homosexual sex. That’s not the issue here.
So what about Leviticus 18 and 20, the next two references to homosexuality in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22:
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Or Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Well it seems pretty clear there, doesn’t it? God is saying that homosexual practice is wrong, is detestable he says. But, ‘Hang on!’, says someone, ‘Leviticus also tells us that we shouldn’t eat pork, we shouldn’t wear clothes made of mixed materials and Christians don’t feel bound by those laws.’ No, Leviticus, say some, represents God’s law for God’s people in the Old Testament times and it’s no longer applicable to the New Covenant people of God, the Church. And of course it’s true that some Old Testament laws no longer apply in this New Covenant era. The Lord Jesus, for instance, specifically abrogated the food laws. They were appropriate and right when God’s people were a racial grouping; they marked out the racial people of God, the Jews, the Israelites. But now that God’s people are a multi-racial, multi-cultural family of those who are in Christ, that racial distinctive is no longer appropriate and so Jesus abrogated the food laws. But other principles and patterns from God’s law still apply. If a command is rooted in a creation principle and/or is repeated clearly in the New Testament then we can be sure it still applies to Christians. And both are so here. The prohibition of homosexual acts is rooted in the creation principles I’ve outlined from Genesis 1 and 2 and that prohibition is repeated, as we’ll soon see within the New Testament. The death penalty doesn’t apply, now that God’s people is no longer a state, but the prohibition remains.
© The Gospels
Well what about the Gospels? It’s often pointed out that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. And so, some say, how can we say that Christ was against homosexual practice and that Christians should be if Jesus never mentioned the matter? Well we won’t turn up these verses, I’ve jotted them down for your notes but, Matthew 5:18, Jesus endorsed the whole Old Testament law. He says “not a dot, not a letter” will pass away. The whole of it still applies. Yes, some is fulfilled and I mentioned that in what I was saying from Leviticus but it is still endorsed by Jesus, the whole of the Old Testament. And for instance in Matthew 19, also in Mark 10 but Matthew 19:1-10, Jesus quoted the foundational statement of Genesis 2:24 and He acknowledged only two options: heterosexual marriage or celibacy.
(d) Romans 1
Well, on to the teaching of Paul who does specifically mention homosexual practice: Romans 1, which was read to us earlier. Romans 1:26-27. These verses come in a section in which the whole of humanity, says Paul, is under “the wrath of God”. We’ve turned away from God’s revelation of himself in creation, we’ve rejected that revelation. And God’s wrath is seen in the way in which he hands us over to the consequences of our sinful decision to reject God. Once we reject God, sinful lifestyles and patterns follow and God’s wrath is seen in the way in which He doesn’t intervene. He just gives us over to that lifestyle: “God gave them over… God gave them over… God gave them over…” That phrase is repeated three times in that passage, Romans 1:18-30.
And amongst the sinful behaviour and lifestyles God has given us over to, it flows from our rejection of God, is homosexual practice. Romans 1:26:
“God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”
It’s worth saying, Paul doesn’t single out homosexual behaviour alone as if that uniquely is a sign of depraved society and God’s wrath. Just look at that long list of behaviours in v29-31: we’re all included there somewhere, aren’t we? It’s also worth pointing out 2:1. In case there are any of us tempted to get on our high horse and think that there are some people who are more wicked than us and we can point the finger at them. Romans 2:1:
“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.”
God isn’t saying that homosexuals are more sinful than anyone else. As soon as we pass judgement in that kind of way and get on our high horse we find five fingers pointing back at us, compared to the one that points at others.
But it does seem clear, doesn’t it, in v26-27, that God is saying that homosexual practice is wrong. But no, say some, say an increasing number of maybe ‘revisionist’ interpreters of the Bible, we might call them. They point out, for instance, that what Paul is condemning here is those who abandon natural relations with women or with men. And so they say this doesn’t apply to those whose natural instincts are homosexual ones. What Paul’s talking about here is those who are heterosexual who indulge in unnatural homosexual sex for a bit of variety and for kicks. This passage here, they say, doesn’t have a bearing on those for whom homosexual practices are natural because it’s what they were born with. And it seems that that is the position of Rowan Williams. He says what Paul is talking about here is homosexual practice by heterosexuals but Paul is silent at this point on homosexuals, those born with that orientation for whom homosexuality is natural. The Bible, he would argue, is silent on this one. Others go further and remind us that Paul is a first century Jew. And, they say, when Paul talked about homosexuality he had a first century Jewish notion of what it involved. In the Jewish mindset homosexuality was a gentile sin. It normally took place in the context of idolatry. There were homosexual prostitutes in idol temples. And often involved pederasty - trans-generational sex as older tutors had sex with younger boys. And so Paul has got that in mind when he condemns homosexuality. He’s not saying anything, they argue, about the loving consensual homosexual sex that takes place today, often within committed partnerships. That’s not the issue, that’s not in Paul’s mind, and so we can’t use this passage, so the argument goes, to say that all homosexual sex is disapproved of by the Bible.
I have to say that those interpretations are entirely unconvincing. When Paul talks about what is not natural, he does not have in mind our fairly modern notion of homosexuality being a natural desire for some. He’s talking about Creation. Romans 1:18-20, which is the beginning of this section of the letter, roots all that he says in Creation. He’s talking about the Creation of the world. And he’s saying that homosexuality is against nature because it goes against God’s creation patterns for sex, outlined in Genesis 1 and 2. In other words it’s all homosexual sex that is wrong, in whatever context, whether it takes place in the context of idol worship, whether it’s trans-generational - pederasty, or whether it’s in a committed relationship, it’s against nature. It goes against God’s creation pattern.
On to 1 Corinthians 6. I apologise for having to go so quickly through these important passages. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
It’s a list of ten types whose characteristic behaviour, if continued and unrepented of, will mean exclusion from the kingdom of God, of heaven. And two of the words are related to homosexuality. The first is translated “male prostitutes”, there at the end of v9. In the Greek the word Paul uses is ‘malakoi’, which can simply mean soft or gentle – it’s not always a word that has a sexual meaning. But the fact that it comes here sandwiched between two words that do have a sexual meaning makes it clear that Paul is using it that way, in this context. The word was used by classical authors to refer to boy prostitutes. And so the NIV takes it in that sense, to speak of male prostitutes. It may be that that’s too specific, actually. It’s likely the word refers more generally to men who deliberately make themselves attractive to other men or even to those who are the passive partners in homosexual sex. And the other word Paul uses, translated by the NIV “homosexual offenders”, ‘arsenokoitai’. It’s a composite word, which literally means ‘those that lie with men’. Now some give it a much more narrow meaning, these revisionists who want to say that the Bible is not against all homosexual sex, take it to simply mean ‘those who have sex with prostitutes’. They say if ‘malekoi’ refers to homosexual prostitutes then ‘arsenokoitai’ must be those who have sex with those prostitutes, so it’s not saying that all homosexual sex is wrong. But there’s no reason to give the word ‘arsenokoitai’ that restricted meaning. It is, as I say, a composite word. It does mean ‘those that lie with men’. It seems to be the Greek equivalent to the word that’s used to speak of homosexuality in those Leviticus verses. It’s a very general word, ‘those that lie with men’, possibly referring to the active partners in homosexual sex to complement the passive ones.
Now it’s worth saying here, it doesn’t mean that there’s no hope for active homosexuals, just as verses 9 and 10 certainly doesn’t mean there’s no hope for those who are adulterers or drunkards. No, v11 is very important: “And that is what some of you were”, says Paul speaking to the church in Corinth. “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” There were those in the Corinthian church who had lived according to these lifestyles but then had been converted and they repented. No doubt for some these were continuing battles but they’d repented of their sin and they were full members of the church and accepted by Christ.
I don’t think we’ll look up the 1 Timothy 1:10 verse because it’s using the same word again. For some reason in the NIV, the word ‘arsenokoitai’ is translated “perverts”, but it does mean ‘homosexual offenders’, it’s exactly the same word as appears in 1 Corinthians 6:10, again referring to behaviours that God says are wrong. So every reference to homosexual activity in the Bible is negative. The gay lobby counter and say, ‘Well hang on, what about the very close intimate friendships and relationships between, say, David and Jonathan, between even Jesus and his disciples and especially John, the disciple whom Jesus “loved”‘. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that those deep friendships were sexual. I think one of the casualties, sad casualties, of our increasing awareness of homosexuality is on same-sex friendships, male and male, female and female. So whenever there’s an intimate friendship there’s a suspicion, a nervousness. Yet the Bible is very very positive about deep friendships between men and men, women and women.
So, on the basis of God’s creation principles for sexuality and marriage, any kind of homosexual sex is regarded by God’s word as unnatural and is forbidden. That’s what the Bible says, I’m suggesting to you.
2. How does this apply?
(a) How does it apply to society?
We won’t look up all the verses that appear in this section. Matthew 5:13-16 reminds us that we are called to be salt and light in the world. We believe that God’s standards apply not just to Christians but to everyone, and they’re for the good of everyone and for society at large. God is not a killjoy. He’s our loving creator and He knows what is best. And so it’s right that we add our voice to some of the big debates that are going on at the moment over the repeal of Section 28, over adoption, over the legal state of same-sex partnerships. But as we do so let’s make sure we always speak with the utmost compassion and understanding and sensitivity. Let’s also make sure that this is not the only issue we ever speak about. As if somehow we’ve got a bee in our bonnet about homosexuality but we’re not really fussed about anything else in society. What’s that saying about our God and about the church who’s supposed to represent Him? And let us remember that the big message that we have to proclaim to our society is not a negative one. The big message we have for our world is profoundly positive. It’s the good news of the gospel. And homosexuals need to hear it as much as anyone. Will we simply condemn them and hurl verbal volleys at them? God loves them and so must we. Suppose a man and a woman live next door to you and they’re not married. Do you knock on the door and tell them how immoral their lifestyle is? I hope not! I hope you befriend them. As you get to know them I hope you look for opportunities to share with them the good news of Christ. Obviously if they’re going to turn to Christ they’ll need to repent and their lifestyle will have to change but that’s not going to be the first thing one mentions to them. We proclaim and live, I hope, the love of Christ and surely it must be the same with those who live a homosexual lifestyle.
(b) How does this apply to the Church?
First, we must not compromise on truth. We may not be popular if we say that homosexual sex is wrong but if that’s what God’s word says then that’s what we must say. And we must oppose church leaders who say otherwise. Turn to Revelation 2:20. These are the words of the risen Lord Jesus, writing to the Church in Thyatira. He says, “I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality”. He is not afraid to mention names. There’s a particular woman who’s teaching something that is not right. We don’t know what it was that she was teaching but it did mislead Christian people. It meant they ended up sinning sexually. And that’s very serious indeed. One Christian has written this:
“It causes many of us profound distress and hurt to witness the extraordinary spectacle of spiritual leaders, charged with feeding or ruling the flock of God, apparently encouraging same-sex practices. The last advice we homosexuals need to hear in our daily battles is that in certain circumstances the deeds that are “natural” to us are permissible after all. Surely any pastoral counsel must be aimed at lovingly strengthening resolve rather than undermining it by suggesting that a genital homosexual relationship can ever by God-given and God-sustained. In this delicate area there is a real danger that little ones who believe in Jesus are caused to sin.”
We can’t tolerate false teaching in this area because the consequences are so serious. We learn from 1 Corinthians 6 that unrepented repeated sexual sin threatens a person’s salvation. And it is for this reason that I have felt the need, along with Pete and Tony and many other Anglican clergy to make it clear that I can’t welcome the appointment of Rowan Williams. He’s a man of many qualities undoubtedly. But by implying that homosexual sex can sometimes, in some circumstances, be moral he is in danger of leading people into sin. And that’s serious. I don’t like controversy but we must not compromise on truth. It’s not loving to do so.
We mustn’t compromise on truth. But the other thing the church needs to take on board is that we must practise love and compassion. John Stott has written,
“At the heart of the homosexual condition is a deep loneliness, the natural human hunger for mutual love, a search for identity and a longing for completeness. If homosexual people cannot find these things in the local church family, we have no business to go on using the expression.”
One or two people have said to me, “You shouldn’t speak of ‘the church family’ because it doesn’t feel like a family to me.” And that’s very sad. But I’m going to keep on using the expression ‘the church family’, at least to remind ourselves that that’s what we should be. We are brothers and sisters in Christ and we should live as such. I wonder would those with struggles in this area or indeed in any area feel able to open up and talk to us about it? Or are we giving the impression that we’re all sorted and that we really wouldn’t understand if someone had difficulties and problems? Of course that’s nonsense, isn’t it? We’ve all got battles and struggles and temptations. And, please let me say, if this is an issue for you don’t let it be a lonely battle. Do talk to someone, maybe a close friend, a member of a Focus group or a fellowship group. Do talk to a member of staff, just say, “I’d love to have a chat some time”, or e-mail and we’d be delighted to talk. We all need one another.
© How does this apply to individuals?
I’m thinking especially of those who struggle with homosexual temptation although what I’ll say, I think, applies much more broadly than that.
First, obey God. 1 Corinthians 6:18, Paul says, “Flee from sexual immorality”. Have nothing to do with it. We all know the situations, the literature, the web-sites, the places, the people that fuel our temptations, and we must avoid them. Obey God.
Next, trust God. It could be that in time God will remove your homosexual desires or significantly reduce them. He has the power to do that. But He hasn’t promised to do it. Many Christians battle with the same temptations throughout their lives. And that may be very hard, very lonely at times. But remember God loves you and He’s in control. And even in our sufferings He’s working out His purposes, making us more like Jesus as he prepares us for heaven. Remember that great verse, Romans 8:28, “In all things God works for the good of those who love him”. At times that will be very hard to believe but it’s actually true. God’s way is best. Trust Him.
And finally, believe the gospel. Why not turn back to that great verse in 1 Corinthians 6:11. Having outlined these behaviours that threaten our salvation if we won’t repent of them, Paul then says, verse 11, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”. We have all without exception sinned and we have all without exception sinned sexually, whether in thought or in deed. But God offers forgiveness to everyone through the blood of Jesus shed on the cross, who died for us. If we’ve not repented, not turned to Christ, we need to do so. And if we have, we’ve been forgiven. It may be that we’ve sinned in this way, and certainly we’ve all sinned sexually, after putting our trust in Christ. And yet still God says to us, you’re washed, perfectly clean in the sight of God. Sanctified, justified; He looks at us and sees us perfect in His sight because Christ took upon Himself our sinfulness and gave to us His perfect righteousness. And all of us, whatever our situation, whatever our temptations, whatever our sins, we need to take the truths of this verse and allow them to mould our understanding of ourselves. You see fundamentally, you and I, we’re not British or American, we’re not black or white, we’re not heterosexual or homosexual. Fundamentally we are Christian, that’s our identity. I’m not defined by nationality or colour or sexuality, I’m defined by my relationship with Christ. In Him I’m a new person, washed, sanctified, justified.

–The Rev. Vaughan Roberts is Rector of Saint Ebbe’s, U.K.

Episcopal Debate

Filed under: — kendall @ 2:27 pm

George Will gets a response from John Spong (for further background, check these two pieces also).

News From Central Florida

Filed under: — kendall @ 1:59 pm

Two articles on yesterday’s Convention, and Dean Lobs of the Cathedral in Orlando has a new webpage with many links.

Response to the Network in Alabama

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:23 am

Greg Garrison writes:

The formation of a national protest network last week in response to the denomination’s first openly gay bishop is “clearly divisive,” said Alabama Episcopal Bishop Henry N. Parsley.

While 12 bishops have signed on to the new Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, Alabama’s bishop won’t.

“This is unfortunate,” Parsley, head of the Diocese of Alabama, said about the formation of the network. “We do not need `a church within a church.’ As the New Testament bears witness, we are to be the church together, with inevitable differences of opinion at times.”

Three of Alabama’s largest Episcopal churches had priests at a meeting in Texas to learn about formation of the network.

Read the whole article which includes a number of quotes of interest.

1/24/2004

On the Matter of the Geoff Chapman Memo

Filed under: — kendall @ 5:44 pm

One thing is clear at the beginning of the new year, the power brokers in the Episcopal Church are determined to make the news flow focus on the AAC and any other groups which are seeking to respond to the schism created by the two highly publicized decisions in Minneapolis, and not the decisions themselves. The leaked Geoff Chapman memo has brought this kind of focus near a fever pitch, and with it has come what often accompanies a frenzied reaction, a multiplicity of distortions about the real story.

To go back a moment, on Wednesday, January 14th, the Washington Post broke the story, followed not long after by the Guardian, and Religion News Service (this latter including a rare comment from Presiding Bishop Griswold). Because the Washington Post link to the document was not always easily accessible, Simon Sarmiento provided a helpful link to the full text. Already the headlines were extreme: “Plan to Supplant Episcopal Church USA Is Revealed” (Washington Post), “Leaked Letters Reveal plot to split US church” as well as “US Anglicans plot to break up church” (Guardian, who had not one but two stories), “Episcopal Dissidents Plan Widespread Disobedience” (Religion News Service), and “anti-ECUSA plot revealed” (Simon Sarmiento). At the time, I responded to what I saw as a strong bias in the Washington Post story (Simon Sarmiento tried to make my concern a matter of taste ("disapproval,” “he really didn’t like") rather than a matter of accuracy).

The day after the January 14th Washington Post piece, Bishop Don Johnson of West Tennessee responded and alleged he saw in the Chapman memo story a “group seeking to destroy the Episcopal Church.” The AAC then responded to Bishop Johnson, as did Ephraim Radner and Don Armstrong (Simon Sarmiento incorrectly lists these latter two as AAC responses; they were ACI responses, the two are not the same).

Consternation among the orthodox about the memo was intense. Already on Thursday, January 15th, Geoff Chapman wrote Bishop Duncan an email apology:

Dear Bishop Duncan,

I want to extend a heartfelt apology to you and to our other AAC Bishops for the leak of my Adequate Episcopal Oversight memo this past week.

I am still not sure how it happened. The memo was developed over a period of weeks in consultation with a tight circle of AAC leaders… (and was scheduled to be presented to the Network, Bishops and leaders in Plano this coming week in a personal briefing….

One of my greatest concerns is that the leak may damage the trust so essential to the emerging network among our leaders, especially since a number of our Bishops had not had the chance to see the memo before it appeared in the papers. I am genuinely sorry for any difficulties this may cause, and would be happy to do anything to minimize the damage.

Please feel free to pass my apology on to any of our Bishops.

I look forward to seeing you in Plano this coming week.

Warmly in Christ,

Geoff

In an email to Central Florida on Janaury 16th, Bishop John Howe wrote:

…a letter from the Rev. Geoff Chapman, purporting to speak on behalf
of “the American Anglican Council and its Bishops’ Committee on Adequate
Episcopal Oversight” was released to the press on Wednesday of this week, and
there has been much discussion of it during the subsequent two days. Part of that
discussion includes a Pastoral Letter from Bishop Bob Johnson of West
Tennessee, roundly condemning the AAC for this “secret plan.”

I need you to know all of this is very troubling to me. I want to tell you what I know about it.

1) I’m never sure what people mean when they speak of “the AAC bishops.” There is a fairly fluid group of bishops that has worked together over the past several years, often in conjunction with the AAC efforts at the last three General Conventions. However, there is no “official” membership in the group, except for those who are on the AAC Board. (I was, for about a year, following the GC in 2000.)

2) Several of the bishops confer with each other with some frequency, and I can tell you that none of them, including Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, had seen the Chapman memorandum prior to its release on Wednesday. It was, apparently, a work in progress, to be shared at the convocation next week. Its expressed desire that the Network be recognized as a “replacement province” is not
shared by the majority of the bishops. It has not been discussed. It has not been voted upon. It has no official standing. Even if it were the position of the AAC it could not be the position of the Network itself, since the Network has yet to be formed.

3) I have just completed a conference call with all of those from this diocese who are planning to attend the meeting in Texas….We share the concerns of many about these developments, and we have given serious consideration to canceling our participation in the convocation. However, after prayer and discussion together, we have
decided to go as planned, participate in the discussion, gather as much information as possible, and report back to the Diocese of Central Florida.

In response to this email from Bishop Howe, Geoff Chapman wrote Bishop Duncan again:

Dear Bob,

I was thinking all this over again tonight after having read John Howe’s letter….. What caught my attention was the second point he made - that you had not seen the memo prior to its release. I thought, “Could that be true?”

I have spent an hour searching my email subdirectories and discovered to my horror that I had not indeed included you in the distribution list for the process of drafting this. In fact the only part of it you had seen prior to its distribution to the parishes I had been working with was an early draft, less than a page in length, almost 6 weeks ago. I am shocked and embarrassed. Because we had so much verbal contact and because the drafts were so thoroughly detailed in the Strategy Committee meetings, I assumed all along that you had been fully cognizant of the details. You weren’t. And of course, neither was any other Bishop, or the Board. That failure was mine. I had promised at the beginning of this task to work hand-in-glove with you and I didn’t. I apologize and ask your forgiveness….

Later, AAC President David Anderson offered further thoughts. A steady drumbeat of articles continued to mention the memo, and on the Tuesday of the network founding meeting in Plano, Texas, the Via Media Groups came out with a release calling for a repudiation of both the AAC and the Network. (This release mentions me specifically, and says things I said which I didn’t say). Ironically, the very same day Geoff Chapman made a public presentation to the Network gathering on Adequate Episcopal Oversight, during which he again apologized about the memo. In the words of an eyewitness: “Fr. Chapman apologized for the untimely dissemination of an AAC memorandum on the subject of AEO, since though it is not connected with the Network, the AAC document has elicited suspicion about what Adequate Episcopal Oversight may look like.”

At this point a number of things are clear. Geoff Chapman’s memo is from a subcommitee of a committee of a committee. There is an AAC Bishop’s committee (or really working group), and under this committee is the AAC Bishop’s Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight, and under this committee is Geoff Chapman, who is heading and coordinating AEO ideas and communication. The memo was a working memo of a small subcomittee, and in effect the brainchild of one person. The Bishops hadn’t seen it, Bob Duncan hadn’t seen it, and at a recent AAC Board meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, this was never even discussed. Therefore the memo’s overall status has been greatly exaggerated. It is most unfortunate that Alan Cooperman did not make these distinctions clear in his original Washington Post story.

In addition, the suggestion of some that the memo suggests some desire to “destroy” the Episcopal Church is just false. If you actually read the text of the memo closely, there is a two stage process involved according to Geoff Chapman. It was only in the second stage, if people were absolutely pressed to the wall, that in the basic area of Adequate Episcopal Oversight, in the words of Doug Leblanc in the Wall Street Journal, the memo backed, as a form of protest, the “faithful disobedience of canon law.” And as Mr. Leblanc rightly notes, in a tentativeness widely absent from the misleading Washington Post and Guardian stories, “Father Chapman did not define that phrase precisely.”

The point of it being in stage two is that one hopes it doesn’t come to that. One still has that hope, though a rising “winner take all” attitude among some bishops makes that hope seem less likely. Even if it did come to that, any advocacy of civil disobedience has the desire behind it not to destroy something but to save it. One merely notes in passing the irony that the action of the Philadelphia 11, whose ordinations are now widely celebrated among reappraisers, was based on exactly this kind of canonical violation for a claimed “higher good.”

As Ephraim Radner and others point out, the possibility of some kind of final stage of replacement jurisdiction is an idea which has been present for some time. I took the time to check on this, and the Nairobi Statement was posted on the web not long after the Primates statement was released in mid- October 2003. What I deeply regret, and completely disavow, is any sense from this memo that whatever happens is something the Episcopal Church can bring about on its own. This is part of the disease of American individualism and its counterpart in the Church, self-authenticating American Christianity. It is up to the Anglican Communion leadership to adjudicate this; we got ourselves into this mess but as part of being under God’s judgment we cannot get ourselves out.

One last point. Anyone else remember any other secret memo related to Anglican affairs in the last year? Ah yes, as a matter of fact, there was the secret memo given by accident to the Very Rev. Paul Zahl, revealing a clear attempt to move the Primates meeting last October in a particular direction:

“Zahl says as he sat down, he was handed a stack of documents by the British assistant.”

PZ: “As I read the documents and flipped through them, I noticed immediately that two of the documents were extremely unusual.”

BBH: “One was a detailed schedule of the summit meeting next week in which the Anglican leaders will meet in London.

Now, Zahl had understood the meeting would allow for debate among the international leaders, and themething of a vote about whether the American church should be reprimanded. That’s what thousands of conservative Episcopalians have been counting on.

But, Zahl says, the schedule– broken down in 15-minute time-slots– allowed only for a brief discussion of the issue, and no time to decide what steps to take.

He was just as disturbed by the second coument, addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

PZ: “First it said ‘Whatever you do, don’t be swayed by the American traditionalists. They love ‘to make a fuss.’– the words ‘make a fuss’ were in quotation-marks: in other words, ‘that they love to get all hot and bothered, but if you wait it out, it’ll all settle down again’.”

BBH: “Zahl says the memo also mentioned the issue of Parallel Provinces. Many conservatives want the world-wide Communion to ‘de-recognize’ the Episcopal Church, and recognize the conservatives as the true American Church; or at the very least, to create two Episcopal Churches in the United States, one liberal, and one conservative.

But Zahl says the memo urges against even this lesser option.”

PZ: “The one thing that we thought that we might get through was seen as the one thing that we couldn’t possibly ever get at all.”

Anyone remember what the official response was at the time?

“James Rosenthal, the Director of Communications for the Anglican Communion in London, concedes that Paul Zahl was given the documents, quote “in error.” Reading from a statement, he says the documents were early draft versions for the meeting.

Early drafts, with no official status. Anyone remember any of the same people now being concerned about THAT secret memo involving a much higher level of Anglican affairs? Anyone demand that the actual documents be produced? Any concern about the “draft versions” defense?

Once again, all of the animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

The Chapman memo leak was unfortunate, it was only a working draft, it had no official status, it reflected only the thinking of some, even what it discussed as possibilities came from the Primates and not from Geoff Chapman, and the person with arguably the greatest concern about it, Bishop John Howe, voted to join the Network (his diocese just voted to join this afternoon). Let us focus on the real facts at hand and keeps things in perspective.

David Moyer on the New Network

Filed under: — kendall @ 2:30 pm

FiF North America and The Network
22 January 2004

From Fr David Moyer, President of Forward in Faith North America

Feast of St. Vincent, D. & M.

Dear members of FiF NA,

The switchboard has been lighting up at our Fort Worth headquarters with many calls over the past several days. The basic question from the callers is, “What does FiF NA think about the Network, and are we really part of it or not?”

Let me first say that what follows is my personal commentary as President of FiF NA. It is not a Council statement. The Council is scheduled to meet February 11-13, at which time Bishop Duncan plans to be with us, as well as representatives from other Anglican jurisdictions. I would expect that the Council will make a corporate statement at the end of our meeting about the Network, and upon other areas of concern and development.

The week following, Fathers Ilgenfritz, Tanghe, and I will travel to London for a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury along with FiF leaders from England, Scotland, Wales, and Australia. There will undoubtedly be a statement for you at the conclusion of that meeting at Lambeth Palace as well.

It would be an understatement to say that the crisis of Faith and Order in ECUSA and the Anglican Communion has intensified in recent months. This greater crisis exists because of the rejection of biblical morality by ECUSA as a body in a highly symbolic way with the election, approval, and consecration of Gene Robinson.

You well know that Forward In Faith (and its previous identities as ECM and ESA) has consistently stated that the “ordination” of women to the priesthood (and the subsequent “ordination” of women to the episcopate) was a gross violation of and departure from Biblical teaching, Apostolic Order, and Catholic Truth. I think that Bishop Kapinga of Tanzania’s words are worthy of serious reflection. He stated, “With the ordination of women, ECUSA left the Catholic fold of the Church. With the consecration of Gene Robinson, ECUSA left the Christian religion.”

We now have The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes before us. You can read its Charter on the America Anglican Council’s website. In Article V of the Charter, there is the proposal for a “non-geographical Convocation…known as the Forward in Faith North America (FiF NA) Convocation, and may include all congregations which apply to and are accepted as FiF NA members.”

The Network understands itself as “a church within the Church.”

You may remember that this is what the Episcopal Synod of America stated of itself in June of 1989 as its founding Assembly. In July of 1997, our identity was altered in the Good Shepherd Declaration, that ESA/FiF NA would “continue in its mission to be the Church….We are not leaving anything or going anywhere…We have said from the beginning that we intend to be the Church. We will continue to be who we are.”

With the passage of time, and with ECUSA’s introduction of and legislation for more theological innovations (along with the selective interpretation of Canons, and the legislative decisions of many Dioceses and agenda of their bishops), the concept of being a church within the Church is deserving of serious reflection.

We now see ECUSA as a Province of the Anglican Communion whose actions have been rejected by a large number of Provinces which represent two-thirds of the Communion’s membership. Only if the Network interprets itself as a church sharing a common mind with majority of World-Wide Anglicans can their focus and identity be grounded in the theological integrity required.

I had hoped to be present at the Network’s organizational meeting in Plano, but pastoral responsibilities as the Rector of Good Shepherd, Rosemont, as well as a scheduling conflict, prohibited my attendance. Father Ilgenfritz (one of FiF NA’s Vice-Presidents) was there as our official representative.

I believe that the creation of the Network (encouraged by the Archbishop of Canterbury) is a good first step towards the Primates’ call for Adequate Episcopal Oversight. Let us remember that oversight implies jurisdiction.

I also believe that there will be no fundamental change until diocesan bishops are willing to cross diocesan boundaries, and orthodox priests are willing to refuse the sacramental ministry of revisionist bishops. I would hope that in conscience leaders will increasingly be unable to accede to the misuse of Canon Law, false teaching, and the tyranny of revisionist bishops.

It is wise for us to appropriate the declaration of the Council of Constantinople:

“They who separate themselves from communion with their bishop on account of any heresy condemned by the Holy Synods of the Fathers, while he evidently proclaims the heresy publicly, and teaches it with brave front in Church - such persons, in excluding themselves from communion with their so-called bishop before Synodical cognizance, not only shall not be subject to canonical censure, but shall be deemed worthy, by the Orthodox, of becoming honor; for they condemn as teachers, not bishops but pseudo-bishops; and they do not cut up the unity of the Church by schism, but hasten to deliver her from schisms and divisions.”

And many centuries later, Richard Hooker wrote, [capitalizations are Hooker’s]

“Laws touching Matter of Order are changeable, but the Power of the Church; Articles concerning Doctrine not so. We read often in the Writings of Catholic and Holy men touching matters of Doctrine. This we believe, this we hold, this the Prophets and Evangelists have declared. This the Apostles have delivered. This the Martyrs have sealed with their blood, and confessed in their Torments, to this We cleave as to the Anchor of our Souls; against this, though an Angel from Heaven should preach unto us, we would not believe. But, did we ever in any of them read touching Matters of mere Comeliness, Order and Decency, neither Commanded nor Prohibited by a Prophet, any Evangelist, and Apostle. Although the church wherein we live do ordain them to be kept, although they be never so general observed, though all the Churches in the World Command them, tough Angels from Heaven should require our Subjection thereunto, I would hold him accursed that doth obey?”

Unsettling and spiritually challenging words from a Church Council and from the seminal mind of our tradition.

With the Dennis Canon as it relates to parishes and their property, and with how a Diocese’s status could be judged as a binding relationship with the National church, we may be hostages with no seen avenue of freedom. And within this situation, one cannot be reckless or cavalier as stewards of the church. But when we stand before the great judgment seat of Christ, I don’t believe that how diocesan boundaries were honored will be a criteria for our Lord’s favorable judgment.

I pray that this commentary will be received and understood with a generous spirit. I pray that God will continue to use FiF NA as faithful people who are characterized by humility, repentance, steadfastness, and obedience to the Word of God Incarnate and the Word of God written.

You have my assurances that FiF NA remains committed to its mission which is:

To uphold the historic Faith,

Practice and Order of the

Church Biblical, Apostolic and

Catholic, and to resist all efforts

to deviate from it.

The Revd Dr David L. Moyer

President of Forward in Faith North America

Additional Proposed Resolutions for Virginia Diocesan Council

Filed under: — kendall @ 12:41 pm

R-15 Affirmation of the authority of the Bishop

Resolved, that this 209th Council affirms the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, the
Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee as contained in the diocesan and church canons. Council respectfully encourages him to discipline those churches and clergy that do not actively support the mission, fellowship and life of the Diocese or who are actively undermining the mission, fellowship and life of the Diocese.

Submitted by the Clericus of Region 13
The Rev. Caroline Smith Parkinson, Dean
The Rev. Jeuneé Cunningham
The Rev. James Hammond
The Rev. Jennings Hobson
The Rev. Roma Maycock
The Rev. William MacDonald Murray
The Rev. Kira Myers
The Rev. Ann Stribling
The Rev. Linnea Turner

Rationale: The Clericus of Region 13 gathered at its regularly meeting on January 15, 2004 shared their collective, grave concern about the ideas and plans contained in a memo being distributed by The Rev. Geoff Chapman, a chief strategist for the American Anglican Council (AAC). By his introductory paragraph in the memo, he implies that the information which follows has the endorsement of the entire group. This memo clearly outlines a plan of a “replacement jurisdiction” for the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA). It proposes a strategy to disrupt the order of the church and ultimately to dismantle it. We are well aware that some of the parishes and/or Rectors within our diocese are bold in their acclamation of identity with the AAC.

People can have honest differences on issues before the Church. Resolving those differences should not involve undermining the authority of the diocesan bishop and attempting to impede the work of this Diocese which has served Virginia Episcopalians for over 200 years.

R-16 On Receiving the Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop to Congregations in the
Diocese of Virginia (Top)

Whereas, Article XXVI of the Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer states:
“Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes evil have chief authority in Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise;” and

Whereas, Peter James Lee is the canonically elected and consecrated Bishop of the Diocese of
Virginia; now therefore be it

Resolved, that the 209th Council of the Diocese of Virginia affirms the principle established in this
XXVIth Article; and be it further

Resolved, that the 209th Council calls upon congregations of the Diocese prayerfully to receive the
ministry of their Diocesan Bishop.

Submitted by
The Reverend Dr. Lindon Eaves,
St. Thomas, Richmond.

Background

The article recognizes the deep ambiguity of Church life and that the efficacy of scripture and sacrament depend on the faithfulness of God, not on the perceived or actual virtue of the minister. At open meetings following General Convention, the Warden of All Saints’ Church, Dale City, read a letter asking Bishop Lee not to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation in that congregation. The proposed resolution constitutes recognition by Council that such requests are at variance with the Anglican understanding of scripture, sacrament and ministry.

Historical Perspective from Timothy Larson

Filed under: — kendall @ 11:42 am

From the latest Books and Culture:

Another question then arises, however, which [Grayson] Carter does not address: Why did Anglican seceders so often deem it necessary to create their own denominations instead of joining existing Dissenters? I suppose it is natural enough that those following apostolic visions would have desired the illusion of a tabula rasa. For the rest, the opposite impulse appears to have won out: a desire to retain as much continuity as possible, especially the familiar phrases of the Prayer Book (albeit skillfully edited in order to, so to speak, remove the high places).

Anglican worship without all the baggage of the Anglican Communion continues to be an alluring prospect for some evangelicals. Wheaton, Illinois, where I live, has more than one such option on offer. Nevertheless, Carter’s research warns that secession was the road to oblivion. Clergymen who had been celebrated figures in the established church, such as Baptist Noel, one of the Queen’s chaplains, found that their ministries diminished once they left Anglicanism. The quasi-Anglican denominations faired even worse. The so-called “Western Schism” fell apart as soon as it happened. The Free Church of England and the Reformed Episcopal Church merged in 1927 and their website now proudly boasts that they have “over 25 Churches spread throughout the United Kingdom.”

Carter’s study would appear to warn that it is not easy to be an evangelical Anglican outside of Anglicanism; and the story of English Free Church denominations in the rest of the 20th century might cause Johnson to reflect that it is harder for Nonconformity to survive beyond the bounds of evangelicalism than the sanguine tone of his study would lead one to believe.

Read the whole article. By the way, Grayson Carter, author of one of the two books discussed, is one of the more gifted priests in the Episcopal Church today. I would guess almost the whole of the blog readership has no idea who he is.

Theo Hobson: the Anglican Experiment is Over

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:45 am

Writing in today’s Guardian, the author of Against Establishment: An Anglican Polemic, opines:

Establishment, in the full sense, is already over; since 1953, the Church has effectively halved in size. In 1960, more than half of all British babies were baptised; by 2000, the figure was around one-tenth.

The erosion of establishment has led to a weakening of the Church’s uneasy theological alliance….

The first serious threat to unity came with women’s ordination. But the present crisis is more threatening because it exposes the Church’s theological division more fully (both sides were split over women priests). It is now clearer than ever that the Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics simply believe in different forms of Christianity. Anglicans could once dismiss this claim as exaggerated: no longer.

So the Anglican experiment is over, because establishment is over. Anglicans will go their separate ways. The Anglo-Catholics will swallow their misgivings and reunite with Rome. The Evangelicals will either join the existing Protestant churches or form a new one.

Notable and Quotable

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:51 am

In the first place he made short work of what I have called my “chronological snobbery,” the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also “a period,” and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.

–C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy

Response to Worrying Statistics in England

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:40 am

Sorry, but I found this article discouraging. As they sometimes say, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

‘But if you ask if there has been a general loss of faith, I’d have to say no, I don’t think there has….

‘But the biggest problem is the lack of young people attending church. In years gone by children were encouraged to attend and the church was more actively involved through youth clubs and other groups aimed at young people.

‘However, even though churches want to work with young people, we can’t if they won’t come along. My church has tried hard to improve attendance figures through home visits and other schemes but sadly it has made little difference.’ She added: ‘However, the problem of declining congregations is reflected in the society we now live in. However, I’m not sure there has been a real decline in faith. People are still searching for God it’s just that, in my opinion, they are looking in the wrong place.

All I can manage is: UGH!

Pain and Struggle in Oregon

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:32 am

The Marine Corps has left its mark on Robert W. Hawkins. He stands, even sits, straight and tall. His graying hair is trimmed close to his head. When he speaks, it is with an abiding sense of authority and that, he’ll tell you, is the root of the problem….

“It was a question of authority,” Hawkins says. The church violated its own Articles of Religion in August, when its national convention voted to allow same-sex unions and to approve the election the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, Hawkins says. “The hypocrisy is overwhelming.”

Ronald Gauss: Scripture is the Issue

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:21 am

In a letter to the editor to The Day, the Rev. Ronald Gauss writes:

The consecration of a homosexual to be a bishop is not the only problem facing the Episcopal Church. My bishop ordained two active homosexuals on June 21, more than a month before the General Convention approved the consecration of Bishop Eugene Robinson. Also, he has ordained one of these two to the priesthood.

The General Convention gave tacit approval or recognition to same-sex marriage. These two things are only symptoms of my church’s steady move away from the authority of Holy Scripture….

“Sandy” Herrmann is Encouraged by the Network’s Beginning

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:39 am

“This is not about homosexuality,” Herrmann said….This is about faith and order, and it feels good to be recognized for doing the right thing. There is always an easier way, but as a Christian you have to realize the easier way is not always the right way.
Herrmann said the gathering in Texas was not political, but rather spiritual.

“No one person or group has the answer,” Herrmann said. “God has the answer. How we seek that is what is important.”

Herrmann views the new network as a sort of support group within the Episcopal Church.

“This is unifying organization, not a divisive organization,” Herrmann said. “We’ll do what we’ve been called to do.”

Bishop Howe Seeks a “Calmer Tone”

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:25 am

According to Cary McMullen, the bishop of Central Florida described the purpose of the new network this way:

“The intention behind the network is to enable like-minded bishops, clergy, dioceses and congregations to work together within the structures of the Episcopal Church to uphold and propagate the historic faith and order of the church as we have received it,” he said. “It is not to break away, it is not to become a replacement province or a church within a church.”

Howe stressed that he signed the charter of the network as an individual and not on behalf of the diocese. A resolution, scheduled to be considered in today’s session of the convention, would authorize the diocese to become a member of the network. But Howe recommended in his address that the resolution be referred to the diocese’s executive board.

1/23/2004

Notable and Quotable

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:56 pm

On the debit side, the mental health+ of the clergy is fragile. We are no different than the 1200 or so other Episcopal clergy who were knocked offsides by the events of August 5th and beyond. For us, things will probably never be the same. Which is a statement of fact, fact on the ground.

–An American Clergyman

Interview with Geoff Chapman

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:48 pm

An exclusive interview with the Rev. Geoffrey Chapman, rector of St.
Stephen’s parish in Sewickley, PA. His parish has 2,000 members and is
the largest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

By David W. Virtue
1/23/2004

VIRTUOSITY: A document that you had a hand in writing was leaked to
three media this past week - the Washington Post, the Religious News
Service and The Guardian. What happened?

CHAPMAN: I was leading a Special Projects team to provide Alternative
Episcopal Oversight to churches at risk, as recommended by the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates late last year. I came
alongside the AAC to pioneer this urgent project, though I am not an AAC
board member.

I had prepared a strategy paper in consultation with a group to guide
churches who are seeking AEO, and in working with these churches at risk
I tried to listen to two sets of voices - one was the orthodox
leadership in the Anglican Communion and the other was the voice of
churches who are being systematically repressed because they oppose the
Robinson consecration.

VIRTUOSITY: Was it a final copy or simply a draft?

CHAPMAN: It was a 7-page draft.

VIRTUOSITY: Why was the draft prepared?

CHAPMAN: The draft was prepared for two reasons. The first was to
provide encouragement and guidance to oversight churches (churches that
applied for oversight) and secondly to bring that draft to the Network
gathering at Plano for their consideration, adaptation and response.

VIRTUOSITY: When was this completed?

CHAPMAN: It was completed and released to oversight churches on December
28, 2003.

VIRTUOSITY: How many was it released to?

CHAPMAN: It was released to under 100.

VIRTUOSITY: To whom did it go?

CHAPMAN: It went to leaders we had been in contact with about oversight
issues. Some went to rectors, others to members of the vestry.

VIRTUOSITY: When did it hit the three media?

CHAPMAN: I got a call on January 12th from Allen Cooperman of the
Washington Post who would not say where he got it from. Within an hour I
got a call from the Religious News Service (RNS) who also had a copy. I
then got a call from the Guardian newspaper in England the next day and
five other media in quick order like the Associated Press. I did not
talk to the Guardian, but I did talk to the local Pittsburgh newspaper
and Focus on the Family. I soon stopped responding to the calls and
referred them to the AAC.

VIRTUOSITY: Did it surprise you that the document had been leaked?

CHAPMAN: Yes it was a surprise and discouraging to realize that people
who had been entrusted with an important confidential strategy would put
churches at risk by leaking the document.

VIRTUOSITY: It is being floated across the Internet that there was
nothing essentially new in the document. Is that true?

CHAPMAN: Everything in the document had been floated at one time or
another. But what was startling about the document was that it laid out
a definite strategy for moving churches through the
oversight/realignment process. What was also startling about the paper
was that it set out a replacement jurisdiction as a possible preferred
solution, if measures of international discipline failed, and a
readiness, under certain extreme conditions, to engage “faithful
disobedience” to canon law as a measure of last resort. Not all the
orthodox agrees with these strategies. The national church takes great
offense at them.

VIRTUOSITY: Do you know who leaked it?

CHAPMAN: I don’t know. My guess is it went to a circle of churches who
shared it with insiders who shared it with a friend who turned out not
to be a friend. I do wonder about the timing of the release and to whom
it was sent. It was clearly designed to disrupt the formation of the new
Network in Plano, Texas. It failed.

VIRTUOSITY: Do you think 815, the church’s national headquarters might
have gotten a copy and leaked it?

CHAPMAN: Because of the timing, I have wondered. But I don’t know.

VIRTUOSITY: What of the memo itself?

CHAPMAN: The memo was a work in progress under discussion and not yet
seen or affirmed by any of our bishops, though it implied otherwise.
That implication was a mistake, premature, and I regret it. It had only
provisional status within the AAC, as it was the work of a
sub-committee, and had not been seen by the board. It had no status
within the Network, as the Network had not yet even been formed.

VIRTUOSITY: What is your objective?

CHAPMAN: We are working to protect hundreds of orthodox churches in
revisionist dioceses whose witness is being extinguished by those
charged to uphold and spread the faith. With surprising and troubling
frequency bishops who ironically have championed tolerance and diversity
in past decades are proving decidedly intolerant of those who hold to
the historic faith and the values of the bible and the Anglican Communion.

VIRTUOSITY: How serious is the problem?

CHAPMAN: Clergy are being threatened, vows of allegiance to the
Episcopal Church are being exacted (even while international
excommunications are rising), and canons are being misused to take over
dissenting biblically orthodox churches. It is religious persecution,
widespread, and it must be opposed. I am heartened to see at the end of
the week that the Network is determined to work for Adequate Episcopal
Oversight, as is the American Anglican council, under the guidance of
the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

VIRTUOSITY: Thank you Rev. Chapman.

–Courtesy of Virtuosity

Martyn Minns: The Network Is Birthed!

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:02 pm

It is about five months
since the idea of the
Network was conceived
and now it has been officially
birthed! The Network—or
to use its complete name “A
Network of Anglican
Communion Dioceses and
Parishes” held its inaugural
convocation in Plano on
January 19–20. Teams of
delegates that usually consisted of the
diocesan bishop, two clergy and two
laity, represented the twelve founding
dioceses. Those of us who are not part
of the founding dioceses were clustered
in regional convocations. John Guernsey
and I represented the Mid-Atlantic
Convocation. We spent most of our time
working through the foundational
documents, a Charter and a basic
theological statement “Confession and
Calling of the Anglican Communion
Dioceses and Parishes,” both of which
will be available through the Truro
website. It was painstaking work, but by
God’s grace we were all able to
agree on both statements. We
also spent a considerable
amount of time in prayer and
were blessed to have
numerous testimonies of the
work of the Holy Spirit in the
lives and ministries of those
gathered. We were also
blessed to have Michael Green
present with us. Michael is
one of the great Anglican evangelists
and New Testament theologians and he
not only gave us tremendous
encouragement but also challenged us
to truly live out the Great Commission. At
the end of the convocation the founding
documents were adopted unanimously
and Bishop Bob Duncan was elected by
acclamation to serve as Moderator.

What does it all mean? It is a vital
first step in the realignment of
Anglicanism within North America. The
Network will provide a structure to
connect orthodox Anglican believers
throughout North America and a means
whereby we can relate to the wider Anglican
Communion. It gives us hope for the future
and the opportunity to get on with the
work of mission from a firm foundation.
One of the key components of the Network
is the provision of Episcopal oversight for
isolated congregations. The details of this
are still being worked out because there is
a wide range of situations which confront
us. Some parishes are experiencing
persecution whereas others are merely
marginalized. Some parishes have actually
had their leadership removed and property
confiscated whereas others have simply
been threatened. A steering committee
was appointed to begin to develop
guidelines and protocols.
What does it mean for Truro Church?
It is a structural response to the informal
realignment that we have been pursuing
for some time. When the process for formal
membership is established I will share it
with all of you, and we will have the
opportunity for study and response. I
believe that it is an answer to our prayers
for a way whereby we can live out our faith
as loyal Anglicans without compromise.
There is still a tremendous amount of work
to do but I am greatly encouraged. To God
be the Glory!

–The Rev. Martyn Minns is rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia

Central Florida Resolutions

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:48 pm

Based on the schedule these may come up for possible discussion tomorrow.

Union Leader Editorial: Bigotry and Politics in Durham

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:55 pm

An important editorial from one of New Hampshire’s leading newspapers, on the sad way in which Durham Evangelical Church was unfairly treated.

Key Execerpt: One council member compared the church’s members to members of the Ku Klux Klan. Others said the town should shun the church.

At the Dec. 15 council meeting, the last before the deadline for choosing an election venue, the only choice was the Durham Evangelical Church. To most council members, this was an unacceptable option, even though it was the only location available at the time, and it was the most convenient location in town. Instead of voting to hold the election at the church, council members left Selig to choose the location, and they suggested that he should find one less offensive to their modern sensibilities.

Selig knew that the majority of the council did not want to hold the election at the best site — the one recommended by all of the town’s election officials. So he found another that would suit his bosses.

At six on Christmas Eve morning, Selig arrived at work to draft a press release explaining why he decided to hold the election at Heidelberg Harris Web Systems instead of the Durham Evangelical Church. The church was unsuitable, he explained, because it is “a religious venue.”

As the paper wrote on December 22:

WELL-MEANING, unbigoted people can and do disagree over the morality, even the nature, of homosexuality. Christians have serious differences on the issue. To reflexively and unthinkingly label as bigots Christians who view homosexuality as morally wrong, as some members of the Durham town council have done, is itself bigoted.

Except for the failure to focus on activity rather than orientation, this has it right.

William Fleener: An Open Letter to Kendall Harmon

Filed under: — kendall @ 5:37 pm

Dear Dr. Harmon,

I have been thinking a lot about your concerns about the actions of GC 2003 in the confirmation of Gene Robinson’s election as a bishop and the “within the bounds” declaration of the blessing of same-sex relationships. As I heard and read your comments, I understand that your concern is that we have established something that does not have a solid theology behind it - something that is not defined as to whether it is marriage or not marriage.

I would like to respond with a statement of my belief about what I consider a very significant weakness in our theology of heterosexual marriage, and my belief that if we correct that problem, we may have clarified in what ways same-sex marriage is “within the bounds” of our theology of opposite-sex marriage. I think you are absolutely correct in your assumption (indeed, your “charge") that GC 2003’s actions were a de-facto recognition of an equivalence of the two relationships.

As I approach the 50th anniversary, next June, of my entry into ordained pastoral ministry, and as my wife and I enjoy our 43rd year of marriage, I see two parallel developments. On the one hand, nothing in my formal theological education told me that some 30 years into my ordained ministry I would be confronted with same-sex relationships that reflected the same depth of apparent love and sanctity as Judy and I were discovering in our relationship. On the other hand, nothing in my formal theological education told me that our marriage relationship could continue to develop and deepen day after day, year after year to previously-unimagined levels.

I think I know why the second of these is true. I believe that we are still at an extended “transition moment” in human history in regard to heterosexual marriage. We have begun (and only just begun) to change from a system of arranged marriages, in which the decisions about who should marry whom were made by parents for various economic, social and political reasons, to a system where emancipated individuals choose to marry because they love each other, and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Under the old system, couples entered marriage without many deep expectations. For the most part, the expectation was, “you do your jobs and I’ll do mine.” The roles were fairly clearly defined. The husband bore the major responsibility for the marriage and the family that resulted, and his was the decision-making role. The wife’s role (fortified by the Church’s theology that she was something less than fully human) included home and nurturing, obedience to her husband, and, in most ancient societies, such “gathering” duties as raising crops and carrying water.

As evidenced by the Tenth Commandment, once the marriage was solemnized, the wife became an entry on the husband’s list of possessions. The “Who gives this man to be married to this man” portion of the wedding liturgy was, in effect, a transfer of title, from the bride’s father, to whom she had previously belonged, to her husband, to whom she would belong in the future.

I grieve for my father (1902-1967), who was raised to believe in the man’s authority and responsibility, and had to be right in every decision (even if he had to distort history and memory in order to “prove” he was right when a decision he made turned out to be wrong). I grieve for my mother, who was raised to believe in the woman’s secondary role, and had no authority to contribute her wisdom directly to family decision-making. Her suggestions had to be very tentative. Her strong opinions could only gain a hearing through manipulative behavior. Her task, when Dad was wrong, was to do her best to make it work out somehow or to take the blame or to comply with Dad’s re-writing of history.

Though we may not like to admit it, I believe that picture is clearly the “traditional” theology of Christian marriage.

It worked. Because there were few expectations in entering marriages, disappointments were also few, and divorces were quite rare. The idea of the husband’s “ownership” of the wife left no place, in Church or society, for an unattached woman. The Church, under this system was complicit in something I now find horrifying - that priests commanded abused women to return to the abuser without any demand for amendment of life on the part of the abuser - that, indeed, the Church blamed the abused for the abuse.

As I try to find my way to a theology of Christian marriage that takes into account the equality of women and men in intelligence, wisdom and freedom, I find that, both as a Church and as a society, we simply are not ready for the systemic changes required in our deepest assumptions and presumptions.

I don’t think any Christian theologian invented the phrase, “and they both lived happily ever after.” At least I hope not. That phrase is a lie now. Maybe when marriages were entered into with few expectations, most marriage relationships looked about the same after 22 years as they had looked after 22 days. Maybe for some that worked. The history of concubinage and adultery tells me that for many that didn’t work. For that I now thank God! No, I don’t laud concubinage and adultery, but I see in those processes a deep reality that I believe to be the will of God.

Human relationships cannot be “stable” - a word that used to be one of the highest compliments that could be used to describe a marriage. I know what a stable smells like! Stables smell that way because there is decay going on there. Human relationships that are not growing are already in decay. They may not be giving off noticeable odors yet, but they are in decay.

I believe that God has created us for a lifetime of growth, and that if a relationship we enter, whether that of friends or that of spouses, is not aiding our growth, both individually and in the relationship itself, the relationship is withering and the participants are shrinking. In a very strange way, I am deeply grateful for the high divorce rate we are seeing in our world. On
the one hand, the divorce rate proclaims that expectations are real, and are not being met. On the other hand, the divorce rate challenges us - both Church and society - to proclaim continual growth, not stability, as the model for marriage.

I don’t have to say it, but I will: Sex is not the only thing marriage is about. But I believe that our “traditional” theology of sex is at the core of our problem with marriage (both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage). Both Church and society have seen sexual intercourse as male-initiated (a right) and female-received (a responsibility). The recent struggle for recognition of marriage rape as a criminal act has clearly revealed this right/responsibility implication of our theology of “traditional” heterosexual marriage.

I believe that God has established, in the way people respond sexually, the absolute necessity for continual growth and deepening of personalities and of relationships.

I first saw this revelation of the will of God in terms of opposite-sex marriage and in terms of stereotypes of the male and the female human being, so I will describe that view first, and then expand it.

I saw the number of relationships that started out full of mutual love, but cooled dramatically after a few weeks, months, or years. I saw a culture that said that sexual intercourse started out great, but declined in frequency and intensity rather rapidly. I saw people infected with that expectation of decline, even while they were fully expecting “great sex” to continue in their own relationship. But they didn’t know anything about how to make that happen, and neither the Church nor the society was much help in giving them those skills.

For what it is worth, I think I see what God intended in the way human sexuality works. (A rather large claim, I’ll admit!)

I see the stereotypical female approaching sexual intercourse from the emotional side, and the stereotypical male approaching it from the physical side. I see that working very well only in the early stages of a relationship. God had to make us that way, or we never would have gotten together at all. I see God’s gift of anticipation, on the part of women, as the bridge between the two approaches.

Early in a relationship, “We have a date on Friday night… He’ll be here tomorrow evening… He’ll be her in an hour…” bridges the gap. The gift of anticipation allows the woman to build her own base of emotional preparation, so that she is ready to enter the physical side of sexual touch. The man doesn’t have to expand beyond just the physical side of sexuality at all.

But God’s plan for human sexuality does not include leaving either the man or the woman one-sided. It just doesn’t work that way. The woman’s ability to build her own emotional base is (I believe, by God’s plan) time-limited. (Remember, I am using the stereotypical male and female here. I’ll get to the exceptions in a moment.) Before very long in the relationship, she begins to need input into her emotional base from the man. He has to begin to offer believable signals of care and concern and permanence. These are new learnings for the stereotypical male, who is learning that he too needs an emotional base for a full entry into all
that sexual intercourse can become. They are matched, if they happen to him, by the learnings, on the part of the stereotypical female, of ever-freer physical response. If both parties to the relationship continue for a lifetime to expand and grow in the side of their personhood they didn’t come equipped with originally, the result can be two people becoming ever more and more fully human, and a relationship that deepens continually.

Isn’t full humanity and deep relationships what God wants? Can’t you see, as I do, that God had to be a little sneaky in creating human sexuality, in order to provide a temporary “bridge”, with the intention that men (and women) walk across it, not just expect it to always be there, without any growth/change in either party? I have come to believe that the strength to grow and to change toward wholeness is one of the best gifts that come to us from God in the Grace of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. When marriages were arranged by parents, every married person had aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters who could model what the marriage roles were and how to live them. Now that we are in this transition period, I believe that the Church has a huge job to change the world’s thinking from “that is what a man is - that is what a woman is” to “here is where God and marriage are challenging - and enabling - a man to grow and mature into wholeness - here is where God and marriage are challenging - and enabling - a women to grow and mature into wholeness.” If the Church doesn’t develop surrogate aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters to model this pattern, the world will stay locked into unfulfilled ever-greater expectations and ever-increasing divorce rates.

Now we can move away from the stereotypes. As I have prepared couples for marriage, I have found that some couples have the opposite challenges. The (fully-heterosexual) woman before me is the one approaching sexuality and marriage from the physical/logical direction and the (fully-heterosexual) man before me is the one approaching sexuality and marriage from the emotional/sensing direction.

They are not distortions of humanity. They are examples of the variety God has created in humanity. These extremes are the two ends of a spectrum of male and female constitutions, and in between there is a variety of combinations of approaches to sexuality and marriage. The old theology of “complementarity” of male and female was based on the stereotypes. A new theology of complementarity must and can be built on the fact that every man, wherever
he is on the spectrum of physical/emotional response, can learn greater wholeness from every woman, wherever she is on that spectrum, and she cam become more whole as she learns from his good examples. If they will learn from each other, they will grow. If they marry and grow, their marriage can grow and mature with them.

Our “theology” (if it deserves that word!) of homosexuality has been “traditionally” based on a set of stereotypes. We have assumed that one of the members of the gay or lesbian couple took the male-dominant-initiating role and the other took the female-subservient-receiving role.

Those of us who have observed healthy gay and lesbian relationships know the stereotypes are no more true there than in healthy, growing heterosexual relationships. A deep complementarity is present in wholesome same-sex and in wholesome opposite-sex relationships, and the very health of the relationships is found in the processes by which each party learns from the other’s strengths and deepens personal growth in those complementary areas of life, not in a “stability,” whereby either party stays the half-developed person he or she was on entry into the relationship.

Is this paper a complete Christian theology of marriage, whether opposite-sex or same-sex? Of course not. But I believe these thoughts point the way toward healing and permanence and growth - yes, and equivalence - in both kinds of marriages.

–The Rev William Fleener is a retired priest in the diocese of Western Michigan; this piece is posted here with his permission.

David Roseberry Reflects on the Week

Filed under: — kendall @ 5:04 pm

Dear Christ Church Leaders,

Many of you will know that Christ Church hosted two very important national events this week. I am thankful to the staff and volunteers who, once again, provided incredible support and encouragement to so many around the country at this important time in the life of our church. Many of our members followed the conference on the news. I want to take a few minutes of your time to tell you what the results of the conference are.

The Network is Launched
The first meeting was the convening session of the new Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDP). The network charter, theological statement, and purposes can be found on the AAC website: www.americananglican.org. The Network will provide oversight and support for congregations all over the U.S. in dioceses where invited by parishes. It will exist as a fellowship to be in communion with brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion all around the world. The Network will uphold the historic faith of the bible, particularly as it relates to the issues facing our church and society.

The newly elected moderator of the Network, Bishop Bob Duncan, said, “The Network is committed to moving forward with the mission and ministry of the Church. It will operate within the constitution of the Episcopal Church and in full fellowship with the vast majority of the Anglican Communion.”

Leading the Church in Difficult Times
The second conference at Christ Church this week was planned and hosted by Vital Church Ministries under the leadership of Kevin Martin. If the first meeting was for the construction of an orthodox platform, the second meeting began to assemble the program and ministry through which parishes and dioceses will do the business of the Network: the Great Commission. Over 100 church leaders from larger parishes in the Episcopal Church came to our campus to be encouraged, educated, motivated and inspired to carry on the work of the Great Commission in their own congregations.

This conference is part of the overall strategy of the Vital Church Ministries outreach of Christ Church: To encourage and equip Episcopal leaders to fulfill the Great Commission. It was an extraordinary time of fellowship and training for key church leaders around the country.

What does this mean?
These were important events for a great number of churches and leaders around the country. From the beginning of this turmoil in the Episcopal Church, I have been honest and clear about my thoughts, beliefs, and understanding. I will continue to do so. Let me enumerate my thinking as follows:

1. The Network will give churches the support and oversight from orthodox bishops and other church leaders they are requesting.

2. The Network gives the rest of the Anglican Communion a way to recognize the orthodox Anglicans in the U.S.

3. The Network provides us with a clear voice to speak to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion through our new moderator, Bishop Bob Duncan.

The Network is a good step forward, but it is only a first step. It must clearly define its mission to be the realignment of Anglicanism in the United States with the worldwide Anglican Communion. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church committed a grievous assault on the historic faith and witness of our church. They left the historic, biblical faith. However, the Network is a positive step to stand together. Now, we must move forward to work, pray, and give for the spread of the Gospel in our Anglican tradition. We will labor with the Network to that end and, as always, I covet your prayers.

I do not forget that behind all of these “issues” are real people. There are many members of our church who have relatives, loved ones, friends, colleagues, or who themselves have homosexual attractions or lifestyles. Christ Church welcomes all people. And our church will continue to offer the transforming love of God in Christ that changes us all. That is the Good News of God: Jesus can help, heal, and save us … all of us! The church can bless only what is God’s best for people.

I am proud of our church for the work we have done together. We have given thousands of brothers and sisters great hope for the future of gospel in the United States. Brothers and sisters, may I also remind you that we have a solemn obligation before us: to stand where we can be the most faithful to Jesus Christ and the truth of His Word. I believe that that place is right here at Christ Church and right now at this hour. Together, let us be strong, vibrant, gracious and clear. Let us move into the New Year with boldness and a high expectation that God will use us when we are faithful and obedient to Him.

In Christ,

–The Rev. David Roseberry is rector, Christ Church, Plano

Ashley Barker’s remarks at Plano East

Filed under: — kendall @ 4:18 pm

When I returned to school in the fall I decided to take a walk around William and Mary’s beautiful, historic campus. I walked by the Wren Chapel and thought about James Madison, a bishop of the diocese of Virginia and other bishops of the Episcopal Church that have their roots at my college. I thought about what they stood for and what they did for our nation, and then I felt guilty. Guilty about the state of the church and the reason for the split. Don’t get me wrong- I believe that upholding the sanctity of Scripture is cause for a split, but I feel guilty that those calling us “dissenters” do not see what we see.
Then I started to think about what my friends would say when I told them what I did over the summer. I soon got my answer; as I finished my walk I decided to go see a friend. We started talking about the summer, she told me all about her job as a counselor at a Christian camp and eventually I told her about my trip to General Convention. Then I got the same response I got from everyone else this fall “Oh, is that that gay bishop thing?” Yes, I responded. She proceeded to say “Well I don’t understand why people are so upset over it, so what do you think about it?” I was totally shocked and it took me a second to answer as I processed everything she had just said. When I finally responded I said: “actually, I was with an organization that was trying to keep Gene Robinson’s confirmation from passing.” “Oh”, she said. Then I followed up by saying “Its not really about homosexuality, per se, it is about allowing someone in leadership that is blatantly ignoring what the Bible says. The confirmation of his election was a mandate saying ignoring the Bible is acceptable. She was not sure what to say. I got some strikingly different responses from some of my other Christian friends all beginning with “Oh, is that that gay bishop thing?” Many were appalled and asked me how I could possibly stay in that church. They asked me, “Don’t they see the contradiction?”
Why is it that most college students can pick out the contradiction so readily? We are trained to. The atmosphere of college demands it. College is a time of personal, social, intellectual and spiritual growth. There is an intense soul searching that occurs in college, especially when a very free idea, liberal arts atmosphere is present. I have found myself seeking truth, and figuring out why I believe what I believe. I am lucky because I know where to find truth. Many people come to Christ in their college years…it is somewhat of a vulnerable time spiritually. That is why the biggest and best mission field for a college student is right on our own campuses. The passage the youth have been working with this weekend is Psalm 24: 3-6. “Who may ascend the hill of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false. He will receive blessing from the LORD and vindication from God his Savior. Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek your face, O God of Jacob.” College students are seekers of truth and seekers of God. We need guidance from a church we can trust not to contradict itself.
The life of a college student is also a time of transition, purpose, and potential, just like the life of the church at this time in its history. We are all going through the growing pains together, but a great and successful life awaits us on the other side of the awkward transition. I am reminded of a rewritten psalm that circulated during finals week. It begins “The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not flunk…” and continues on paralleling Psalm 23. The final line is “Surely passing grades and flying colors shall follow me all the days of my examinations and I shall not dwell in this university forever. Amen.” In the real Psalm 23 it reads “Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.” God promises to get us through this hard but exciting time. College students are excited, honored that God has chosen us to be part of a new church. We are ready to step up to God’s calling in our lives, whatever it may be and we are ready to lead and take the next step in God’s Anglican Church.

–Ashley Barker is a member of All Saints’ Church in Woodbridge, Virginia. She is a sophomore at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, where she is concentrating her studies in Neuroscience.

An Interesting Look Back

Filed under: — kendall @ 2:30 pm

I want to end this address by touching the crisis in our American Church and in the Anglican Communion. The crisis is troublesome. It is particularly troublesome to me because all the bishops have just received a letter from the Presiding Bishop concerning the two recent consecrations in Singapore stating that there is no crisis in the Episcopal Church. Some other faithful bishops agree, the Bishop of Iowa for instance. I believe to the contrary, there is a crisis of authority in the Church; the recent consecrations being only the most recent example. We could go back to the ordination of the Philadelphia eleven- the first ordination of women in the American Church- a canonical violation without consequences. I support the ordination of women, but not non-canonical action. The General Convention approved them two years later. To that, any number of additions can be made.

Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. At the Official level, we have made no change in our teaching about the person of Jesus, the historic creeds, our reliance of the Holy Scripture. Behaviorally much is going on to the contrary. Bishop Spong’s Theses are nothing new- essentially Unitarianism with a miter. His understanding that the crucifixion is child abuse, and his denial of any need for atonement, removes him, by his own hand, from anything recognizably Christian. The Church has officially said nothing about it, leaving many inside and outside the Church confused about who we are. You have received a pastoral letter from me on the subject. I mention this particularly because I believe it is a part of the Singapore matter.

I saw at the last Lambeth Conference how Anglican Bishops from around the communion were offended by this teaching in the American Church. Many Anglicans, Bishops, priests, deacons and laity have been martyred in Africa for their belief and commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is difficult for us, sometimes, even to touch the level of their pain on this subject. Many Americans have dealt with their reaction by calling them fundamentalists, thereby finding grounds to dismiss their concerns. Isn’t there irony here? The converts from the colonies calling into question the very ones who sent the missionaries? Diocese after diocese in the United States has rejected the position of Lambeth in their conventions. They have not rejected another Lambeth position which holds that Diocesan boundaries should not be crossed without permission. Our long history of unilateral action on the part of the bishops in the American church has produced the authority crisis. One of the definitions of dysfunction is the absence of any boundaries. Another name for it is anarchy. The consecrations in Singapore continue this story, but it is the first such action on the orthodox side. I can readily see why years of frustration, growing from dialogue, often used as a cover for change, would result in consecrations to get people beyond canonical oppression. My friend Dick Martin, who is our new interim at St. Mark’s, Charleston, is an example of one oppressed to leave his parish of St. Paul’s, K Street, Washington, D.C., for his views on the ordination of women. Unfortunately, passing resolutions for or against Lambeth or anything else usually only increases the frustration. Control of the mechanism of power “by right-thinking people” only makes for losers, and encourages withdrawal when things don’t go our way. We do have a crisis.

I believe that God’s response to that statement of mine to the Diocese would be - so what? We have lived with each other in the Church in a state of warfare that had given us this prize. I believe strongly that this is God’s judgment on the Church. He has let us become what we have done, while at the same time from the cross begging us to know him and his ways and to follow them

Athanasius was exiled from his Diocese five times. The heritage of the Church is built on the blood of the martyrs. I believe that we face more adversity, not less.

In situations like this nothing has changed. I am still expected to be faithful to my calling. I am still expected to trust in God’s sovereignty and his purposes. I believe in the indefectability of the Church, not its infallibility. By that I mean the scripture is plain that the Church is God’s creation, not ours. It rests on his promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. He did not promise that we would not suffer. I have the utmost confidence that in his time, not mine, in his ways, not mine; he will take us where we need to be. We simply need to repent of our own sins and pray for God’s will to be done. Many of our responses to crisis spread the disease because we believe everything depends on us.

Our Epistle from Colossians taught us this when it said: “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering ; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any; even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.”

–the date was February, 2000, the speaker Bishop Salmon of S.C.

Varied Reaction to the new Network from Newark

Filed under: — kendall @ 1:54 pm

An article from the New Jersey Herald.

Wall Street Journal Article

Filed under: — kendall @ 1:33 pm

Doug Leblanc writes a solid piece on this week’s gathering.

The inaugural sessions also made clear that the network’s dissent has to do with more than sexual ethics. The Rev. Steve Wood, rector of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Mount Pleasant, S.C., is typical of many members. He feels increasingly alienated from the Episcopal Church’s image as Trinitarian on paper but Unitarian in practice. Like others, his greatest concern is for the authority of Scripture in Christians’ daily lives. Critics of conservative Episcopalians claim that some are guilty of Donatism, a heresy in which Christians question the validity of sacraments, such as Holy Communion, if a priest or bishop teaches errant doctrine. “I’m not questioning whether the sacraments are still valid,” Father Wood says. “I’m questioning whether we worship the same God.”

John Burwell gives a Network Meeting Report

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:45 am

Pictures to come later; the dean of the Charleston, S.C., deanery offers his thoughts on the week’s developments now.

Diocese of Fort Worth Joins the Network

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:37 am

Darren Barbee writes:

The Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese’s executive council has unanimously approved joining an alliance of conservative clergy and laypeople, less than 24 hours after its charter was formalized in Plano.

Some critics say the alliance’s goal is to displace leaders of the U.S. Episcopal Church who approved the ordination of an openly gay bishop.

Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker called those statements “scare tactics.”

“It’s disinformation and it’s caused by people who simply want to say … either embrace the gay agenda or leave the church,” Iker said Thursday evening before attending a ceremony at St. Vincent’s Cathedral Episcopal Church in Bedford.

“That ain’t going to happen,” he said. “We’re here to stay.”

1/22/2004

Church Times Article on the Network

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:43 pm

Pat Ashworth has been getting a lot of her material mixed up lately, and it happens again:

Mr Chapman urged recipients of the six-page strategy to keep it confidential. However, it came to light in a Tennessee newspaper and in the Washington Post last week.

It came to light through a report in the Post, who was seemingly first out, after which came a story by Religion News Service, and then it appeared all over. The reference to a “Tennessee” newspaper is truly odd. She does not say which paper and the implication is that it came to light there and in the Post. I do not believe this is correct.

Unity in Humility

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:24 pm

If indeed a storm of international disapproval is gathering above the Episcopal Church then the proper attitude is a personal one of refractory humility, according to the Rev. Ephraim Radner who delivered a somber summation address at the Anglican Communion Institute: Future of Anglicanism conference held Jan. 8-9 in Charleston, S.C.

Fr. Radner, rector of Ascension in Pueblo, Colo., and a conference organizer, said it was important to bear in mind that the “misplaced politics of gender, sexuality and race have their birth in legitimate grievances.” Further, he noted a positive outcome in exposing unspecified aspects of hypocrisy within the Church as a result of these movements. But questioned whether the precariously unstable state of the Anglican Communion was worth that price.

In comparing the present to past crisis in Church history, Fr. Radner surprised many in the audience by drawing a parallel with the Roman Catholic Church in late 18th century France at the time of the revolution. There two churches gradually emerged: One which, Fr. Radner described as “refractory” remained loyal to Rome; the other which he described as “constitutional” pledged its allegiance with the republic, ultimately in opposition to the Vatican.

For more than 12 years an increasing the Church in France descended into a state of anarchy where vengeance was often indiscriminately applied and too often taken at the point of a sword. “Purity was no guarantee and granted no rewards,” Fr. Radner said.

Only when the French Church was brought to the point of its knees could the slow healing process begin, said Fr. Radner who then concluded that there were ominous parallels to the present when the leadership deliberately led the majority away from faithfulness in the Episcopal Church.

“ What does that mean? Our response depends on a careful, deliberate definition of what it means to be Anglican. We are objects of divine will, rather than willful creatures.”

Fr. Radner said that humility must be what defines the future of Anglicanism. “The only theology that matters is a desperate turning to God… We are here to be seen in all our humiliation.”

–The Living Church

Another Florida Article

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:20 pm

By Binyamin Applebaum.

Ephraim Radner: A response to a “Call to repudiate the American Anglican Council and Network”

Filed under: — kendall @ 12:29 pm

A recent statement was released that was put together by several groups of Episcopalians – Via Media of Rio Grande, of Albany, of Fort Worth; Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, et al. The statement expressed concerns about the American Anglican Council (AAC) and the recently organized Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDP). The statement calls on “loyal Episcopalians” to repudiate and oppose these organizations and their work. Since I am mentioned by name as a supporter of these groups, and by implication as a “disloyal” Episcopalian, it seems appropriate that I offer something of a response to the statement’s concerns.

The statement was occasioned by a “memo” written by a member of the AAC (and subsequently made public), which outlined a possible “strategy” for dioceses and congregations to follow in opposing recent General Convention actions related to sexual behavior, and to the theology and order underlying these actions. I will not quibble with the “facts” of this memo as presented by the statement – although I will note that there is a rather broad range of “varying interpretations” applicable to this private document. My interest, rather, is in the perspective that fuels the concerns of the statement itself.

For the concerns, on the surface, seem wildly out of proportion to reality, a reality alluded to by the statement in the course of its own argument. The statement, for instance, concludes that the AAC and NADCP are out “to use foreign intervention to trump American law and the Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons”; that they are prepared to bring in “foreign primates” to exercise “coercive authority over national churches”; and that they are plotting “the overthrow of the Episcopal Church by extra-legal means”. These, and other nefarious doings are characterized as “chilling”. All this, even while the statement also emphasizes that the foreign Primates have no authority over the U.S. Episcopal Church, that Anglican Communion resolutions and decisions are “non-binding”, and that the laws of our nation do not permit such outside interference. Just how, then, are we to suppose the AAC will pull off their putsch? By calling in a cavalry charge of a few “homophobic” and puny primates who will ride rough-shod over the American civil courts?

The fears raised by the statement, in other words, ring hollow; they seem rather to resonate from a rhetorical chamber closer to jingoism and ecclesial red-baiting than actual legal anxiety. The statement refers approvingly, for example, to a recent pastoral letter denouncing the AAC put out by the bishop of West Tennessee, Don Johnson, in which he portentously proclaimed that he was “not now, and never had been a member of the AAC” – a phrase with a rather direct lineage to an episode in our American history from the 1950’s with which most people, I would have thought, would prefer not to be associated. It is also interesting that the only legal challenge in the courts, as far as I know, to have been pursued over the last few months since General Convention emanated from those associated with the Pittsburgh group signing the statement, and not from the supposedly litigiously –oriented AAC. Who exactly ought to “fear” whose attempts at power plays?

Of course, time will tell if the inflated worries put forward in the statement come to pass or not. There were many at General Convention who brushed aside the warnings of conservatives at that time as hyperbolic; and yet we now in fact see the ecumenical, communion, and congregational wreckage of those decisions lying around us with some fair degree of clarity. So who knows? Perhaps “American law” will in fact be “trumped” by this small group of conservative Episcopalians. Frankly, though, it’s hard to buy.

Leaving aside the fear-mongering, however, it must be admitted that it is perfectly fair that there should be some who might wish to call for the “repudiation” of the AAC and of the recently organized Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishses. It is fair, also, that those who disagree with the aims and commitments of these groups, and who find themselves a minority in some diocese whose leaders uphold these two groups, should feel beleaguered and might wish somehow to take a stand for some alternative set of aims and commitments. Why not?

What is odd in this case, though, is the grounds some of these groups give for their
attacks on the AAC and the NACPD: that is, the groups claim that they represent a more genuine embodiment of “Episcopalianism” or “Anglicanism” than the AAC or the NACDP just because, well, they avoid disagreements! They take for themselves names like “Via Media” – a “middle way” between polemic extremes (so they say). It should be noted, however, that this phrase, as used by19th-century British Anglicans, and based on earlier 17th-century Anglican self-characterizations of “moderation”, has historically been tied to very particular and pointed doctrinal and hermeneutical commitments – cf. John Henry Newman in his Anglican days! – and so does not really fit very well with their own sense of the church. For they tell us that true
Episcopalianism or Anglicanism somehow “embraces varying interpretations of Scripture” and has no “official statement of belief other than the Nicene Creed”. Thus, according to this logic, anyone claiming and pursuing anything other than a doctrinal minimum-cum-doctrinal diversity is anti-Episcopalian or anti-Anglican, precisely because he or she presses for a point of view and ecclesial existence that is in this case different from their own.

It must be said that their position has a venerable modern European pedigree, from people like Pierre Bayle’s 17th-century claim that the best society tolerates everything except (purported) intolerance, to the late Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn, who felt that a liberal western society ought to restrict Moslem (and other religious fundamentalist) immigration precisely in order to protect its ability to be tolerant. Religious fanatics, after all, have a point of view that excludes other points of view; and so they too must be excluded.

The call to repudiate the AAC and the NACDP seems to emerge from this kind of thinking: these two groups are apparently too disputatious, they think some things are right and other things are wrong, they are willing to press their views and to organize for the prevailing of their commitments within the church. This is dangerous, in the same way that the tolerant John Locke thought Roman Catholics were dangerous because they held allegiance to the Pope rather than to a notion of religion that was lodged in diverse and unasserted individual consciences.

Locke, of course, was an Anglican. And even though he was relatively tolerant, like most Anglicans (and Episcopalians until recently) he believed that some things were acceptable and true in the church, and other things were unacceptable and false. Even some interpretations of the Bible (he was happy to write about this at length). Even some doctrines not explicitly
mentioned in the Nicene Creed (this too he felt moved to describe). And this is what is odd about the argument brought by groups like the “Via Media”: there is almost nothing in it that is recognizably Anglican at all. For Anglicanism is nothing if not disputatious, and furthermore disputatious regarding topics touching upon the “right” interpretation of Scripture and acceptable doctrine, and finally disputatious about and through the means of canon law, law, and the politics of power.

How shall we characterize the English Reformation, except as (among other things) an episode of political disputation over Scripture and doctrine, not to mention church order and ecclesial morals? What shall we say about the labored and extended conflicts within the Church of England among Puritans and Conformists? What were the works of the “saintly” Laud in defense of his Anglican patrimony except the exercise of canonical and parliamentary
maneuver in service of a particular Scriptural hermeneutic and doctrinal outlook (not shared, it soon appeared, by many in the Church of England)? The list hardly ends after the Civil War, with the driving out of Non-conformists from their churches, marginalizing catholics, imprisoning Archbishops of Canterbury, creating schisms over theological oaths, suing
religious pamphleteers before Parliament, proroguing Convocations, sending Jacobite bishops and priests into exile, and on and on. Some of these events were rife with “civil disobedience”, and resulted sometimes in punishments, at other times in the changing (“overthrowing”) of the laws themselves. And some of those engaged in such disobedience of the law are in now celebrated in our Lesser Feasts and Fasts. The genius – which is not the same thing as a virtue – of an established church is not that it resolves disputes, but that it turns their repetition into the energy for organizational persistence. A genius passed on, if greatly diluted, to its American offspring, who was born in dispute, as it were, and did not give up its contending patrimony lightly (another list here omitted).

This is not to say that the patrimony is necessarily cause for pride. St. Paul urges us to “be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind” (Phil. 2:2), and we are frequently urged, in the New Testament to “avoid controversies” and “quarrels” (cf. 2 Tim. 2:23). Yet Paul also felt the need to “oppose” even his fellow apostles “face to face” where the matter of the Gospel was at stake (Gal. 2:11), and was called, if necessary to “contend” for the truth with “argument” and with a “punishing” of “disobedience” (cf. 2 Cor. 10:1-6). The
truth of the Gospel, as Jesus himself reminds us, is not without its “sword” (Matthew 10:34; cf. Luke 2:35 ); and we are wont to sing, in praise of God, that His “peace” is often “strife closed in
the sod” (Hymnal 661). If Anglicanism is not dead yet as a force for the Gospel, it is
in part (though only in part!) because the strife of the truth has not yet been smothered by a
false peace. And a “Via Media” that cannot “embrace” this reality, may well turn out to be a via rara – a path of shallow and loose stones – rather than a via dura, strong and lasting.

In short, the Anglicanism envisioned by the groups repudiating the AAC and NACDP is a mythic realm populated by theological or ecclesial sprites and centaurs. Attractive in its way, perhaps, but not real; and believing in it too strongly may well not be healthy. In light of this, some of the particular points the statement makes appear less to be matters of fact than wistful hopes that the contenders, or perhaps simply the religious need to contend, with all of its moral ambiguities, would just all go away (it is, I confess, a feeling I often share myself).

Thus, the statement characterizes as a “disputable point” the AAC’s claim that “by consecrating a homosexual as a bishop, the Episcopal Church has been unfaithful to church doctrine” and has thereby “[violated] its own constitution and canons”. In marking this as “disputable”, the statement seems to think that it has smeared the organized opposition to General Convention’s actions in this matter with an irremedial stain of unanglican contentiousness. In fact, it has done just the opposite: it has indicated clearly just what is going on that is at the heart of this particular Anglican contention! “Disputable” is precisely what it is: we are in a dispute about the meaning and force of our constitutional identity, and behind that, of our Christian identity as a church. Should we say “hooray!”? Given the destructiveness of disputing as a way of life in
stubborn resistance to a deeper life of “common mind”, surely not. But there is a sense in which this is our calling, in the midst of a confusion over the truth, a confusion over even
the deeper substance of our called-upon common mind, yes as Anglican Episcopalians especially: to get this right, and to give ourselves, body and soul, into this struggle for the truth of God in Christ lived out in the visible contours of our church and our religious society.

Again, the statement says that ours is “a church that embraces varying interpretations of Scripture”. No doubt. But what does this really mean? Does this mean simply that there are members of the church that interpret the Bible differently? Does this mean that all interpretations are upheld by the church officially? Does this mean that there are no criteria for
discerning better interpretations from worse, true from false? Does this cover all parts of the Bible? Leviticus only or also the Sermon on the Mount? Does it touch only upon certain themes and aspects and not on others?

It is true that the Anglican church has accepted within its teaching ranks persons who have taught differently on what exactly it means to be “born again”, as Jesus says in John 3. However, it has not been so accepting on the matter of what it means that “the word was God” and “the word was made flesh” in John 1. It has not even been so accepting on the meaning of the phrase “thou shalt not commit adultery” in its plain and morally binding sense.

Furthermore, interpretations of the Bible have been “in dispute” within the Anglican church in some quite spectacular ways, disputes that have, in fact, carried with them canonical and legal implications and struggles. Remember, for instance, the notorious “Gorham Case” of the 19th century. Or earlier, the Bangorian Controversy. Or before that, the disputes over the Puritan Admonitions given to Parliament and the like. Some of these disputes were allowed to remain unresolved. Some were resolved legally, i.e. by force of law (including the means of imprisonment). Some were resolved over time. Do these resolutions represent “embracing varying interpretations of Scripture” (ask the Puritans, the early Methodists, and even the Tractarians if this is true)? Exactly how? And how exactly is the AAC and NACDP now acting contrary to the many and “varied” dynamics of disputation from Anglicanism’s past?

Again, the Statement describes the Anglicanism of the Episcopal Church as one “whose official statement of belief is the Nicene Creed”. I am not sure what an “official statement of belief” is within our church. We have a Prayer Book, whose doctrinal authority is explicitly mentioned our church’s Constitution. Does that count? We have, indeed, a Constitution, that refers in its Preamble to the “historic faith and order” of the church, that we are committed to “uphold and propagate” (and unless the Nicene Creed contains descriptions of church “order”, this must be talking about a bit more than the Trinity and the Incarnation). We have canons, we have
statements (with obligated signatories among our clergy) that refer to the whole of Scripture as the “word of God” and “containing all things necessary to salvation”. We have promises demanded and offered with respect to the “teaching” of the “Apostles”, the “heritage” of the “patriarchs” and much more besides. It seems rather like we have a host of “official
statements”, so many in fact that people are disputing how they are to inform each other, what order they are to establish, how they are to frame our decisions.

Thus, when the statement claims that the “AAC plans for episcopal oversight are in clear violation of multiple sections of the Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons… and are also contrary to a covenant passed overwhelmingly by the House of Bishops in 2002 that outlined a plan for supplemental episcopal care,” they are not appealing, surely, to some already accepted and clearly articulated means of adjudicating a dispute about truthfulness and justice within the church – after all, the Nicene Creed says nothing about episcopal oversight (unless you want to refer to the Canons of Nicea, in which case, you are opening a can moral worms many would be shocked to seen crawl out). Rather, what is in dispute is precisely what weight various authoritative or at least “official” articulations of policy ought to have, that is, how “binding” they are in relation to one another: Scriptural teaching and discipline? Evangelical commitments to communion? Received teaching from the early Church councils? Teaching that conforms to the “Vincentian Canon”? Promises made at previous ecumenical gatherings and received and confirmed by Convention? Promises made at previous General Conventions? Promises made at Lambeth? Promises made among Primates (including ECUSA’s)? This organizing of “official” authorities is a matter in dispute. It is by no means “settled”. There is no authoritative body among us able to do so clearly and immediately. Thus, we are in a struggle.

Certainly the signers of the Statement are within their rational rights to take a place in this struggle. And so they have. But to do so on the basis that there should be no struggle at all, because the church of which we are a part is defined by its “strugglelessness” is historically and logically (perhaps even theologically) odd. Furthermore, such a view may well obscure some of the real needs demanded by the signers’ laudable goal of, say, “unity”. For unless one understands the struggle, is clear about its framework and roots within the life of the church, and in some sense respects its legitimacy, then one is going to fail in addressing both the persons and the grounds by which unity will be achieved (or at least received from God). For instance, will we seriously confront and grapple with the contempt shown to and the obstacles placed in front of our ecumenical partners? Will we be in engaged and humble contact with betrayed provinces in Africa, Asia, and South America? Will we seek at least to articulate what it means to hold to account bishops and deputies who contravened the promises made by previous conventions, bishops, and presiding bishops?

Or are we simply going to dispute disputation, and leave it at that?

–The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner is rector, Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado

London Article on the Network Launch

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:10 am

Calls for revival and reform, tinged with fears of retribution and rebuke, marked the opening day of the organizing convocation of the ‘Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes’, held on Jan 19 at Christ Church, Plano, Texas.

The closed-door meeting of 14 bishops and over 100 clergy and lay representatives gathered to chart the future course of traditional Anglicanism in the United States comes amidst an unprecedented spin campaign designed to silence and marginalise traditionalist dissent.

“We will be attacked”, stated the Rt Rev John-David Schofield of San Joaquin, “for supporting those who can no longer travel the road taken by the Episcopal Church”. Bishop Schofield urged the Network not respond to the assaults of “our enemies” and abjure “underhandedness”, “sneakery” and “double-dealing”.

“Men will not take note if what we do,” he said, “is not done in the name of Jesus and is motivated by purity and love for God.”

Representatives from 12 traditionalist dioceses along with delegates invited to speak for traditionalists in progressive dioceses gathered at the Episcopal Church’s largest parish in a northern suburb of Dallas, Texas.

The Rt Rev Robert Duncan stated the convocation would adopt “a simple charter” and a “structure appropriate to its early life” as well as elect officers, renew relations with the overseas Church, campaign for “the cause of adequate Episcopal oversight” and “give hope to the orthodox of the Episcopal Church”.

The representatives hope to accomplish these goals before adjourning on Jan 20.

The week before the gathering, newspapers and wire services in the US and UK were given copies of a memorandum that spokesmen for the National Church said outlined a secret conservative plot to destroy the Episcopal Church and supplanting it with a cabal of “fundamentalists”.

One bishop, the Rt Rev Don Johnson of West Tennessee, responded to the allegations of skullduggery by banning membership by his clergy in the American Anglican Council. An action, the AAC charged, that amounted to an “abuse of office” based upon “spin” and not fact.

In the midst of the furore, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold gave a rare interview rejecting the Primates’ request for “adequate” alternative Episcopal oversight, a key concern of traditionalists.

Bishop Griswold said he would support a provision giving conservative bishops the right of “pastoral care” but not “oversight”. “Authority belongs to the diocesan bishop,” he said.

As the convocation gathered for its first meeting, the spectrum of opinion ran from taking no action to leaving the Church. Several representatives questioned the propriety of bishops crossing diocesan boundaries to support embattled traditionalists. Some were unwilling to commit until they had the full backing of their diocesan synods. Others bemoaned the fracas between the AAC and the Anglican Mission in America arguing that traditionalists should not quarrel in the face of a common foe.

Not all were unwilling to act. “My faith is more important than my office as a bishop,” said the Rt Rev James Adams of Western Kansas. Others argued that traditionalists must be willing to leave property and position behind. “The early Church was expelled from the Synagogue,” stated Mr Bill Bugg of Atlanta. We too “must be willing to step out in faith”.

Claims that the Network was an attempt to create a cocoon for conservatives within the Episcopal Church were inaccurate, one bishop noted. The Rt Rev Peter Beckwith of Springfield told The Church of England Newspaper “a Church within a Church is not what we are about”; such a solution would be “unworkable”.

Bishop Beckwith observed that the issues dividing traditionalists from progressives were theological, and not political. This is “not about homosexuality or property,” he said, “but about the authority of Scripture”.

The Rev Canon Michael Green, Archbishop George Carey’s Evangelism Advisor, told The Church of England Newspaper he had been invited to the convocation to resource the debates on Evangelism and Mission and would be sharing his thoughts on the convocation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, on his return home.

–The Church of England Newspaper

1/21/2004

The Very Rev Michael Perham named new Bishop of Gloucester

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:54 pm

This is Gloucestershire Reports:

The Queen approved his nomination for election as Bishop of Gloucester in succession to the Rt Rev David Bentley, who retired last year. Michael Perham, 56, has been at Derby Cathedral since 1998, first as Provost and, since 2000, as Dean.

He is also a member of the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England and chairman of the Business Committee of the General Synod….

“I shall come with real confidence in God, in the Christian gospel, and in the Church which is, despite what you hear, responding, I believe, creatively to a fast changing world.

According to the London Times, Michael Perham called the election of Canon Robinson in New Hampshire “a big mistake…The Americans were insensitive to make that appointment knowing it would cause huge distress.”

Concerns from the Minority in the Diocese of Newark

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:32 pm

Newark Convention poised to further damage divisons within ECSA

For immedate release
January 20, 2004

We, members of the Executive Committee of the Northern (New) Jersey Chapter
of the American Anglican Council call upon the Episcopal Diocese of Newark
130th Convention to defeat Resolution 2004-11 “On the Unity of the Church in the
Spirit of the Gospel”. While the resolution claims to be reconciliatory to
those of us in the theological minority of the Episcopal Church, we find it
inflammatory. There is no call for mutual repentance by both sides of the
conflict. Rather, there is a triumphal “pat-on -the back,” for the winning
majority by claiming that the Episcopal Church “responded boldly and faithfully to
the demands of the Gospel by consenting to the election of the Rev. Canon V.
Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire.” Once again, we identify
diocesan double-talk where one thing is claimed, but something totally different
is acted upon. We find this resolution offensive and believe that its passage
will lead to greater division and hard feelings. We call for all those
desiring reconciliation in our denomination to vote against this resolution.

Anmerican Anglican Council (AAC) of Northern New Jersey consists of around
30 to 40 individual members, plus 3 affiliated parishes,
Executive Committee: Suzanne Geissler Bowles, Ph.D., The Rev. Canon John A.
Donnelly, D.Min., Joam McMilla, MTS, and Jay McCann, Esq.

Contact: The Rev. John Donnelly 973-694-1026

——————————————————————————
—————-
COPY of original resolution, Diocese of Newark
Resolution 2004-11
ON UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL
(This resolution was amended by the Resolutions Committee without the consent
of the original mover. The original version follows and is also titled “On
Unity of the Church in the Spirit of the Gospel.")

RESOLVED, That this 130th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark
recognizes that the grace and love of God and the faith that unites us as one
Church is immeasurably greater than the current issues that threaten to divide us;
and, be it further

RESOLVED, That we believe the Episcopal Church in the United States of
America has responded boldly and faithfully to the demands of the Gospel by
consenting to the election of The Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of
New Hampshire, and by recognizing the blessing of same-sex unions as “within
the bounds of our common life”, while we acknowledge that these same decisions
have caused pain and dismay to faithful Episcopalians and to others throughout
the Anglican communion; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That, in the spirit of the resolution offered by the Diocese Upper
South Carolina’s General Convention Response Committee, and adopted by the
Convention of that diocese, we will;

- Support our Bishop and his teaching and expectations dealing with human
sexuality and stewardship;
- Move forward, in the midst of this time of painful challenge and
opportunity, in mission and faithfulness to God and to one another;
- Implore the Bishop, clergy, and lay leadership of this Diocese and our
congregations and institutions to lead us-by their example, by their witness, and
by their teaching-to deeper unity, more profound love, and more faithful
discipleship, and
- Support in prayer our Diocese and its mission and respond to our present
situation with patience, faith, and charity for all, affirming that God’s grace
is more than sufficient for these times; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Secretary of Convention convey this statement to the
Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Bishop of Upper South Carolina, and
the Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire.

Submitted by Mr. Paul Hausman, The Rev. Richard R. Swanson, St. Peter’s,
Morristown; Ms. Martha Gardner, St. George’s, Maplewood; The Rev. Elizabeth
Kaeton, St. Paul’s, Chatham; The Rev. David Wolf, St. Paul’s, Paterson; The Rev.
Kenneth M. Near, St. Paul’s, Englewood; Mr. George Hayman, Grace, Madison; Mr.
Louie Crew, Grace, Newark, member of the Standing Committee and member of the
Newark Deputation to GC 2003; Ms. Lyn Headley-Moore, General Convention 2003
Deputy, Justice Missioner, St. Mark’s, West Orange.

The Resolutions Committee recommends adoption, pending the open hearings.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

In General Convention in Minneapolis last summer, the National Episcopal
Church consented to the election of Gene Robinson to serve as Bishop of the
Diocese of New Hampshire. Bishop Robinson is an openly gay man, living in a
committed relationship.

Also in Convention, the National Church passed Resolution C051, stating
“that, we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of
our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and
blessing same-sex unions.”

In response to these actions, some dioceses, parishes, and individuals who
opposed these actions have withheld funds from the National Church and from
others whom they saw as supporting them. Some even threaten to break from the
Episcopal Church USA with the intent of forming an alternative Anglican church.

The Diocese of Upper South Carolina is one of many that voted against both of
these actions in the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. In their
diocesan convention, that diocese also was presented with various resolutions in
response to General Convention actions. But rather than following the lead of
those who seek schism or seek to punish the National Church for its chosen
course of action, the Diocese of Upper South Carolina voted to set aside all of
these resolutions. They did so not because they believe in the actions of
General Convention, but because they did not want “want polarization around these
issues further to interfere with the ministry, mission, and unity of the
Diocese”. Through their resolution, they are committed to seek “deeper unity, more
profound love, and more faithful discipleship.”

The sponsors of this resolution believe that such faithful response to
diversity, especially on the part of those with whom we may disagree, deserves our
recognition and respect.

Diocese of Upper South Carolina: GCRC Adopted Resolution

Whereas we face a crisis of unity in the Church because of the votes on the
confirmation of the bishop-coadjutor-elect of New Hampshire, and the
recognition of same-sex blessings as being within the bounds of our common life;

Whereas Provinces have been urged by the Primates of the Anglican Communion
to avoid precipitous action for twelve months, during which time the Archbishop
of Canterbury’s Commission will study means by which to strengthen the unity
of our Communion and report its findings to the next meeting of the Primates;

Whereas we support our Bishop, his leadership, and his commitment to unity
not only in the Diocese but within the Anglican Communion;
Whereas we do not want polarization around these issues further to interfere
with the ministry, mission, and unity of our Diocese;

Therefore, be it resolved that we set aside all other resolutions dealing
with the actions of the 74th General Convention, and that, as the Diocese of
Upper South Carolina:

- We join with the clergy of this Diocese, the Diocesan Executive Council and
the General Convention Response Committee, in supporting our Bishop, his
Pastoral Letter, and his teaching and expectations dealing with human sexuality
and stewardship;
- We will, in the midst of this time of painful challenge and opportunity,
move forward in mission and faithfulness to God and to one another as ONE BODY,
ONE MISSION, CHANGING LIVES;
- We implore the Bishop, clergy, and lay leadership of this Diocese and our
parishes, missions and institutions to lead us-by their example, by their
witness, and by their teaching-to deeper unity, more profound love, and more
faithful discipleship.

Furthermore, we ask all to support in prayer our Diocese and its mission and
to respond to our present situation with patience, faith, and charity for all.
We affirm that God’s grace imore than sufficient for these times.

The Rev. Canon John Donnelly
Rector, St. Michael’s Episcopal Church
Wayne, NJ

News from Fort Worth

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:31 pm

From an email:

Want to update you all that the Executive Council of the Diocese of Fort Worth ratified the Charter and agreed to enter the Network this afternoon.

Reuters Article on the Network Launch

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:25 pm

Includes quotes from Church Times editor Paul Handley and former London Times religion editor Clifford Longley:

“There is no way this group of traditionalists will stay in the same organisation as the Liberal leadership of the U.S. Episcopalians,” he [Paul Handley] told Reuters.

“They are definite and determined,” he added. “This is a confirmation that they are not going to buckle under….”

The Anglican Church weathered its last major crisis when finally agreeing, after much heart-searching, to the adoption of women priests. But Robinson’s consecration has opened up a gaping cultural divide.

“I think we are heading for a split,” said religious commentator Clifford Longley.

“The Anglicans have a tremendous talent for fudge and they must be hoping and praying it will come to the rescue again. But there is an inherent instability now and a fatalism on both sides that this split is now going to happen.”

Steve Wood Chimes In

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:13 pm

The rector of Saint Andrew’s in Mount Pleasant’s thoughts heading in to the Network Gathering.

Francis Ayieko: Is Split in the Anglican Church Inevitable?

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:09 pm

A view from Africa.

Vancouver Parishioners Haven’t Fallen into Line

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:05 pm

Ron and Carolyn Edwards write:

It would seem obvious that the members of a church would normally expect to govern their own affairs. But at St. Martin’s, none of the decisions reported by The Sun were made by the parishioners. They were made against the stated will of St. Martin’s.

The decision to announce that St. Martin’s has come back into the diocesan fold was made by only three parish leaders appointed by Bishop Ingham, chosen specifically for their loyalty to him. Those orthodox parishioners who no longer trust Bishop Ingham have been removed from committees and fired from leadership posts.

All of this is merely the execution of a strategy to force the conservative/orthodox parishioners out by creating an atmosphere that does not recognize them as parishioners or honour their deeply held beliefs. While those parishioners are willing to wait for the House of Bishops to complete their deliberations to find a solution to the impasse in this diocese, Bishop Ingham apparently is not.

Ron and Carolyn Edwards

North Vancouver

Bishop Stanton on the Network’s Formation

Filed under: — kendall @ 3:55 pm

The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes

A statement from Bishop James M. Stanton

My Brothers and Sisters in Christ

The Charter conference held in Plano is now concluded and the Network
of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes has been established.

It was unanimously agreed to by the bishops and representatives of
the dioceses noted, and by representatives of parishes in other
dioceses concerned to preserve the unity of the Church within the
Anglican Communion.

There are two points of paramount importance to me and, I trust, to
us all.

1. The Charter makes very clear that the Network “shall operate in
good faith within the Constitution of The Episcopal Church” (Article
I). At no time was the suggestion made or considered that the Network
would work outside the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.

2. The purpose of the Network is to “constitute a true and legitimate
expression of the world-wide Anglican Communion” and to maintain the
widest possible connection to that Communion (Articles II, III, IV).

The Network Charter provides a simple structure which will permit its
affiliates to explore and pursue ministry together. I hope and pray
that by this means we can begin to look to the future and, confident
of our relationships with all others in the Anglican Communion, carry
on our God-given mission.

Those representing the Diocese of Dallas besides myself were: Dr.
Bill Power, President of the Standing Committee; Canon Paul Lambert,
dean of our General Convention Deputies; Neil Anderson and Laura
Allen, both deputies of long experience particularly in the area of
Constitution and Canons (Laura has served as Secretary of the
relevant Convention Committee for two General Conventions, and is
also a member of the Standing Committee).

Alternate representatives included: Dean Michael Mills of the
Cathedral; Fr. Henry Pendergrass, member of the Standing Committee;
Lana Valenta, chair of our Diocesan Convention Committee; Canon Neal
Michell of our Staff; and Fr. David Roseberry, rector of Christ
Church and host of the Conference and Fr. Larry Smith, rector of
Incarnation.

A Network is only as good as the purposes it is designed to serve. My
hope is that the Network will become a resource to all of us as we
seek to move forward as the Church we are and which our Constitution
proclaims us to be.

Much discussion among the representatives focused on matters that, in
fact, are consistent with our own Strategic Plan: planting new
congregations, discipling new members of the Body of Christ,
educating our people for leadership in the years ahead. It will take
time to reflect on and deepen our understanding of the Network.

I leave today (Wednesday) for the enthronement of the Rt. Rev. Henry
Orombi as the new Archbishop of the Church of Uganda. (That event
will take place on January 25. Please pray for him and all of us.) On
my return, I will call a meeting of the Clergy to discuss the Network
and will plan to present it to the Diocese in local meetings in the
weeks ahead.

How would I describe our participation in this Network? For the time
being, we will be provisional participants.

As I said to the Executive Council and the Standing Committee, I
expect that if the Network meets a need and serves the purposes for
which it has been established it will be presented to the Diocesan
Convention in October for formal action.

Let me add a comment concerning an article that appeared in the
Washington Post concerning a document that was circulated by a sub-
committee of a sub-committee of the American Anglican Council. It
concerned “adequate episcopal oversight.”

As I understand it, that document was a draft. It was never
circulated to any bishops, and in fact had never been approved by the
AAC. I certainly knew nothing about it until the matter appeared in
the press, and would never have supported any such approach.

I raise this matter because the Post article and the document itself
seemed to link it to the Network - which had not yet been formed!

I trust that the Network will be judged on its own merits and by what
it does, and not by the acts or interpretations of others.

For my own part, as I have said consistently throughout the weeks
preceding and all the time following our General Convention, we stand
on the Constitution and Canons of the Church and will not depart from
them.

I want to be clear that the matter of “adequate episcopal oversight”
was first raised by the Primates (including our own) at the Lambeth
Meeting on October 15-16 and was set out in their letter issued at
the conclusion of that meeting.

The Network is committed to “work for the provision of adequate
episcopal oversight” (Article VII) as envisioned by and in
cooperation with the Primates. Nothing more, nothing less. Please
look at the Charter.

The View From Peoria

Filed under: — kendall @ 3:33 pm

From the Peoria Jounral Star:

The actions being taken in Texas by conservative Episcopalian leaders are to prevent people from leaving the denomination, Bishop Keith Ackerman of the Diocese of Quincy said Tuesday.

At a meeting in Plano, conservative Episcopalians appeared on track to launch the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, a new nationwide protest organization.

Ackerman and Springfield Bishop Peter Beckwith were two of 11 bishops at the two-day organizational meeting. Other clergy and lay delegates also attended the meeting.

Ackerman said when he returns from the meeting he will make a videotape of his thoughts about the network for distribution to churches in the west-central Illinois diocese.

The meeting was not a harbinger of schism in the Episcopal Church USA, the two bishops said.

“It is clear that what is being proposed is more like a missionary society that is attempting to proclaim the good news of Jesus and offering encouragement to people who believe the Episcopal Church has just sort of gotten itself around one issue,” Ackerman said.

The Third Day

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:26 am

Immediately after the Network Launch was completed, a second conference began last night at Christ Church, Plano, entitled “Leading in These Difficult Times,” (sponsored by the American Anglican Council and Vital Church Ministries). Last night we heard two very good addresses by Kevin Martin and David Roseberry. Many leaders of a number of the larger Episcopal Churches in the country are here, and there is high energy in the room, a desire to network among the participants and a hope to learn more about the practical significance of the new network.

This morning Bishop Duncan will give a presentation about the Network with an opportunity to ask questions.

Audio Interview with Bishop Bob Duncan on the Network

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:16 am

From the BBC. It is the fourth segment down from the top, and requires Realplayer.

David Mills on the Network Launch

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:11 am

Former Episcopalian David Mills chimes in.

Jacksonville Report on the Network Start

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:05 am

Binyamin Apllebaum writes:

A dissident minority of American Episcopalians Tuesday formalized a network of biblically orthodox churches legally resident within the Episcopal Church USA but theologically aligned with the Anglican churches of Africa and Asia….

The leader of the Diocese of Florida, Bishop Stephen Jecko, released a statement saying he voted for the charter and supported it fully but did not sign because he is stepping down in nine days. He said he sent the document to his successor, Bishop John Howard, for review.

“I applaud the work of this convocation and pray God’s richest blessings upon the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes,” Jecko said.

The most controversial portion of the network charter calls for the establishment of “convocations,” groups of dissident parishes in dioceses that have declined to join the network. Representatives from several such congregations attended the convention.

The charter leaves unclear whether network bishops would provide spiritual oversight for those congregations against the wishes of local bishops. That would violate the canons of the Episcopal Church, under which bishops are sovereign….

Charleston S.C. Article on the Network Beginning

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:59 am

Dave Munday notes some challenges the gathering faced:

The charter was approved unanimously in closed-door meetings, but several issues generated lengthy debate, he said. One of the most contentious was what to do about the ordination of women. Three of the dioceses who signed the charter don’t ordain women (Fort Worth, Quincy in Illinois and San Joaquin in California). The charter pledges to honor “differing perspectives on the ordination of women.”

How quickly to provide alternate oversight to churches that cannot submit to their bishops also generated significant discussion, [Kendall] Harmon said.

Episcopal church law forbids a priest from ministering in a diocese without the resident bishop’s permission, and the charter says the network will work within the Episcopal Church.

“We will try to live within the Episcopal Church’s constitution,” Duncan told a group of reporters after the meetings at Christ Church in this Dallas suburb. “In the short run, we have to face emergency measures.”

Chicago Tribune report on the Network Beginning

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:55 am

Genieve Abdo writes:

After six months of meetings and repeated threats to walk out of the more liberal American church, conservative Episcopalians are facing a predicament: They say they don’t want to split from the church, yet they can’t live with views on homosexuality they consider heretical.

The solution, they announced here Tuesday, is the formation of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, a movement that hopes to reclaim the Episcopal Church from the current leadership in the United States.

“This has been a glorious and historic day,” said Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, the newly elected moderator of the movement. “Our aim is to stand up and reclaim the Episcopal Church from the other side that has departed from our constitution.”

Read the entire article (free registration required).

1/20/2004

AAC Press Release on the Network Launch Today

Filed under: — kendall @ 11:31 pm

The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes was officially launched today at the Network’s Organizing Convocation at Christ Church, Plano, Texas. The Convocation included representatives from 12 Episcopal dioceses as well as individuals from geographic regions and one non-geographic area that were designated as “Convocations”. The gathering unanimously adopted a structural charter this afternoon. The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan was elected Moderator of the new Network and will serve for a three-year term. The Organizing Convocation also elected a 12-member Steering Committee comprised of individuals from across the country.

“Today is a significant and joyful moment in the life of the Church,” said Bishop Duncan. “What we have done today will bear fruit for years to come in the lives of our children and grandchildren.”

“We came together in this Convocation from 12 diverse dioceses. Despite some differences, we share a unified conviction that the Gospel of Jesus Christ must not be compromised. We were able to proceed with unanimity on the Charter’s articles. The Network is committed to moving forward with the mission and ministry of the Church. It will operate within the constitution of the Episcopal Church and in full fellowship with the vast majority of the Anglican Communion.”

The Network was formed in faithful response to a recommendation of the Archbishop of Canterbury as well as other Anglican Primates. Those dioceses that signed the Network charter will now seek final ratification by their respective legislative bodies, as appropriate.

“We encourage bishops and dioceses to read our charter and consider joining us in our Great Commission ministry,” said Bishop Duncan. “There is now no reason for orthodox Episcopalians to leave Anglicanism.”

Diane Knippers Chimes In

Filed under: — kendall @ 11:25 pm

Writing on Beliefnet, the IRD President notes:

What do traditional Episcopalians like me want? We want to be able to tell people where we go to church–and to share our church affiliation proudly. We want to disassociate dramatically with the unbiblical actions of our denomination. We want to stop funding programs incompatible with our vision of godly mission and ministry. We want to strengthen our ties with the worldwide Anglican Communion and with the majority of Christians globally. We want to be led by bishops we can respect….

For months leading up to last summer’s General Convention of the Episcopal Church, mainstream Anglicans at home and abroad warned the Episcopal Church that to move away from Anglican teaching on sexuality and marriage–by word or action–would be disastrous. These warnings were dismissed as alarmist threats. Unfortunately, too many Episcopal revisionists believed their own rhetorical spin–that there would a bit of a flap for a while but that soon everything would calm down to business as usual. Now they are shocked, SHOCKED!, at the repercussions.

Read the whole thing.

Legal Advisors Report

Filed under: — kendall @ 11:20 pm

Lambeth Palace has released one of the key documents used last fall at the emergency primates’ meeting. A Legal Advisor’s Report, written by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Chancellor, the Rev. John Rees, and presented to the Primates on Oct 15 states there is currently no canonical solution to the threatened unraveling of the Anglican Communion. The paper was included in the packet of materials distributed to participants of the Anglican Communion Institute seminar on “The Future of Anglicanism” held Jan. 8-9 at St. Phillip’s in Charleston, S.C.

The report “represents the legal starting point for the [Primates’] Commission’s work, from which further ideas concerning communion between the churches can be explored,” said the Rev. Jonathan Jennings, press officer for the Archbishop of Canterbury, in an interview with THE LIVING CHURCH on Jan. 5. The report “simply sets out the legal background for examining the proposals put forward by some of the Primates.”

“The purpose of this paper” notes Mr. Rees, “is to consider the legal and constitutional framework – not as it might be, but as it is –“ that order the relations of the Anglican Communion.

The 21-page document offers the primates a brief constitutional and legal exposition on questions of provincial autonomy and interdependence, instruments of Anglican unity, “flying bishops”, parallel jurisdictions, and the Anglican Mission in America. Doctrine, ecclesiology and Church history and tradition were not discussed, a significant omission according to one of the ACI conference organizers, the Rev. Ephraim Radner who spoke about the document during a panel session.

“The communion in which we share our common life constrains our lives in all sorts of ways,” he noted. “To dismiss discipline of the Episcopal Church simply because we currently lack the structural mechanisms is preposterous. Discipline pursued faithfully and responsibly builds up the body of Christ.”

None of the four instruments of unity within the Anglican Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conferences, the Primates’ Meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council, the paper notes currently have the canonical authority to define acceptable boundaries or to determine if a particular action is beyond the permissible limits.

While “the Anglican Communion lacks any central body which has legal jurisdiction over the whole” the paper acknowledges that such principles may be implied by the fact that individual provinces are “not free of constraints.” Churches are “subject to internal constraints, deriving from their recognition of scripture, the creeds, councils of the undivided Church, and historic liturgies and formularies,” the paper concluded.

–The Living Church

New Network Charter as Passed Today

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:07 pm

Worthy of Careful Reading.

Christian Science Monitor Article

Filed under: — kendall @ 6:05 pm

Interesting piece from Jane Lampman.

Remarkable Day Two

Filed under: — kendall @ 5:50 pm

Uanimous Passage of the organizing Charter of all sections of the preamble and ALL ten articles of the organizing charter. A VERY positive and mission minded spirit was pervasive, and a sense of a common mind.

Line of the day, in the midst of a challenging but honest discussion of women’s ordination: “This isn’t about women’s ordination, this is about trust.”

Yesterday’s anxiety, by the power of the Holy Spirit, was transformed into today’s unanimity and enthusiasm.

Charleston Article on the Network Meeting’s First Day

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:28 am

Dave Munday writes:

TEXAS–Episcopalians who believe their denomination has become too liberal held their first day of closed-door meetings Monday to set up an alternative network.

“This is a process, a work in progress that’s nowhere near completion,” Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan said of the emerging Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes….

Some bishops within the network also will offer their services to Episcopalians who consider their own bishops too liberal. That’s fine as long as the resident bishop allows the visiting bishop into his diocese, but it would be a violation of church law for a clergy member to minister in a bishop’s territory without his or her permission.

“That’s a problem that needs to be worked out in the House of Bishops,” said the Rev. Nunley, a communications officer for the Episcopal Church who attended a press conference Monday.

Fort Worth Report on the Network Gathering’s First Day

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:14 am

From the Star-Telegram:

Bishops, priests and lay people from 12 dioceses, including a delegation from Fort Worth headed by Bishop Jack Iker, met for the first time Monday behind closed doors at Christ Church. The alliance, called the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, spent most of the day polishing an organizational charter before spending much of the evening at work on a theological position.

Their meeting, which concludes today, will decide how some 230,000 conservative Episcopalians – about 10 percent of the denomination – will live within a church that they believe has parted ways with Anglicanism….

“We are attempting, in the words of St. Paul, to be in the Episcopal Church, but not of it,” he said, noting that there are great disagreements among us as to how we do this.”

1/19/2004

The Opening Day

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:44 pm

I know people are interested in what is transpiring here and we have been urged to be careful about what is said at this point because it is an unfolding process. We spent much of the day familiarizing ourselves with one another and plodding through an organization charter which was a working document provided by the steering committee. I would characterize the early mood as focused, but insecure and anxious. Part of this had to do with the reality that this has never been done before in the Episcopal Church.

At a dinner tonight one speaker spoke of the need to call to mind Churchill, courage and creativity. The evening session began with a naming of the anxiety and a prayer for boldness. One respondent to the theological charter gave a moving word about our needing to be willing to sacrifice for what we believed. Philip Turner, formerly of Berkeley Divinity School, and Robert Munday, current dean of Nashotah House, were two of the leaders and did a fine job. There was also a standing ovation for the Anglican Communion Institute and their fine and often unnoticed theological work behind the scenes.

After the theological charter was warmly received, the meeting was running ahead of schedule so Bishop Duncan invited Canon Michael Green to give a word. It was nothing short of prophetic, a call for courage, a call to tell it like it is, a call for clear action, and this from one who was not of us.

So a tentative start but a strong finish. And much, much work to be done.

USA Today Coverage of the Network Gathering

Filed under: — kendall @ 10:37 pm

Cathy Lynn Grossman writes:

At the opening of their two-day meeting in Plano, Texas, the temporary leader of the newly named Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, told about 100 participants that their actions would give traditionalists in the pews “some sense there is a future” for them in the historic denomination….

On Monday, clergy and lay representatives from 12 of the Episcopal Church USA’s 110 dioceses gathered behind closed doors to pray, incorporate a formal organization, elect a moderator and establish a steering committee.

The long-term goals are to promote missions, to provide sacramental oversight for “beleaguered congregations” where bishops or clergy voted for Robinson, and to connect these congregations to the worldwide communion, says spokesman Bruce Mason.

“The network is a response to a division created by EC-USA’s departing from the historic faith and doctrine of the worldwide Anglican Church,” he said.

ACI Conference In Charleston

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:21 am

The Anglican Communion is currently in a state of transition from one of talking about homosexuality to one which hopefully will lead to canonically lawful means of disciplining provinces which stray beyond the definable boundaries of diversity, according to the Most Rev. Drexel Gomez, primate of the West Indies and keynote speaker at the Anglican Communion Institute: The Future of Anglicanism conference held Jan. 8-9 at St. Phillip’s in Charleston, S.C.

While taking exception to the way it was introduced, Archbishop Gomez who is chair of the Inter Anglican Standing Committee on Ecumenical Relations and an appointed member of the Eames Commission made a distinction between women’s ordination, which he said is undergoing a “doctrine of reception” within the communion and homosexuality which he said has brought the entire communion to an existential identity crisis.

“The Global South primates will not attend any more meetings at which sexuality is discussed,” Archbishop Gomez said. “Structure is what the Eames Commission will address.

“We made a commitment at Lambeth to give this process a chance,” he said. “That has tried the patience of some of the primates, more than others, Peter Akinola being among them. The danger of acting unilaterally or prematurely is that the communion would shatter.”

Beginning with the recently-published directive of the Eames Commission, Archbishop Gomez painstakingly went through a thorough presentation of evidence to support his belief that what is being created is not a model for reception, but the development of a disciplinary structure which he hopes will then be applied to both the Episcopal Church and the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster.

“A new paradigm requires a different approach,” he said. “Reception is based upon mutual recognition of each other’s decisions. That process has already broken down.”

Some provinces have declared themselves to be in a state of “broken” communion with the Episcopal Church. Archbishop Gomez and other conference participants agreed that “impaired” communion was preferable both as a means of creating what he described as “facts on the ground” during the interim process (which will end with publication of the Eames Commission report in October) and as a desirable means of enforcing discipline within the communion when structures determine that collegiality has failed.

“The disassociation is already taking place on an individual level [among provinces],” he noted, and “as the year progresses, the commission has said that it will have to take account of ‘facts on the ground.’

“So far Rowan Williams has acted consistently in accord with the promise he made to abide by the 1998 Lambeth resolution on sexuality and statements made at subsequent primate meetings.”

One of the obstacles that Archbishop Gomez said has prevented the development of adequate disciplinary structures before now is a widespread and legitimate “fear of radical centralization of authority with the Archbishop of Canterbury becoming an Anglican pope. Only the present crisis has led many to conclude that this is a deficiency.

“Our policy of diversity has often led us to ignore or dismiss boundaries,” he noted. “Every human endeavor has defined boundaries.”

Archbishop Gomez has commissioned two books: Claiming Our Anglican Identity and True Union in the Body, which he said make a sound theological case for refuting what the Episcopal Church has done. The two documents are specifically mentioned in the Eames Commission directive as being foundational to its future work.

“Does that mean they will be accepted as definitive,” he said. “I don’t know, but I find it interesting that the conversation within the communion has turned from sex to discipline.”

When the Eames Commission completes its work the Anglican Communion will be at its most vulnerable. According to Archbishop Gomez, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates will at that time face a stark choice the consequences of which will lead to disintegration into sects, fragmentation into a loose corporate federation or a renewed commitment to deeper unity through accountability to Christ.

“I believe we are at a point of great stress and intense conflict,” he said. “Despite the foreseeable difficulties I am still hopeful that we will survive as a communion. I am not interested in an Anglican federation. I will redouble my efforts toward unity.”

–The Living Church

John Howe: A “Delicate Balancing Act”?

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:13 am

In an Orlando article by Mark I. Pinsky, we hear:

Today , Bishop John Howe of the Diocese of Central Florida will lead a delegation in Plano, Texas, where conservative supporters of an eventual break with the church are gathering for what they call an “organizational convocation.”

But in the latest example of a delicate balancing act, Howe repeated his insistence last week that Central Florida would not join any such move. He said he preferred to voice his conservative opposition from within the denomination and will recommend that no action be taken when the diocese meets for its annual convention Friday.

The silver-haired bishop has been confounding friends and foes alike since August, when the denomination’s general convention voted to confirm an openly gay priest, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire, and to allow parishes and dioceses to continue blessing same-sex unions.

1/18/2004

Fort Worth Article on the Network Meeting

Filed under: — kendall @ 11:47 pm

Darren Barbee writes:

An alliance of conservative Episcopal clergy will meet behind closed doors Monday and Tuesday in Plano to map out a strategy for confronting the church’s support of same-sex marriages and an openly gay bishop.

Representatives from 12 dioceses, including Fort Worth, will hammer out a theological statement and work to re-establish relations with other denominations of the worldwide Anglican Communion….

AP Story on the Network Meeting

Filed under: — kendall @ 11:39 pm

Richard Ostling on the meeting which begins in the morning:

Activists say the new Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes won’t be a breakaway denomination or schism but rather a “church within a church.” Nonetheless, it’s a potentially serious challenge to Episcopal Church leaders.

Hopes for the Plano Network Gathering

Filed under: — kendall @ 3:32 pm

What I am praying and hoping for:

–A clear foundation for the network that builds into it a marvelous missionary spirit.
–A strong statement to the worldwide Anglican communion that we intend to stand together with them as faithful Anglicans.
–A powerful message sent that there is a growing group of people who are not prepared to allow the gospel to be swept into compromising cultural accomodation.
–A deep commitment to one another that we will not abandon people to the wrath of bishops determined to persecute them merely for standing firm for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. This needs to include a deep willingness to sacrifice one for another, since not all in this Network will be in the same situation, and those less oppressed need to give more to those who are more oppressed, that we may move forward together in Christ.

Members of the Qunicy Diocese Coming to Plano

Filed under: — kendall @ 3:22 pm

An article on some Illinois Episcopalians and their thoughts before heading to Texas:

So far, the public intention of the network is to not formally break from the denomination, which is under the worldwide umbrella of the Anglican Communion. The network is currently being viewed as a “church within a church” by [Sandy] Herrmann and fellow conservatives, who wish to remain in communion (or aligned with) the worldwide body.

“Our main objective is to remain as a recognized member of the Anglican Communion,” Herrmann said.

An Article from Central Florida

Filed under: — kendall @ 3:14 pm

Cary McMullen writes:

The Episcopal Church these days resembles a ship in a fog bank – the way ahead is unclear and possibly full of hazards.

A formal split in the Episcopal Church is unlikely to happen soon, but the specter of uncertainty and conflict continues to plague the denomination in the wake of the election and consecration of an openly gay priest as bishop….

Some conservatives appear to hope that the opposition network will establish the rudiments of an orthodox body that could forge an alliance with conservative Anglican archbishops in Africa, Asia and South America who were critical of Robinson’s consecration. According to Jim Solheim, director of Episcopal News Service in New York, at least nine of the 38 Anglican archbishops worldwide have severed ties with all or part of the Episcopal Church in America, and several have indicated they would recognize the opposition network as an orthodox group or establish ties to it.

The idea is to join all those opposed to Robinson’s consecration under one umbrella, said Bruce Mason, a spokesman for the American Anglican Council, which is providing logistical support at next week’s meeting.

“Anglican leaders around the world don’t have relations with orthodox believers in individual parishes and dioceses. As ties begin to be severed with the national church, they’ll have a way to remain connected with orthodox believers,” he said.

Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, who will preside over the network meeting, has said that the intention is not to split from the Episcopal Church but to put pressure on the church to rescind Robinson’s election and consecration….

Read the whole article which includes quotes from a number of people in the diocese of Central Florida.

Some News and Notes From the Diocese of South Carolina

Filed under: — kendall @ 3:01 pm

–Bishops Salmon and Skilton helped Christ Church, Mount Pleasant, celebrate Epiphany in a special way this year, with a twelfth night celebration and a dedication of their new buildings on January 4th.

–Writing in her parish newsletter, the Rev. Sally Putnam says: “As we enter 2004, when we hear and see the fireworks going off at midnight, be reminded of the Light that is even more spectacular than all the fireworks in the world, Jesus, the light of the world. May we each stay focused on Him and let Him light all our paths this year and in the years to come.”

–The Rev. Alastair Votaw has joined the staff of Grace Church, Charleston, on a part-time basis. Born in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England in 1939, he has served in a number of capacities, including as rector of Trinity Church in Southport, Connecticut, as Chair of the Planned Giving Committee of the Diocese of Connecticut, and as a recording secretary for the General Convention House of Deputies. Al retired in June of 2003; he and his wife Rhoda have been married 33 years.

–Writing in his parish newsletter, the Rev. Rick Lindsey of All Saints, Hilton Head, says: “I would like to raise the call for interested members of the parish to explore the possibility of developing a Hispanic ministry on the Island of Hilton Head…I believe Christ is always calling us to move beyond the comfortable, beyond well established borders, to be forever setting the parameters of faith into the unknown and untested areas of our lives.”

–At the end of 2003 the Rev. Jim Bills retired after serving as rector of St. Stephen’s, Charleston. The entire diocese offers Father Bills our best wishes and thanks for his faithful service. Saint Stephens’ new rector is the Rev. Dr. David Williams. Dr. Williams was ordained a priest in 1973 and served most recently as Associate Rector of Saint John’s Church, Georgetown Parish, in the diocese of Washington, D.C.

1/17/2004

Jesse J. DeConto Chimes In

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:02 pm

A New Hampshire Editor offer his thoughts, including:

Thus, even though we’re “out of communion,” I pray that we’ll continue to listen to each other, across oceans and ideologies. Despite arrogant pronouncements on both sides, we cannot rightly interpret the Scriptures without each other, and this is especially true for Western liberals, who have both the Third World archbishops and the weighty witness of a 6,000-year-old biblical and communal tradition against them.

Financial Impact in Virginia

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:49 pm

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on struggles in the state of Virginia.

Giving to the Diocese of Virginia, the largest in the Episcopal Church USA, is about $230,000 short of the diocese’s $4 million-plus budget for 2003, said the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, the diocese’s bishop.

In addition, pledges for the 2004 year are running about 18 percent behind last year at this time, he said.

The Rt. Rev. David C. Bane Jr., bishop of the Diocese of Southern Virginia, said church members’ pledges are coming in slower than usual. Churches pledge to the diocese based on what members pledge to their churches.

Chicago Tribune on the South Carolina Mess

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:44 pm

An article by Tim Jones, which completely misses the real issue at hand.

“This is business. I hate to say it because I’m a born-again Christian, but this boils down, unfortunately, to property and endowments,” Ross Lindsay, the All Saints chancellor, or attorney, said of the court fight and its national implications.

Nope. Say it again after me: authority, accountability, and relationships. All Saints could have prevented this entire mess if Chuck Murphy had followed the standard procedure in any such case, as Chuck Murphy himself did in 1998, namely, asking the diocesan Standing Committee about their desires property-wise.

Remember this also: The bishop asked All Saints not to do it, the clergy of the diocese did, the Standing Committee did, and even Bob Duncan tried. All to no avail. This is not the way the Body of Christ operates.

How Shall We Approach the New Year?

Filed under: — kendall @ 8:35 pm

I hope and pray that you have had a blessed Christmas and a wonderful start to your “New Year”. As I write this, we are two weeks from Christmas, and still in the midst of Advent. So, as much of my focus is on the coming “holiday” season and visiting family after Christmas (traveling to what currently is snowy Pittsburgh), I am still very conscious of the Advent season, and preparing for His coming: to celebrate His first coming as well as preparing for His second coming.

One reason I am so conscious is because of what I have seen and observed this past week. Sunday evening, I was able to see the beginning of the “Abercrombie and Fitch” piece on “60 Minutes”. I had heard about the most recent catalogue, which has been called “pornographic” and has been recalled by Abercrombie and Fitch. What astounded me was not so much the company itself (as it has slipped over the years significantly from being one of wholesome values in its ads); but the piece had two interviews: the first, a young woman who basically said she shopped Abercrombie and Fitch all the time, and she wasn’t surprised or offended by the ads since, in her mind, it is understood that, as she put it, “sex sells”. Secondly, a lawyer was interviewed who was speaking about how companies can hire whomever they want (the piece on “60 Minutes” was more focused on the hiring practices of Abercrombie, saying that they were discriminatory), used the Television channel “BET” as his example, that no one is surprised by the fact that they hire primarily black people because that is their image, and that is their target, and that is what they want to promote: capitalism at its finest.

The challenge that I see, that I believe is pervasive in much of our culture (and if you surf the channels in the evening or study many of the Television ads) is two “primary” values in our culture: sexual fulfillment (without qualifying, and certainly without reference to how God and His Word would guide us in that!); and secondly, the right of businesses to seek “the bottom line” in terms of making money, without regard to anything “moral” as long as what is done is “legal”. These two “values” in our culture are replacing many of the values of days gone by, but seem to be acceptable to many- not just in our culture, but also in our Christian church! The church can either stand against the values of culture that deny the Lordship of Christ and the importance of His Word, or acquiesce and embrace and live the values of our culture. These two examples give us a flavor of the values in operation today: sexual promiscuity without there being any sense of how God would have us express our sexuality; and capitalism, without any sense of God’s call on our lives in terms of how we make money and use money, as well as who we use for marketing, who we hire and fire, and why!

Underlying the above is that “self” at the center instead of “God” at the center is what will dictate values and priorities. Pleasure, self-centeredness, selfishness, and antinomian (without any regard for a moral or spiritual belief that guides us) beliefs and actions drive much of what is done in our culture, and played out in the media, some businesses, and public life. And what we do will either continue to promote what is more and more dominating our culture, or we can stand against it, and combat it. These decisions will dictate how we use our time and our resources.

As we approach a “New Year”, I would like to invite you to take some time, in thought and in prayer, to evaluate honestly what your values and priorities are, and how they are lived out in your life. Is the Lord, church, family, serving Him and others, seeking to be a “disciple” growing in holiness of life what dictates the use of your time, your energy, your resources? Are you so pursuing “the good life” that you are missing a “godly life”: the way you were designed to live, the reason you were given life by the Lord who created you, gave you life, and died on a cross that you might have abundant and eternal life? Are you so bent on pleasure that you are missing where lasting pleasures are found: in your walk with the Lord, and walking along with others in ever deepening relationships?

The New Year is a time not just to “make New Year resolutions”, but a time to reevaluate your life: its purpose, priorities, and goals! How will 2004 reflect your commitment to the Lord, to others, to loving service, to godly values? Take some time to pray if Abercrombie and Fitch is the best place for you to look, or to God and His Word! My guess is that you would like to have an abundant life in 2004, one filled with love, joy, and peace. Our Lord Jesus is the source of these: turn to Him, live for Him, and see if 2004 might truly be a blessed year for you: and this is my prayer for me and my family, as well as for you!

–The Rev. Greg Kronz is rector, Saint Luke’s, Hilton Head

Letter from Chuck Murphy (Accompanying Documentation to Bishop Salmon’s Letter)

Filed under: — kendall @ 4:03 pm

January 22, 1988

The Rev. Gregory J. Prior
St. Paul’s Church
P.O. Box 1086
Conway, SC 29526

Dear Greg:

At the last meeting of the Standing Committee permission was granted to take out a loan for the building of our new sanctuary of up to $1,000,000, but there was a request that I drop you a note with the specifics. The following is a summary of the specific terms and conditions of the loan:

1. Institution: First Citizen’s Bank/Pawleys Island, S.C.
2. Amount: Up to $1 million
3. Terms: (% fixed rate for 3 years or “floating” rate at prime with no cap. (We opted for the 9% fixed rate)
4. Payback: Interested only for 3 years with quarterly payments to begin 6 months from date of closing.
5. Additional: Permanent loan up to $400,000 for 15 years amortized monthly at either prime floating with no cap of 9 ½% fixed.
6. Property to be mortgaged: Parish Hall, Education Bldg., Church and property east of River Road.

When the bank discovered that the diocese actually owns this property they asked for a note from you, the Standing Committee, indicating your authorization of the December Standing Committee meeting. Please drop us a note indication this authorization at your earliest convenience. Thanks.

In His Name,

The Rev. Charles H. Murphy, III

The Episcopal Church and Corporate Sin

Filed under: — kendall @ 12:14 pm

“On a sunny day in September, 1972, a stern-faced, plainly dressed man could be seen standing still on a street corner in the busy Chicago Loop. As pedestrians hurried by on their way to lunch or business, he would solemnly lift his right arm, and pointing to the person nearest him, intone loudly the single word, ‘GUILTY!’

“Then, without any change of expression, he would resume his stiff stance for a few moments before repeating the gesture. Then, again, the inexorable raising of his arm, the pointing, and the solemn pronouncing of the one word, ‘GUILTY!’

“The effect of this strange j’accuse pantomime on the passing strangers was extraordinary, almost eerie. They would stare at him, hesitate, look away, look at each other, and then at him again; then hurriedly continue on their ways.

With this powerful story Karl Menninger began his noteworthy 1973 book Whatever Became of Sin? It is a question as relevant now as when he first asked it then. In the Western churches the erosion of a heightened doctrine of sin has moved with frightening speed over the last 100 years. With it has come a corresponding loss of the significance of salvation, and of the degree of human brokenness and bentness which God in Christ came by the power of the Holy Spirit to redeem and restore.

It is with that in mind that we approach one of the ironies in the current debate among some Anglicans worldwide over whether those sexually active outside marriage are appropriately given places of Christian leadership. (I have sought again and again to describe this debate as one between reappraisers, those who believe the biblical and traditional witness in sexual ethics needs to reappraised in the light of new knowledge, and reasserters, those who are more than willing to dig again into the foundation sources and thereby to reassert the standard which is still ironically officially unchanged in the Episcopal Church today.) What, you may ask, is the irony? The reappraisers, who tend to have at least some sense of corporate sin remaining, do not apply that possibility to the corporate family of the Episcopal Church itself in the matter of the current debate.

Think about this for a moment. Reappraisers, for example, railed against Apartheid and argued that multinational financial pressures needed to be brought to bear in order to overturn it. They are people who hold workshops on racism, and raise painful questions about its presence in the church. These are important and rightful Christian responses based on a sense of the presence of institutional sin to which all of us can too often be blind.

But could this same possibility of corporate sin have been present, say, in Minneapolis, and could an error have been made, a massive corporate mistake as I choose to call it?

Herewith the 21st of the 39 articles:

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.

[The Twenty-first of the former Articles is omitted; because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.]

The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article, omitted in the version of 1801, reads as follows: “General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”

There is some very important language here. And when …[General Councils] be gathered together then what happens? Well the first thing is one needs to have a sense of who is there: it is, after all, an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, or, as one bishop put it famously and angrily when speaking of Lambeth 1998 there is the possibility that “the Holy Spirit was not there.” (One notes in passing the supreme irony that many of the very same people who said the Holy Spirit was not at Lambeth 1998 said the Holy Spirit was present in Minneapolis in 2003. How does one get such an inside track on what the Holy Spirit is really up to?). A gathering of sinners prone to error, who may not be Spirit led, means that councils may err, and indeed we have a good deal of church history to look back upon to know that they indeed have erred.

But has this possibility been countenanced by the Episcopal Church establishment, the very same people who so often rail against other corporate sins? The silence is deafening. Every once in a while, though not often, there will be a small comment about how some people are angry or hurt. (Reread the interview with the Presiding Bishop below). But there it ends, with no reference to the possibility that the the arguments involved were wrong. Hmmm. The importance of corporate sin does not apply to those who use it most often if they approve of the results.

And there is more. Supposing as a thought experiment that Article 21 of the 39 Articles applies directly to Minneapolis and that a grievous corporate error was committed there. (I may be wrong). What would you then expect to occur? How would people be expected to act who disagreed with the result? Would the response of the rest of the worldwide Anglican Communion be relevant? Would the response of our ecumenical partners matter?

Such questions remain unaswered. The silence is more deafening still.

1/16/2004

New Westminster Explains Itself

Filed under: — kendall @ 9:30 pm

From this week’s Church Times we read the following story:

THE Canadian diocese of New Westminster is seeking to correct the bishops of the Congo, who last week dissociated themselves from dioceses they described in a statement as “involved in homosexuality” (News, 9 January).

The Congolese bishops strongly condemned what they called the “use of the newly devised prayer book published by the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada for the purpose of officiating the blessing of same-sex marriages”. In response, the New Westminster communications officer, Neale Adams, wrote a letter saying that no prayer book had been devised, and that the blessing was of “covenanted same-sex unions”.

A same-sex wedding was, however, conducted last August by Dean Peter Wall of Christ Church Cathedral in Hamilton, Ontario, where the state has legalised gay marriage. The Dean married a female couple without informing the Bishop of Niagara, the Rt Revd Ralph Spence, who suspended the Dean for three months.

Both the Bishop and the Dean admit that reaction to the wedding from clergy and lay people has varied from indifference to fury. Bishop Spence said that a “clear majority” of the messages he had received were opposed to it; Dean Wall described the overwhelming majority of responses as “very positive and very moving”.

The Canadian Church’s General Synod is due to discuss homosexuality later this year.

Notice the language. “Same-sex marriages,” which is responded to by saying, no, “covenanted same-sex unions,” and then we hear “A same-sex wedding was…conducted.” As I will continue to insist, this debate is all about the Christian doctrine of marriage, among other things. The Church knows no other life long covenant relationship involving sexual intimacy which we bless other than that between a man and woman who marry each other.

Beliefnet Interviews the Presiding Bishop

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:43 pm

Frank Griswold once again gets to judge the Bible:

I don’t think the Scripture writers had any notion of homosexuality. My sense is their understanding was that everyone was heterosexual, and so you “behaved” in a homosexual fashion. In other words, it’s a free decision you would make. So you’re dealing with a reality that isn’t reflected in Scripture. Is this possibly an instance where we’ve learned something that takes us beyond the world of the Bible and therefore the texts used don’t really apply?

Unfortunately as we have pointed out many times such a judgment does not accord with the facts, which show that same sex practice was widely known and thought about in the ancient world. But notice too that he doesn’t mention the ecumenical consensus is against his interpretation here, or that he might be wrong. Frank Griswold gets to judge the Bible, but one prays that the Bible and its message gets a word in edgewise.

Definintely an incredibly softball interview with the PB, where the hard questions were not asked, alas. The silence is deafening.

Danny J. Janes Offers His Views

Filed under: — kendall @ 7:22 pm

The Rev. Danny J. Janes, senior pastor at Kalamazoo Wesleyan Church in Michigan, responds to a perspective piece written by the Rev. Cynthia Black:

[The] Rev. Black proudly stated, “The fact that a mainstream Christian denomination, guided by the Holy Spirit in a democratic process, can affirm the ministry of a man who happens to be gay and ordain him as a bishop, means that all who are marginalized are affirmed.” I beg to differ.

In my opinion, the fact that a drastically declining denomination, guided by a liberal agenda in a politically correct pursuit, can excuse the lifestyle of a man who advertises that he is gay and ordain him as a bishop, means that all who disagree can take a hike.

My condolences to the faithful men and women of the Episcopal Church who still happen to believe that Biblical authority trumps bureaucratic tyranny.

Ephraim Radner on AMIA and the Call to Accountability

Filed under: — kendall @ 5:55 pm

The call to accountability: the parable of the AMiA

One of the most egregious failures of the ECUSA’s recent General Convention, and of the many of the leaders and bishops engaged in its decisions, has been their demonstrated rejection of Christian accountability as an essential virtue defining the life of the institutional church. The actions of General Convention itself, in consenting to a non-celibate gay man’s election as a bishop and in affirming the legitimacy of local same-sex blessings around the church, and subsequent actions by the Presiding Bishop and other bishops and dioceses in affirming these decisions, have all deliberately repudiated the constraining power of the common mind, pleas, admonitions, and moral persuasions of both the Episcopal Church’s past commitments, her traditions and historic foundations, and her brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion around the world. The world stands and wonders, as do many Episcopalians, “what then are you accountable to, if not to the authorities of your common life?”

The rejection of Christian accountability – mutual, charitable, ordered, and founded in the demands of Christ’s own Body – represents one of the great assaults upon the promises of God in our age. The press to ecclesial anarchy characterizes a common rebellion, in which we are all complicit. The current unraveling of the Anglican Communion, and the disintegration of the ECUSA itself stands as a judgment upon our shared desire to dispense with being held accountable and calling others to a reciprocal posture of responsibility.

In view of this spreading failure, it is important at least to note that a faithful response to its evangelical ravages cannot be to embrace some alternative autonomy and to add to the overturning of structures that hold us answerable to each other as a communion, however tottering they may now seem. The case of the AMiA (The Anglican Mission in America) represents an exemplar of succumbing to autonomy’s encouragement and to communal accountability’s subversion, all in the genuine desire to protest autonomy’s attack upon the Christian faith. Having rightly identified the spiritual dangers of a disintegrated evangelical witness within ECUSA, and of the weakening of the “historic faith and order” that ought to be binding American Anglicanism’s life with the larger Communion, the AMiA chose to move unilaterally to set up alternative parish and episcopal structures, only tenuously tied to and approved by a tiny minority of leaders of the larger Anglican Communion and positively rejected by most orthodox Primates, and to call this a form of “testimony” against the failures of the Episcopal Church. The clear problem in this response was that it set out to address ECUSA’s rejection of Christian accountability through a process that itself refused to be held accountable to anyone else. The fruit of this project has, predictably, been to hasten the demise of the “historic faith and order” of Anglicanism in the United States altogether, a process whose ill effects are seeping into the international community itself.

To take but a local example, let us consider what took place in Colorado. In this moderately conservative diocese, already struggling three years ago to maintain some center of evangelical witness, the AMiA recruited and encouraged the defection of at least 15 clergy from ECUSA, and ended by splitting 9 congregations (closing one altogether). All of these clergy and congregations were in fact conservative in their commitments and life. Whether deliberately or not, the process involved in these splits proved divisive amongst friends and colleagues, led to mutual accusations and recriminations, and fostered a deep sense of mutual mistrust and even betrayal among former allies in the faith. In the midst of these discussions and arguments, meetings and counter-meetings, to what authority could one appeal? Not to the local bishop, of course, whose theological leadership was in dispute; not to existing bishops within the AMiA, because initially they had none in America, and were acting under the self-appointed direction of concerned priests ; not to the common mind of the Anglican Communion, whose body of Primates, among the conservative as much as anyone, refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the AMiA’s self-ordering. And when the AMiA next chose to consecrate their own bishops, the question of self-justification was embodied in a process by definition of ecclesial and episcopal self-invention.

The fall-out in Colorado was predictable and, in many instances, devastating. The voting ranks of conservative clergy were depleted, conservative congregations were debilitated, and in several cases their clergy replaced with non-orthodox priests. Further, the image of the “conservative witness” was, in the eyes of moderates and other conservatives, deeply tarnished by what many regarded, rightly or wrongly, as deceit, manipulation, and the self-promoting tactics of AMiA leaders. In the space of 2 years, Colorado went from being a mildly conservative diocese, to being one with an effective liberal majority in terms of leadership and direction. There is no question but that the current ability of conservative clergy and laity to stand as a force of orthodox confession in the diocese is not only severely weakened, but considered fruitless by most, in large part because of the wreckage left by the AMiA’s pursuit of the autonomous in order to punish autonomy. It is not clear what the force of the AMiA’s own evangelistic witness is within the state, but it is not certainly visible as an alternative example of clarion success.

On a wider scale, the AMiA’s effect on the dynamics of Communion decision-making are no more constructive. The AMiA’s episcopal consecrations flew in the face of agreements made between Global South Primates and leaders earlier at Kampala, and there was felt by many around the world who were sympathetic with the doctrinal concerns of the group a deep sense of betrayal and division. What was viewed therefore as a refusal by the AMiA leadership and supporters to abide by the common mind of the Communion’s sympathetic leadership – that is, a refusal to be held accountable – ended by rupturing trust among many Global-South Primates, and ruined the image of conservative/orthodox witness within the Communion in the eyes of more moderate leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose advisors have explicitly described the AMiA as a retreat into the impossibly autonomous. This remains the case, and stands as one of the great obstacles to a forceful response to ECUSA’s current rebellion. There is a (mistaken) fear among some Primatial leaders, looking at what has happened with the AMiA, that decisive and courageous action now is equivalent to prideful self-assertion.

And all this for the same reasons as in the local compass of a diocese: the experience of a rejected call to mutual and responsible accountability – with all of the interior resentments involved in such an experience – has made many people around the Communion abandon confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of conservative witness as a persuasive direction for others to follow. In the name of maintaining Anglican unity in the truth, the AMiA has embodied practices of autonomous self-promotion to the detriment of communion, and thereby rendered suspect the very vision of a “common faith and discipline” that many have tried so hard to further.

Not all AMiA clergy or leaders, or certainly laity, can rightly be touched by this general evaluation – surely most are people of integrity of faith and vision, who made difficult choices, often sacrificial ones, for the sake of what they saw to be the substance of their vows before God. But the “general evaluation” still holds because of the overall direction of leadership that has refused to place its decisions within an arena of common accountability within the Communion, all of which encouraged and even upheld the many instances of perceived moral failure that mar the internal debates of Anglican conservatives now more than ever. In all this, the AMiA represents, therefore, one aspect of ECUSA’s and the Communion’s internal malaise. It is a symptom of spiritual disease, not an instrument of healing.

This is a parable of warning. Warning even against the paths we have already set down to follow.

Whatever happens to the Anglican Communion, or to Anglicanism within North America, or to individual Episcopalians who desperately seek some renewed clarity of witness to the Gospel that they can be sure is held in common with their church, the decisions and choices we make must be in favor of mutual accountability in Christ, and not against it. This will not be easy, simply because the choices we make in testimony of the historic faith and order of the Christian Church will be opposed by some, perhaps by a local majority; and the temptation will be to press our testimony into a realm of individual freedom, cut loose from the constraints of blasphemy and persecution we so acutely feel around us. The danger, however, is that we will soon find ourselves floating in a sea of competing testimonies and freedoms, and mutually assaulting claims. And the faith and order we set out to defend will be lost amid in the debris.

–The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner is rector, Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado

Letter from Bishop Salmon to the Members of All Saints Pawleys Island

Filed under: — kendall @ 5:54 pm

January 16, 2004

TO: The Members of All Saints’ Parish, Waccamaw

FROM: Bishop Salmon

Dear Friends in Christ,

The opening chapter of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians provides the greeting to you for this letter. “I never stop thanking God for all the graces you have received through Jesus Christ” (I Cor.4). in the same chapter St. Paul appeals to the Corinthians “for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ to make up the differences between you” (I Cor. 1:10). In that spirit I write you all this letter.

In all the recent events around All Saints Parish and the Diocese of South Carolina, a number of Public statements have been made about our relationship. It is my intention in this letter to present the position that I have taken and offer documentation to support that position. Having heard both sides, you may then draw conclusions, as you are so led, which conclusions will I pray move us closer together rather than apart.

When Bishop Murphy was consecrated in Singapore in an irregular consecration in 2000, I was not in favor of the consecration because I believed that it would be divisive to orthodox unity. I believe it has. I could not change the fact that it had taken place. Since Bishop Murphy was no longer under our Canons, I had no control over the exercise of his ministry. The hope and expectation was that All Saints Parish would remain a faithful part of the Diocese of South Carolina.

When the Vestry in Moorehead City, N.C. voted to leave the Diocese of East Carolina they first transferred title to the church property to another group, and then informed the bishop that they were leaving the Diocese of East Carolina. Because of this the Chancellor advised me to record in the Georgetown County Courthouse, the Canons of the Diocese reflecting the requirement regarding property under which all congregations operate. In the North Carolina suit AmiA claimed that because the Diocese of East Carolina had not done so, the Diocese had no claim on the property. In the suit filed against the Diocese, the claim has been made that because the Diocese of South Carolina recorded the applicable canon, we had placed a cloud on the title. Bishop Murphy has stated that it was similar to building a swimming pool over a property line. It must be removed by legal action.

The facts are the opposite. If permission of the Bishop and Standing Committee are not given the title is clouded. Ross M. Lindsey, Parish Chancellor, admitted in his deposition, that in a transaction in 1986 the bank itself asked that such permission be sought. I am enclosing a letter written by Bishop Murphy, when he was a member of the Standing Committee, asking permission for All Saints to borrow money from the bank in 1988. The canons require such permission and not to seek permission clouds the transaction. I am also enclosing a sample page from the Standing Committee records showing similar permission requested by St. Peter’s by-the-Sea and the Church of the Holy Communion in 1965 as standard operating procedure for the Standing Committee. This has been a part of our common life for well over a hundred years.

When All Saints Waccamaw sued the Diocese ( we are the defendants) over the recording of the applicable property canon, they claimed, in a deposition, that they were not under the canons, and kept them as a matter of courtesy. The Chancellor ruled that a church could not be not under the canons and in union with the Diocese at the same time. The convention, hoping for some reconciliation, voted to give All Saints Parish seat, voice, not a vote.

In the meantime, Bishop Murphy has continued to live in the rectory, meet with the Vestry when he is in town, appoint a vicar to represent him, and generally to be in charge. Tim Surratt who, until now, has been the only clergyman canonically resident in the diocese, has been the supposed interim rector. He has, as of January 12, asked to be transferred to Rwanda. I plan to do so.

Because of the legal action, I have not met with the Vestry or made a visitation. Bishop Skilton has been to All Saints, for a visitation once.

I discovered, by happenstance, that the All Saints vestry had voted to amend the 1902 Charter which the then serving Chancellor had assisted the parish in securing. By way of background, the granting of the 1902 Charter by the Secretary of State was followed by the Trustees of the Diocese’s conveying the title to the church property to All Saints Church Parish by quit claim deed dated 1903. Because of the actions of the vestry, I immediately informed the Chancellor and notified the then Wardens and Vestry that they had in fact voted to leave the Church and could not longer be considered the vestry because by leaving they were no longer communicants in good standing, and thereby did not qualify to be vestry members. I did not excommunicate them as has been said. They are free to receive communion whenever and wherever they choose. They cannot vote to leave the church and at the same time be the vestry. I am enclosing copies of the letter and documents sent to them.

I called a meeting of the Standing Committee and informed them of my actions. After considerable discussion, the members of the Standing Committee decided to talk directly with the vestry. I gave my full support to such discussions. I am enclosing the report of their meeting written by the president of the Standing Committee. I told the Standing Committee that I was more than willing to consider and implement their suggestions, but that I was not willing to drop the appeal because (1) it had already been heard (September 10) and we were simply waiting for a ruling. I reminded them that (2) because of the original ruling no one now owned the property and this issued needed to be settled.

The basic issues on the table are those of lawlessness and the stability of the Diocese itself. We have no theological issues with All Saints. If any parish in the Diocese can unilaterally decide to not be under the Canons, appoint vicars, do what they want to when they want to, our strength as a Diocese is soon destroyed. There is no authority, only individual choice. That is exactly why the Episcopal Church is in the mess it is in. Bishops have individually acted without accountability, believe or not believe as they choose. That is lawlessness. It is my duty to oppose it.

I have met with members of All Saints who are loyal to the Diocese. It was my decision to treat the loyal membership as a parish rather than a mission. We have organized and elected wardens. We plan to meet again as All Saints Parish Waccamaw under the Canons of the Diocese. We have notified the Secretary of State that there is a new vestry representing All Saints Parish, and Articles of Correction will be filed with the Secretary of State giving notice that the original charter of All Saints, Waccamaw remains unchanged..

It is my prayer is that the Holy Spirit will give us all a way to Godly solution to this situation, which is painful for all concerned. You are in my prayers. I cherish yours.

“May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (II Cor. 13:13)

Yours Faithfully in Christ,

Edward L. Salmon, Jr.
Bishop of South Carolina, XIII

AAC Reponse to Bishop Johnson’s Letter

Filed under: — kendall @ 2:48 pm

AAC RESPONSE TO BISHOP JOHNSON’S “PASTORAL LETTER” TO THE DIOCESE OF WEST
TENNESSEE

Bishop Donald Johnson’s deeply troubling January 15, 2004 “Pastoral Letter”
to the Diocese of West Tennessee raises serious questions of freedom of
association and freedom of speech as well as abuse of the office of bishop
by dictating the conscience of Episcopalians in his diocese. Bishop Johnson
wrote his pastoral letter (which he posted on the Diocese of West Tennessee
website) in response to a draft document of an American Anglican Council
(AAC) subcommittee outlining plans for adequate episcopal oversight. Bishop
Johnson falsely accuses the AAC of “deceitfulness and subversive sabotage”
and vows to purge his diocese of association with the AAC. We are deeply
concerned about the individuals, clergy and congregations in West Tennessee
who are affiliated with AAC, and we stand in full solidarity with them. We
urge Bishop Johnson to refrain from punitive action, harassment or
intimidation of the people under his care who uphold historic Anglican faith
and order and whose affiliation with AAC provides them a place to stand.

Bishop Johnson emphasizes his desire to preserve the “church as it currently
exists.” Here are the facts about the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) as it
currently exists. It is a Church that is no longer in relationship with the
majority of Anglicans worldwide. It is a Church that no longer turns to
Holy Scripture for its guidance. It is a Church that has chosen the ways of
man over the ways of God. It is a church that has undermined the
institution of marriage. It is a church with which many worldwide Christian
denominations have broken relations. It is a church that has lost its heart
and soul and its commitment to making disciples and proclaiming the Good
News of Jesus Christ.

We must ask: Is this truly the Church that Bishop Johnson wishes to
preserve?

The AAC has long worked for the reformation and renewal of the Church. This
is still our desire. We have NEVER said that we are leaving. We have not
moved anywhere. We are still in full relationship with the worldwide
Anglican Communion and we are resolutely determined that orthodox
Episcopalians will remain so. For years we have spoken of the need for
adequate episcopal oversight. It has been one of our goals, and it will
continue be one of our top priorities. In October, the Anglican Primates
unanimously called for this oversight to be provided within ECUSA, and we
are committed to finding a way for it to be delivered, even if the
leadership of ECUSA is unwilling.

In this time of crisis, we must first and foremost pray; we must repent and
ask God’s forgiveness. We must also move forward with the mission and
ministry of the Church – whatever the cost.

2 Colorado Responses to Bishop Johnson’s Letter

Filed under: — kendall @ 2:46 pm

A Response to Bishop Johnson’s Pastoral Letter Concerning the AAC Memo
By The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Senior Fellow, The Anglican Communion Institute

The only thing surprising about Bishop Johnson’s pastoral letter is the
level of vituperative hostility; the content itself represents a consistent
ignorance about the Anglican Communion and a willful denial about ECUSA’s
standing, externally and internally, with respect to its canonical
legitimacy in the eyes of both that Communion and many of our own members.

As I have noted elsewhere, the outrage over this “leaked memo” of the AAC is
either a sign of disingenuousness or of numbed consciousness. The basic
outline of this “strategy” has been public for some months, largely because
it represents the Proposal of the Primates of the Global South for
disciplining ECUSA (and New Westminster) that was presented at the October
Lambeth meeting (this proposal is available at
anglicancommunioninstitute.org). In brief, the Proposal calls for the
larger Communion, along a certain timetable, to withdraw its recognition of
those bishops who consented to Robinson’s election, participated in his
consecration, or supported the local option resolutions regarding same-sex
blessings; it also calls on the Communion to maintain its recognition of
those bishops and others who opposed these measures as the legitimate
representatives of the Episcopal Church. These recognized leaders would
then be affirmed as those capable to acting by rights according the
Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

The AAC – through its leaders and individual members, both present at
Lambeth and subsequently – have affirmed the thrust of this Proposal.
We didn’t need a publicity splash to know this.

In case Bishop Johnson and others hadn’t noticed, even though the Proposal
was not officially accepted by the Primates meeting as a whole, it has been
put into place by individual Primates in their relationships with ECUSA
already, albeit in an uncoordinated fashion. The process for deciding who
is “the real Episcopal Church” is well underway; and thus far, the weight
is stacking up in favor of the AAC’s contention. This is a process that
the larger Communion has set in motion quite independent of the AAC, and its
implications and outcome are tied to the center, not the periphery, of
ECUSA’s leadership legitimacy.

If any of this comes as a surprise to bishops of ECUSA, it can only be
because they have once again closed their eyes to what the majority of the
Anglican Communion is actually saying, doing, and committed to being. Then
again, such willful blindness no longer strikes people in the larger
Communion as odd, since it seems to have characterized all the decisions and
actions people like Bp. Johnson claim were done “publicly and above board”:
the public trashing of the Scriptures, of the historic faith and order of
the Church, of our Constitution, of the previous commitments of the General
Convention, of Communion teaching and agreements, of the bonds of our common
life – that this constitutes “established means” of peaceableness over
against the “deceit” of those upholding the teaching and witness of our
historical faith is damning statement of Bp. Johnson’s own stunted moral
vision.

In short, nothing new. The AAC is not an outlaw organization; membership
in and support of its work is not a “breaking of communion” with ECUSA; no
one should be frightened by Johnson’s bluster.

Concerning The AAC Memo & Bishop Johnson
From The Rev. Don Armstrong
Rector, Grace & St. Stephen’s
Colorado Springs

Much is being made of a leaked American Anglican Council strategy memo and a
Pastoral Letter from the Bishop of Western Tennessee. I would say that this
is all much to do about not much. Bishop Johnson is simply over reacting.
Remember, it is the revisionists who have misbehaved, those of associated
with the AAC and our own ACI are simply and obediently maintaining the
historical faith and order of the Anglican Communion–something I consider a
creedal necessity. The revisionists will try to spin this memo to turn the
tables–and I for one don’t want to empower that parlor trick by paying it
too much attention.

There was nothing particularly startling in the AAC memo–the revisionists
broke communion by disobedience to the expressed position of the Church’s
instruments of unity, which then caused ECUSA to be in violation to its own
constitution and canons. This has resulted in more than half of the Anglican
Communion severing ties with our province. The AAC memo simply states that
it is serious business to reorder the church–and that we are prepared to
take the necessary steps to which faithfulness calls us.

The statement’s contents have been vocalized in many ways and are not
illogical if compared to the Global South’s Disciplinary statements that can
be found on the ACI web site.

I think the important thing to remember is that this is not a one size fits
all response that the AAC has articulated. There are dioceses that will
respond as a whole, there are parishes that will leave for a new structure
which we are currently developing, there are parishes that will just hide
out (which for them might be the only option given the givens) and there are
congregations who will stay in ECUSA, but with a strong and networked
presence of commitment to the truth (certainly this is where Grace Church,
Colo Spgs will be).

On January 19 and 20 I am participating as a regional (Mississippi to Rocky
Mountains) representative to the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and
Parishes official organizational meeting in Plano at the personal invitation
of Bishop Duncan. We will be developing ways to address, articulate and
support all four of the above possible responses to the oppressive posture
of the revisionist Episcopal Church and its leadership. I can report more
fully and knowledgeably when I return.

I do believe it will be our combined witness and resistance from our various
circumstances that will in the end reestablish faith and order to a broken
and dysfunctional Anglican presence in the United States. Certainly that is
my hope and prayer.

A Pastoral Letter from Bishop Don Johnson (West Tennessee)

Filed under: — kendall @ 2:43 pm

Pastoral Letter from Bishop Johnson

(As provided for in Title III, Canon 24, Section 5, this Pastoral Letter
is to be read at each service on either Sunday, January 18th, 25th, or
February 1st, 2004, or announced as being available, and a sufficient
number of hard copies should be provided to those requesting them.)

January 15, 2004

Dear fellow Episcopalians in West Tennessee,
As the Bishop of The Diocese of West Tennessee, it is my privilege to
serve beside you in witness to Christ. In this particular circumstance, I
do so now as one who must uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of
the Church I have sworn to defend.

No matter what one’s opinions are about the more controversial decisions
reached at our last General Convention, one has to admit that they were
done publicly and above board. Using the long established means to reach
decisions as a Church gathered in Convention, the outcome and resulting
actions were literally done before the eyes of the world.

Loyal opposition and honest dissent to such actions are legitimate and
should be honored by all. I have been careful to do so. However,
deceitfulness and subversive sabotage justified in the name of serving
Christ cannot be overlooked. To this point, I direct your attention to an
article in the January 14, 2004 issue of The Commercial Appeal outlining
publicly the American Anglican Council’s “confidential” game plan for the
destruction of The Episcopal Church U.S.A. by becoming a “replacement”
jurisdiction, even if it means “disobedience of canon law on a widespread
basis” as deemed “necessary.” At this time I have in my possession the
full text of the “confidential” letter cited in the article. In as much
as what has been done in darkness has now been brought into the light, I
urge you to read for yourself this document that lays out the American
Anglican Council’s plan of destruction.

I do not endorse, nor will I have this diocese in any way associated with
this effort, and I will use all the power of my office to see to it that
our clergy and congregations will not be in any formal membership
arrangement with this or any other such group seeking to destroy the
Episcopal Church. To this end, I am taking the following initial steps:
First, I am posting in its entirety on our diocesan web page
(www.episwtn.org) the letter from the American Anglican Council’s
representative, the Rev. Geoffrey W. Chapman, who writes “on behalf of
the American Anglican Council and their Bishop’s Committee on Adequate
Episcopal Oversight.” It is their response letter to Episcopal
congregations across the country who have requested what they describe as
“Adequate Episcopal Oversight.” Specifically, this letter refers to
oversight by a bishop who has bought into the American Anglican Council’s
plan to sabotage The Episcopal Church. This secret plan is very different
from AAC’s public statements to the effect that it would work within The
Episcopal Church under its Constitution and Canons to bring about change
in Church policies.

Second, I have called a special meeting of the Standing Committee. I am
asking for its advice and counsel concerning what next steps need to be
taken by my office regarding our clergy and congregations formally
affiliated with the American Anglican Council and, implicitly, with its
agenda.

Third, while it may be obvious from the tone of this letter, I want to go
on record in saying that I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the
American Anglican Council. Further, I do not endorse, support or condone
their plan to methodically create anarchy in the Church.

Fourth, until the American Anglican Council made explicit what many
already thought was their real agenda, I have spoken with respect for the
bishops, members of the clergy and lay persons who have found in this
organization a place to express their honorable dissent and loyal
opposition. It is to you that I address the following:

It is my firm belief that most of you who have associated with the
American Anglican Council did so for honorable reasons with no idea that
their avowed actual goal is to destroy The Episcopal Church as it
currently exists. However, according to their own documents, they seem to
advocate whatever means necessary to “innovatively move around, beyond or
within the canons” to do so. I know that not everyone associated with the
American Anglican Council is of one mind. However, these revelations that
have just come to light may help clarify your thinking about their
agenda. As such, I hope that you will see this as an opportunity for you
and your congregation to rethink and officially disassociate with this
organization.

I ask your prayers for our Church, our Diocese and for our clergy and lay
leaders who will be asked to help me be faithful in accomplishing this
ministry for Christ’s witness and love. To that end, I remain

Faithfully yours,

The Rt. Rev. Don E. Johnson
Bishop of West Tennessee

1/15/2004

David Roseberry and the Episcopal Church Crisis

Filed under: — admin @ 12:47 pm

David Roseberry and the Episcopal Church Crisis

The Fallout Continues

Filed under: — admin @ 12:45 pm

The after-effects of the consecration of the Anglican Church’s first openly practising homosexual are continuing to rock the Communion.

Thousands of American traditionalists gathered in Virginia to protest against the decision of the Episcopal Church of the USA to ratify Canon Gene Robinson’s election as bishop. Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh roused the churchgoers gathered in Woodbridge, Virginia, to stand firm: “We are here tonight to accept our discipline, to accept our hardship, to resolve to weather the life-threatening storm no matter how long the night may prove.”

The Anglican Church in South America was also dismayed by ECUSA’s decision to make as a bishop a divorced man who now lives with his male partner, and it has become the tenth province to declare a state of “impaired communion”.

In a letter to the American Church’s Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev Frank Griswold, the Primate of the Southern Cone, the Most Rev Gregory Venables, described ECUSA’s actions as “arrogant, strident and unilateral”. He wrote: “You have done what you have no right to do. You have represented as God’s blessing your promotion of an unbiblical agenda.”

Missionaries from the US to South America will now be vetted for orthodoxy before being allowed to minister, Bishop Venables said in the letter.

The Bishop of Central Zambia, the Rt Rev Derek Kamukwamba, said the Church had entered a state of impaired communion with the bishops in America and England who supported or participated in consecration, but wanted to try to maintain communion with the Provinces “for the sake of the faithful”.

–Church of England Newspaper

A London View of the South Carolina Episcopal Struggle

Filed under: — admin @ 12:40 pm

Traditionalist unity in the United States was dealt a sharp blow last week as one of the largest parishes in the diocese of South Carolina voted to leave the Episcopal Church for the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). All Saints Episcopal Church of Pawleys Island, voted on Jan 8 to sever its remaining ties with the Episcopal Church and amend its charter to delete references to the denomination and the Diocese of South Carolina.

The motion to amend the charter passed at a special parish meeting by a vote of 464-42 and to sever ties 468-38. The parish will vote later this month on whether to affiliate with the AMiA and to transfer to the Province of Rwanda.

While the formal vote took place last week, in many ways the parish had left the diocese four years ago. All Saints, though an Episcopal parish, served as headquarters of the Anglican Mission in America under the leadership of the Rt. Rev. Charles Murphy. Bishop Murphy serves as rector emeritus of the congregation of 1000 while overseeing a network of 60 congregations who have left the Episcopal Church and affiliated with the Province of Rwanda and Southeast Asia. Bishop Murphy and the four other active AMiA bishops are members of the House of Bishops of the Church of the Province of Rwanda with a mandate from that body to serve in the United States.

Three years ago a legal battle between the diocese and the vestry arose over ownership of the parish property. Founded in 1745, All Saints predates the creation of the diocese. South Carolina courts have ruled that that trusteeship of the property resides with the parish vestry and not the diocese. The case is currently under appeal.

The fight between All Saints and the diocese of South Carolina has distressed traditionalists in the United States, as both sides oppose the actions of the National Church. The Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, and other traditionalist leaders urged All Saints’ not to act. A majority of the clergy in South Carolina endorsed a letter asking All Saints’ to remain in the diocese.

“All Saints wants to work outside the national church. We want to work within the national church, to try to reform,” Diocesan Chancellor Ned Zeigler stated before the vote. “We’re all working for the same thing. It’s hard to understand why we don’t just work together.”

The Rev. Craige Borrett, President of South Carolina’s Standing Committee told The Church of England Newspaper that the diocese had been attempting to find an accommodation and had “worked extremely hard all week in an effort to prevent the actions of All Saints’ on Thursday.” Mr. Borrett asked if he could address the congregation before the vote but “I was told in polite, yet very clear terms we were not invited.”

The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., Bishop of South Carolina told us he had appointed a new vestry for the parish. “I am sad because we are not theologically that far apart.”

“If Pawleys can do what it wants, appoint its own vicar, not abide by the canons, we cannot survive as a strong orthodox diocese”, he added. “Lawlessness is wrong and destructive whether it is orthodox or revisionist.”

Jack Field, a member of the congregation noted the decision “was not entered into unadvisedly or lightly”.

“Our decision was not made because we believe the Diocese of SC to be anything but orthodox” he said. “But we simply could no longer be unequally yoked with the national church, which has never reformed, but gone further and further into using the culture as it’s guide, rather than Holy Scripture.”

“We sing the song, ‘Faith of our fathers living still, in spite of dungeon, fire and sword…we will be true to Thee ’til death”, but ECUSA hasn’t been” he said.

–Church of England Newspaper

25.414 || Powered by WordPress